HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL PETITION No.7558 OF 2009 DATE: 29-03-2011 BETWEEN: Penugonda Sridevi. - - - Petitioner/ Accused. AND The State of A.P., Rep. by Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad. - - - Respondent. This Court made the following : HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL PETITION No.7558 OF 2009 ORDER: The petitioner who is accused of offence punishable under Section 14 of the Child Labour (Prohibition and Regulation) Act, 1986 (in short ‘the Act’) in S.T.C. No.33 of 2009 (old S.T.C. No.1 of 2007 of II Additional Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Kovvur) on the file of Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Nidadavole. It is alleged that the petitioner employed two children aged 8 years and 7 years respectively in her unit “Sri Rama Sai Small Cashew Process” at Tadimalla village. Originally after inspection, the Labour Authorities issued notices alleging that four children were employed in the unit. After ascertaining correct ages of all the children, the Assistant Labour Officer filed complaint in the lower Court in respect of only two children who were confirmed of their ages. Originally notices were issued to the petitioner as employer and one Suri Babu as occupier of the unit. After receiving notices and filing complaint, the petitioner paid Rs.20,000/- each by way of two demand drafts towards compensation for employing two children as labour in the unit. The said compensation is paid in pursuance of the demand made on the basis of Supreme Court verdict on the subject. Simply because the compensation amount is paid, it cannot be said that the petitioner is not liable for prosecution under Section 14 of the Act. The department is entitled to collect compensation for employing the child labour as well as prosecute the employer for the same. It is contended by the petitioner’s counsel that after leasing out the unit to Suri Babu under an agreement dated 05-07-2006, the petitioner has nothing to do with the unit and hat the Assistant Labour Officer having issued notice to Suri Babu as occupier also, did not prosecute him under Section 14 of the Act. It is pointed out that as per section 2 (vi) of the Act, occupier is a person who has the ultimate control over the affairs of the establishment and therefore the petitioner is not liable to be prosecuted under Section 14 of the Act. Under Section 14 (1) of the Act, the penal liability is on the employer and not on the occupier; opening words of this Section reads : “whoever employs any child”. Therefore, the employer of a child is liable thereunder and not occupier of the premises. The occupier becomes liable in case he employs the child labour. As per the prosecution case herein, it is the petitioner who employed the child labour. The question whether it was the petitioner or Suri Babu who employed the child labour, is one of fact which has to be decided by the trial Court after evidence is let in by both sides. I do not find any reasons to interfere with the prosecution of the petitioner in this case. In the result, the Criminal Petition is dismissed. __________________________ SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU, J Dated: 29-03-2011 Dsh.