S.26 Juvenile Justice Act Not Made Out: Kerala High Court Quashes Proceedings For Allegedly Employing 14-Yr-Old In Railway Construction Work
The Kerala High Court quashed the criminal proceedings against a petitioner for allegedly employing a 14-year-old child for construction work of a railway platform at Ettumanoor Railway Station.Justice K. Babu observed that an offence under Section 26 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 can be made out only when the prosecution has proved that the juvenile...
The Kerala High Court quashed the criminal proceedings against a petitioner for allegedly employing a 14-year-old child for construction work of a railway platform at Ettumanoor Railway Station.
Justice K. Babu observed that an offence under Section 26 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 can be made out only when the prosecution has proved that the juvenile was procured for hazardous employment and that he was kept in bondage without paying him adequate wages or salary.
“In the present case, the prosecution has failed to bring forth those ingredients. The resultant conclusion is that the prosecution failed to make out the offence under Sec.26 of the Act. Therefore, the entire proceedings pursuant to the registration of FIR No. 48/2013 of Railway Police Station, Kottayam, which is now pending before the Judicial Magistrate of First class-I, Ettumanoor as C.C No. 2597/2017, are liable to be quashed. I order so.”
The petitioner was the accused before the Judicial Magistrate of First Class-I, Ettumanoor and was charged under Section 26 of the Act.
Section 26 pertains to the exploitation of juvenile or child employees, involving the procurement of a child for hazardous employment, keeping the child in bondage, and withholding the child's earnings for the employer's own purposes.
The Counsel for the petitioner, Advocates S.Shanavas Khan, S.Indu and Kala G.Nambiar submitted that Section 26 was not attracted as the final report only alleged that the child was engaged in cutting an iron bar at the railway station. It was also submitted that the final report filed by the police does not disclose hazardous employment or allegations of keeping the juvenile in bondage or withholding of his earnings. It was also argued that there was a difference between hazardous employment and hard work.
Public Prosecutor M K Pushpaletha submitted that the child was engaged in hazardous employment and an offence under Section 26 of the Act was attracted.
The Court examined Section 26 of the Act and held that three conditions have to be satisfied for attracting an offence under it.
“i. The employer procured the juvenile or the child for the purpose of hazardous employment.
ii. The employer kept him in bondage.
iii. The employer withheld his earnings or used such earning for his own purpose.”
The Court relied upon the decision in Alice v State of Kerala (2014) to state that the term ‘hazardous’ under Section 26 indicated the risk and heaviness of the job. Relying upon the decisions in Faisal v State of Kerala (2015) and Prakash v State of Kerala (2022), the Court stated that the prosecution has to prove that the child was employed for a hazardous job without proper payment, wages or salary for attracting an offence under Section 26.
On the interpretation of the provision and judicial precedents, the Court found that the prosecution has failed to prove that the child was employed for a hazardous job or that proper or adequate wages or salary was not paid to the juvenile for attracting an offence under Section 26.
The court thus allowed the petition and quashed criminal proceedings pending against the petitioner.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 605
Case title: K V Anilkumar v State of Kerala
Case number: CRL.MC NO. 980 OF 2023