IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N.K.BALAKRISHNAN WEDNESDAY, THE 12TH OCTOBER 2011 / 20TH ASWINA 1933 Crl.MC.No. 3243 of 2011 ------------------------- CC.393/2011 of JUDL. MAGISTRTE OF FIRST CLASS COURT-III, THRISSUR .................... PETITIONER/ACCUSED: ------------------------- TENSON.V.M, S/O. MATHUNNY, VATTOLI VEEDU, THOOMBAKODE DESOM, KANJIRAPALLY.P.O, CHALAKKUDY, THRISSUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.P.SANTHOSH (PODUVAL) SMT.R.RAJITHA RESPONDENT/STATE: ----------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, SRI.P.M. SANEER. THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 12/10/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Crl.MC.No. 3243 of 2011 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: ANNEXURE-A : TRUE COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT IN CRIME NO.658/2011 OF OLLUR POLICE STATION. ANNEXURE-B: TRUE COPY OF THE TRANSFER CERTIFICATE ISSUED FROM KARANGA BALAHI HIGH SCHOOL, LAKHIMPUR DISTRICT, ASSAM. /TRUE COPY/ PS TO JUDGE N.K.Balakrishnan, J. --------------------------------------- Crl.M.C.No.3243 of 2011 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 12th day of October, 2011 ORDER Petitioner is the accused in C.C.No.393/2011 of Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-III, Thrissur. The charge sheet against the petitioner was laid alleging commission of offences under Sections 23 and 26 of Juvenile Justice (Care & Protection of Children) Act. The allegation in the charge sheet is that in the establishment by name 'Kairali Traders', conducted in Building No.IX/840 of Ollur Panchayat, a boy by name Lakshmanan, aged fifteen years of Assam State, was engaged by the accused to do labour. It is stated that the same was detected in a search conducted in the establishment on 6.6.2011 at 12.30 hours. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that no document whatsoever was collected or produced by the Investigating Officer to show that the boy Lakshmanan was aged below eighteen years so as to state that he was a juvenile within the meaning of the aforesaid Act. Learned counsel has produced a copy of the Transfer Certificate. It shows the Date of Birth of one Lakshman Chutia as 02.04.1988. It may be contended by the prosecution that it is not possible to hold that the aforesaid certificate is of the juvenile mentioned in this case. But, it is the duty of the Investigating Officer to produce some document to CRMC 3243/2011 2 show that the boy, who was engaged by the accused, was a juvenile as on the date of the alleged incident. The genuineness/authenticity of Annexure-B document produced by the petitioner was evidently not considered by the Investigating Officer. Since no document was produced to show that the boy was aged below eighteen years, learned counsel for the petitioner is justified in his submission that there is no material to hold that the boy was aged below eighteen years as on the date of commission of the offence. It is also submitted that ingredients to satisfy the offence either under Section 23 or under Section 26 are also not made out. In view of the first submission as to the age of the juvenile, I find that prosecution cannot be sustained. I do not venture to examine the other point. In view of what is stated above, prosecution against the petitioner in C.C. No.393/2011 is to be set aside. In the result, this petition is allowed. Further proceedings in C.C.No.393/2011 of Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-III, Thrissur is quashed. It is made clear that if the Investigating Officer collects document or other acceptable evidence to show that the boy was aged below eighteen years and if other materials are there to proceed further, he can file a fresh charge sheet provided there is no other legal impediment. (N.K.Balakrishnan, Judge) tkv