LI Network
Published on: October 28, 2023 at 16:26 IST
The Kerala High Court has recently delivered a significant judgment by quashing criminal proceedings against an accused who was charged with allegedly employing a 14-year-old child in construction work at Ettumanoor Railway Station. The case revolved around Section 26 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000.
Justice K. Babu, in his ruling, emphasized that to establish an offense under Section 26, it is imperative that the prosecution demonstrates that the juvenile was engaged in hazardous employment and was held in bondage without receiving adequate wages or salary.
In this particular case, the prosecution was unable to establish these crucial elements. Consequently, the court determined that the offense under Section 26 of the Act had not been proven.
As a result, all proceedings related to FIR No. 48/2013 of Railway Police Station, Kottayam, pending before the Judicial Magistrate of First class-I, Ettumanoor, as C.C No. 2597/2017, were ordered to be quashed.
The petitioner, who was the accused in this case, was charged under Section 26 of the Juvenile Justice Act.
This section specifically addresses the exploitation of juvenile or child employees, encompassing the procurement of a child for hazardous employment, their subjection to bondage, and the withholding of their earnings for the employer’s benefit.
The petitioner’s legal team argued that Section 26 was not applicable in this instance, as the final report only alleged that the child was involved in cutting an iron bar at the railway station.
They further contended that the police’s final report did not mention hazardous employment, the alleged bondage of the juvenile, or the withholding of earnings. Moreover, they highlighted the distinction between hazardous employment and strenuous labor.
In contrast, the Public Prosecutor, M K Pushpaletha, contended that the child was indeed involved in hazardous employment, thus invoking Section 26 of the Act.
The court meticulously examined the provisions of Section 26 and determined that three specific conditions needed to be satisfied to establish an offense:
- The employer procured the juvenile for hazardous employment.
- The employer held the juvenile in bondage.
- The employer withheld the juvenile’s earnings or used them for personal gain.
The court relied on previous legal precedents, such as Alice v State of Kerala (2014), to elucidate that the term ‘hazardous’ in Section 26 denoted the risk and severity of the job. Furthermore, by referencing cases like Faisal v State of Kerala (2015) and Prakash v State of Kerala (2022), the court asserted that the prosecution had to prove that the child was engaged in hazardous work without receiving proper payment, wages, or salary to establish an offense under Section 26.
Based on the interpretation of the provision and these judicial precedents, the court concluded that the prosecution had failed to prove that the child was involved in hazardous employment or that the juvenile was not adequately compensated. Consequently, the court allowed the petitioner’s plea and quashed the pending criminal proceedings.
This landmark decision highlights the importance of a clear legal framework in cases involving juvenile labor and the necessity for meeting specific criteria to establish an offense under the Juvenile Justice Act.
Case title: K V Anilkumar v State of Kerala.