Court acquits man accused of child labour

A Delhi court has acquitted a man accused of employing a child in his tea shop by giving him benefit of doubt that the alleged victim could have been above 14. Additional Sessions Judge Parveen Singh noted that as per a medical board set up in the matter, the age of the child was more than 13 years and less than 15 years.  As per Child Labour (Prohibition & Regulation) Act, complete prohibition has been imposed on employment of child labour (i.e. a person below the age of 14 years) in any establishment whether hazardous or not.  The maximum punishment under the Act is two-year jail term.

In the order passed on August 11, the judge said “I find that as the prosecution has failed to prove that at the time of his rescue, the victim was aged less than 14 years, the benefit has to go to the accused and the appellant cannot be convicted for falling foul of the provisions of sections of Child Labour (Prohibition & Regulation) Act and thus, he could not have been convicted under the Act.” According to the prosecution, the child was recovered during a raid in September 2011 and the accused, Satish, was arrested.  The police had also found that the boy was working in that stall in Kingsway Camp in north Delhi, from 8.00 am to 11.00 a.m and he had not been paid any amount for his work.  The accused had got bail during the pendency of the trail. The accused was tried and a magisterial court awarded him simple imprisonment for three months in August 2018.

Thereafter, the accused challenged the verdict before a sessions court. Rejecting prosecution's other accusation, the court said that merely because a gas stove was being used, it could not be said that the accused had exposed the victim to a situation which was likely to cause physical suffering to him.

On the aspect of exploitation, the court noted that the victim had himself deposed that the accused used to pay him Rs 140 per month and he had fixed a reasonable working hours. “The accused is acquitted of all the charges framed against him,” the judge said.