Cr.Rev. 297/02 17.11.2011 Heard learned counsel for the parties. This revision has been filed against the order framing charge for the offence U/s 3 read with Section 14 (i) of the Child Labour (Restraint and Regulation) Act 1986. At the inspection, a ten year old child was found to be working at her own residence. The inspection report states the father of the child as the employer. However, in the column meant for the purpose, the establishment has been shown as the BM & Company (ie. The applicant's establishment). There does not appear to be anything on record, at least in this revision, to indicate whether the work of making Bidis was given by the applicant to the father or to the child. If the work had been given to the father who in turn had asked the child to do it, it is difficult to blame the company. These aspects do not appear to have been considered by the Court below. The revision is allowed. The impugned charge is quashed. The matter will be re-examined by the trial Court on the basis of the record available before it. It is made clear that the findings recorded above are not to be considered as final by the trial court because the entire record is not available before this Court. (Sushil Harkauli) Acting Chief Justice