TUFFAIL AHMAD Vs. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND (AT: NAINITAL)
STATE OF UTTARAKHAND
Click here to view full judgement.
(1.) Present criminal revision was preferred by the accused revisionists against the judgment and order dated 31.08.2005, passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Haridwar, in complaint case no. 2892 of 2000, captioned as State vs Tuffail and another, under Section 14(1) of the Child Labour (Prohibition and Regulation) Act, 1986, and against the order dated 30.07.2007, passed by learned Sessions Judge, Haridwar, in criminal appeal no. 53 of 2005, Tuffail Ahmad and another vs State, whereby the revisionists were convicted under Section 3 / 14(1) of the Child Labour (Prohibition and Regulation) Act, 1986, and each one of them was sentenced to undergo six months' rigorous imprisonment alongwith a fine of Rs. 10,000/- each.
(2.) The allegation against the accused persons / revisionists was that they had engaged child labour in their cane crusher establishment, which was an offence under the Child Labour (Prohibition and Regulation) Act, 1986. When the complainant made a survey of the establishment of the accused persons, it was found that one Nain Singh s/o Chattar Singh, aged 10 years, was employed by them.
(3.) PW1 Gopal Krishan, Asstt. Labour Commissioner, Meerut Division and PW2 Mahendra Singh, Labour Enforcement Officer, Moradabad were examined on behalf of the prosecution. Incriminating evidence was put to the accused persons under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., in which they said that child labour Nain Singh came to provide meals to his father in the cane crusher. It was stated under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. that child labour Nain Singh was not employed in said establishment of the accused revisionists. DW1 Chattar Singh, father of Nain Singh, was examined as DW1 to say that Nain Singh, aged 11 years, came to provide meals to DW1.;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.