IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.K.MOHANAN MONDAY, THE 14TH MARCH 2011 / 23RD PHALGUNA 1932 Crl.MC.No. 752 of 2011() ------------------------ CC.383/2010 of JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT-I, THRISSUR .................... PETITIONER(S): ACCUSED ---------------------- SAJEEV GEORGE, MUTTICHOORKKARAM HOUSE, CHERPU P.O., THRISSUR-680 561. BY ADV. SRI.BECHU KURIAN THOMAS SRI.ENOCH DAVID SIMON JOEL RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2. ASSISTANT LABOUR OFFICER, THRISSUR IST CIRCLE, THRISSUR. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT.REKHA.C.NAYAR. THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 14/03/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: V.K.MOHANAN, J ------------------------------- Crl.M.C.NO.752 OF 2011 ------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 14th day of March, 2011. ORDER Challenging Annexure-A3 complaint and C.C.No.383 of 2010 JFCM Court-I, Thrissur the accused therein preferred the petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. 2. Annexure-A3 complaint is preferred alleging the offence under Section 14(1) of the Child Labour (Prohibition and Regulation) Act 1986. The allegation is that petitioner had employed a child by name Jayan, who is below the age of 14 years as a domestic worker in the residence of the petitioner and thus the petitioner has convicted the said offence. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner empathetically submitted that no offence would lie against the petitioner, going by Annexure -A1 affidavit and A2 certificate. According to the learned counsel Annexure -A1 affidavit is sworn in by one Ravi who is the father of the child whereby he disclosed that the child was born on 17.1.1995. Thus, according to the learned counsel even according to the father of the boy, the boy is above the age of 14 years. Annexure-A2 is a certificate issued by Village Administrative Officer of Lakshminarayana Puram Village of Crl.M.C.NO.752 OF 2011 2 Panruti Taluk, Gudalur District in Tamilnadu showing the date of birth of the boy as 17.1.1995. So on the strength of the above document the learned counsel submitted that the allegation that raised in the complaint that the child is below the age of 14 is basically incorrect and therefore, no offence under Section 14(1) of the above Act is attracted. 4. According to the specific case of the prosecution supported by Annexure - A4 certificate issued in the form for age determination, the boy is between the age of 12 and 14 years. To but, the petitioner produced Annexure-A1 and A2 along with this petition, disputing age fixed by the official authorities. The above disputed question cannot be salvaged in a proceedings under Section 482 of Cr.P.C without a trial of the case. Of course, the petitioner is free to adduce, whatever evidence he wants to produce, during the trial of the above case. But on the basis of Annexure -A1 and A2 it cannot be said that particularly at this stage that the child is above the age of 14. Therefore, it is for the petitioner to take those contentions and produce his evidence before the trial court at appropriate stage of trial and to canvas for an order of acquittal. Therefore, I find no ground to interfere with the proceedings pending before the courts Crl.M.C.NO.752 OF 2011 3 below exercising the power of this court under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. As such there is no merit in this petition and the same is liable to be dismissed. 5. As this court is not inclined to admit this petition, on the basis of the contentions raised by the petitioner, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner may be exempted from appearing before the trial court. In the light of the facts involved in this case and considering the nature of dispute, I am of the view that the presence of the petitioner throughout the trial of the above case may not be necessary. Therefore, in case the petitioner moves an application for his exemption, I am sure that the learned Magistrate will consider the same in accordance with its merit and the learned Magistrate will not insist for the physical presence of the petitioner during the trial unless the same is not indispensible. Subject to the above observation, this petition is dismissed. V.K.MOHANAN, JUDGE pm