Read Time: 06 minutes

Synopsis

The Telangana High Court has clarified that merely employing a child for extended hours and lower wages does not automatically constitute an offence of "child kept in bondage" under Section 79 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015.

Justice K. Sujana made the observation on a petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C), seeking to quash criminal proceedings against an individual accused under the said section. The court said “The essential ingredient to attract the offence under Section 79 of the Act is that the minor child must be kept in bondage for the purpose of employment or the child's earnings should be withheld or used by the employer for their own purposes. These allegations are not present in the complaint or the charge sheet.”

The case involved allegations against the petitioner for employing a minor beyond the prescribed working hours and paying them less than the minimum wage. The petitioner contended that the critical elements of the offence keeping the child in bondage for employment or withholding/using their earnings, were absent in this instance.

Upon examination, the court found the evidence and chargesheet lacking specific details. The complaint indicated that the child worked longer hours for less pay but did not specify the exact number of hours or the wages paid. Moreover, there was no indication that the child was kept in bondage or that their earnings were withheld or misused by the employer. The court noted that “the averments in the complaint do not reveal how many hours the victim worked and what salary was paid by the petitioner.”

"This Court has reviewed the material available on record and found that the alleged offence is under Section 79 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015. The allegation against the petitioner is that, despite employing a minor aged about 17 years for more than the prescribed working hours, he paid less salary. However, the complaint does not specify the number of hours worked or the salary paid," the court further observed.

The court underscored that without establishing that the child was held in bondage for employment purposes or that their earnings were withheld or misused, the mere employment of a child for extended hours and lower wages does not constitute an offence under Section 79.

The court opined, “this Court is of the considered opinion that since neither the victim minor was kept in bondage for the purpose of employment, nor did the petitioner engage the victim minor without paying any amount, the offence under Section 79 of the Act does not apply, and the proceedings against the petitioner are liable to be quashed.”

As a result, the petition was allowed, and the criminal proceedings against the petitioner were quashed.

 

Cause Title: Dhanee Singh v  State of Telangana [ CRIMINAL PETITION NO/ 10779 OF 2023]