LI Network
Published on: October 28, 2023 at 18:14 IST
The Kerala High Court has dismissed criminal proceedings against a petitioner accused of employing a 14-year-old child in railway construction work at Ettumanoor Railway Station.
Justice K. Babu emphasized that an offense under Section 26 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 can only be established when the prosecution demonstrates that the juvenile was engaged in hazardous employment, held in bondage, and not paid adequate wages.
In this particular case, the prosecution failed to establish these essential elements. Consequently, the offense under Section 26 of the Act was not proven, leading to the decision to quash the ongoing proceedings stemming from FIR No. 48/2013 of Railway Police Station, Kottayam.
The case was pending before the Judicial Magistrate of First Class-I, Ettumanoor, under C.C No. 2597/2017.
The petitioner, who faced charges under Section 26 of the Act, argued that this section was not applicable since the final report merely alleged the child’s involvement in cutting an iron bar at the railway station.
The petitioner’s legal counsel contended that the report did not indicate hazardous employment, the juvenile being held in bondage, or his earnings being withheld. Furthermore, they emphasized the distinction between hazardous employment and hard work.
On the other hand, the Public Prosecutor argued that the child had been engaged in hazardous employment, justifying an offense under Section 26 of the Act.
The Court examined the provisions of Section 26 and identified three conditions for an offense to apply:
- The employer procured the juvenile for hazardous employment.
- The employer kept the juvenile in bondage.
- The employer withheld the juvenile’s earnings or used them for personal gain.
The Court referred to legal precedents and highlighted that the term ‘hazardous’ in Section 26 refers to the risk and severity of the job. It was noted that the prosecution must prove that the child was employed for hazardous work without proper payment to establish an offense under Section 26.
Based on this interpretation and judicial decisions, the Court concluded that the prosecution failed to demonstrate that the child was employed in hazardous work without receiving proper wages. Consequently, the Court granted the petitioner’s request and dismissed the criminal proceedings against them.
Case title: K V Anilkumar v State of Kerala