Allowed¶27

Jitendra Kumar Gupta v. the State of Bihar

Patna HC5 May 2025CR. REV./22/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Child And Adolescent Labour (Prohibition And Regulation) Act, 1986; Section 14(1); Section 3; Section 16(2); proof of age of child labourer; ossification test; medical certificate by prescribed medical authority; acquittal; conviction and sentence set aside; bail bond Rs. 10,000 with two sureties; SDJM Jehanabad; Additional Sessions Judge-II Jehanabad; Criminal Appeal No. 81 of 2018; GO No. 79 of 2007; Criminal Revision No. 22 of 2024; Patna High Court; Bibek Chaudhuri, J.

What did the court decide?

Revision allowed; order of conviction and sentence by SDJM, Jehanabad and appellate order in Criminal Appeal No. 81 of 2018 set aside; petitioner acquitted of the charge under Section 14(1) and set at liberty; petitioner released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- with two sureties of the like amount each. ¶27

Jitendra Kumar Gupta Vs the State of Bihar — Patna HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶27

Issue for consideration

Whether the order of conviction and sentence affirmed by the learned Court of Appeal in Criminal Appeal No. 81 of 2018 is legal, valid and sustainable. +1 more

¶12

Ratio / Principle

The impugned appellate order affirming the judgment of conviction and sentence cannot be sustained because the prosecution failed to prove the victim's/child's age by ossification test and medical certificate of a prescribed medical authority; without such medical certificate it is not possible for the Court to hold that the labourer working in the hotel was a child aged about 10 years.

¶26

Key takeaways

The order of conviction and sentence passed by the learned SDJM, Jehanabad and the order passed in Criminal Appeal No. 81 of 2018 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-II, Jehanabad are set aside.ratio¶27
The revision is allowed; the petitioner is acquitted of the charge under Section 14(1) of the Act and set at liberty.ratio¶27

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Patna High Court (Bibek Chaudhuri, J.), Criminal Revision No. 22 of 2024, decided 05-05-2025. The petitioner, convicted by the SDJM, Jehanabad in GO No. 79 of 2007 for an offence under Section 14(1) of the Child And Adolescent Labour (Prohibition And Regulation) Act, 1986 (simple imprisonment 3 months and fine of Rs. 10,000/-), had his appeal dismissed on 03-10-2023 by the Additional Sessions Judge-II, Jehanabad in Criminal Appeal No. 81 of 2018. On revision, the High Court held that the affirming order could not be sustained because the prosecution failed to prove the age of the alleged child worker (said to be about 10 years, found working in the petitioner's hotel 'New Jalpan Sweets and Chat House', Bandhuganj) by ossification test and medical certificate of a prescribed medical authority; without such certificate the court could not hold the worker to be a child. The trial and appellate orders were set aside, the petitioner was acquitted under Section 14(1) and set at liberty, and was released on a bail bond of Rs. 10,000 with two sureties of the like amount each.

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL REVISION No.22 of 2024

¶2

Arising Out of PS. Case No.-79 Year-2007 Thana- GOVERNMENT OFFICIAL COMP. District- Jehanabad

¶3

======================================================

¶4

Jitendra Kumar Gupta Son of Ramishwari Prasad Resident Of Bandhuganj, P.S. - Ghoshi, District - Jehanabad

¶5

... ... Petitioner/s

¶6

Versus

¶7

The State of Bihar ... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Amrendra Kumar Singh For the Respondent/s : Mr. Anant Kumar 1 ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BIBEK CHAUDHURI ORAL ORDER

¶8

3 05-05-2025

¶9

The petitioner was convicted in GO No. 79 of 2007 which was registered on the basis of a complaint submitted by the Labour Enforcement Officer-cum-Inspector, Ghoshi P.S, within Jehanabad for the offence under Section 14(1) of the Child And Adolescent Labour (Prohibition And Regulation) Act, 1986. After conviction, the petitioner was sentenced to suffer simple imprisonment of 3 months and also to pay fine of Rs. 10,000/-, in default for further Simple Imprisonment of 15 days. The said order of conviction and sentence was passed by the learned S.D.J.M, Jehanabad. The petitioner preferred an appeal against the aforesaid order of conviction and sentence which was registered as Criminal Appeal No. 81 of 2018 before the learned Additional Sessions Judge-II, Jehanabad by an

¶10

Patna High Court CR. REV. No.22 of 2024(3) dt.05-05-2025 2/5

¶11

impugned order dated 03^rd October, 2023, the appeal was dismissed affirming the order of conviction and sentence passed by the trial court.

¶12

The instant revision challenges the legality, validity and parity of the order of conviction and sentence affirmed by the learned Court of Appeal in Criminal Appeal no. 81 of 2018.

¶13

The learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that the complainant has alleged that on 02 December 2006 at about 03:00 pm, he inspected the Hotel of the petitioner under the name and style of New Jalpan Sweets and Chat House situated at Bandhuganj Market and found that a body aged about 10 years was working in the said Hotel in contravention of the provision contained in Section 3 of the Child And Adolescent Labour (Prohibition And Regulation) Act, 1986 (hereinafter, described as the “Said Act”. Accordingly, a complaint was filed against the petitioner before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jehanabad, who took cognizance of the offence and transfer the case to the learned SDJM, Jehanabad for trial and disposal.

¶14

The learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that the trial court wrongly passed an order of conviction and sentence against the petitioner on the following

¶15

Patna High Court CR. REV. No.22 of 2024(3) dt.05-05-2025 3/5

¶16

grounds:-

¶17

(I) The complainant failed to produce any documents of ownership of the said Hotel to prove that the petitioner is the owner of the said hotel.

¶18

(II) The place of occurrence could not be established as the complainant failed to produce any document showing the actual place where the Hotel in question situates.

¶19

(III) The prosecution failed to prove the age of the child labour in terms of Section 16(2) of the “Said Act”.

¶20

(IV) The child labour/victim was not examined during trial of the case.

¶21

(V) Prosecution failed to produce any document of employment of the victim in the said Hotel.

¶22

The learned APP, on the other hand, submits that both the trial court and appeal of court found that the petitioner is the owner of the Hotel in question where a child aged about 10 years was working. Both the courts below came to such finding on the basis of the evidence adduced by the complainant and the Labour Welfare Inspector as PW-1 and PW-2 respectively. They are the official witnesses and their evidence cannot be thrown away on the ground of interestness because the witnesses did not have any relation with the petitioner who

¶23

Patna High Court CR. REV. No.22 of 2024(3) dt.05-05-2025 4/5

¶24

is the owner of the said Hotel.

¶25

Having heard the learned Advocates on behalf of the petitioner and the State, and on perusal of the impugned order, I find that the impugned order affirming the judgment of conviction and sentence cannot not be sustained only on the ground that the prosecution failed to prove the age of the victim/child on the basis of ossification test and medical certificate by a prescribed medical authority iwthout such medical certificate, it is not possible for the Court to hold that the labour who was working in the said Hotel in question was a child aged about 10 years.

¶26

For the reasons stated hereinabove, the order of conviction and sentence passed by the learned SDJM, Jehanabad and the order passed in Criminal Appeal no. 81 of 2018 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-II, Jehanabad are set aside.

¶27

The instant revision is accordingly, allowed. The petitioner is acquitted of the charge under Section 14(1) of the Said Act, set at liberty,

¶28

For the reasons stated above, I am inclined to release the above named petitioner on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand) with two sureties of

¶29

Patna High Court CR. REV. No.22 of 2024(3) dt.05-05-2025 5/5

¶30

the like amount each to the satisfaction of the concerned court.

¶31

(Bibek Chaudhuri, J)

¶32

Suraj Dubey/-

¶33

U T

Jitendra Kumar Gupta v. the State of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jitendra Kumar Gupta v. the State of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Nand Kishore Murmu Vs The State of Bihar through Shri Amrit Lal Meena, the Chief Secretary, Govt. of Bihar

Deepak Jyoti Vs The State of Bihar

Rishi Rai @Rishi Roy Vs The State of Bihar

Gautam Kumar Vs The State of Bihar

Jitendra Sharma Vs Richa Singh

Danish @ Danish Hasmi @ Danish Hashmi Vs The State of Bihar