- (1.) HEARD learned counsel for he petitioner and the learned AGA.
(2.) BY means of the present petition under section 482 Cr.P.C, the petitioners have prayed for quashing of the proceedings of Criminal Case No. 1315 of 2007 (State of U.P. Vs. Krishna Kant Sharma) under sections 3 and 4 of the Child Labour (Prohibition and Regulation) Act, 1986, (hereinafter referred to as ''Act') pending in the court of Judicial Magistrate, Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ambedkar Nagar and also the order dated 9.8.2007, by which the learned Magistrate, after taking cognizance, issued non bailable warrant against the petitioners.
(3.) BRIEF facts for deciding this petition are that I/c Inspector of police station -Kotwali Akbarpur, District Ambedkar Nagar filed a criminal complaint in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ambedkar Nagar alleging therein that on the basis of information received on 24.4.2007 that Samaj Kalyan Nirman Vibhag is doing some construction work at the residence of the District Judge, Ambedkar Nagar wherein child labourers are being used. After inspection of the site, he found that Sandeep Kumar son of Bharvan, aged about 13 years and Dileep son of Barsati, aged about 15 were working there. They were doing the work of bricks and cement and were getting wages at the rate of Rs. 60 per day. These children were produced before the Inspector. They said that they do the work. It has also been alleged in the complaint that Maith Patiram stated that at 3.00 p.m. after withdrawal of money from the bank, the wages are paid to the labourers. He also stated that S/Shri K.K.Sharma, Executive Engineer, R.P. Singh, Assistant Engineer and Sahaj Ram Sonkar, Junior Engineer used to come in every evening and after seeing the work by them, the payment is made to the workers. On the basis of complaint cognizance has been taken by the Magistrate. Inspite of service of summons accused did not appear in the court. Thereafter coercive process was issued against them. Revision was filed against the order of taking cognizance, but the revisional court has not granted any interim protection to the accused petitioners and fixed the case for hearing.;