INDRAJIT SENGUPTA Vs. STATE OF ODISHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners have filed the instant application under Sec. 482 Cr.P.C. challenging the correctness of the impugned order of cognizance dtd. 25/4/2008 passed in G.R. Case No.130 of 2007 arising out of Purighat P.S. Case No.21 of 2007 pending in the file of learned S.D.J.M.(Sadar), Cuttack on various grounds inter alia contending that such a prosecution is in violation of Article 20 of the Constitution of India, 1950 and also Sec. 300 Cr.P.C. as they could not have been prosecuted once again for the self-same incident which amounts to double jeopardy.

(2.) A prosecution was launched after a written report was lodged at Purighat P.S. registered under Sec. (s) 342 and 323 read with 34 I.P.C. with the allegation that OP No.2's son, namely, OP No.3, who was working in the house of the petitioners was ill-treated and assaulted. For the alleged occurrence, as contended by the petitioners, the District Labour Officer (in short 'DLO') as well as IIC, Purighat P.S. took up the matter and in that respect, a complaint was filed by the DLO before the court below under Sec. 3 and 14 of the Child Labour (Prohibition and Regulation) Act, 1986 (in short 'the Act') and also a written report lodged by OP No.2 which ultimately led to the submission of chargesheet under Sec. (s) 342 and 323 read with 34 I.P.C. and thereafter, the cognizance was taken of said offences. It is pleaded that pursuant to the complaint filed by the DLO, order of cognizance for an offence under Sec. 14 of the Act, 1986 was passed and the petitioners were put to trial and later on convicted and sentenced. As against the above facts, the petitioners further pleaded that once having been convicted for an offence under Sec. 14 of the Act, 1986, for the same incident and set of facts, another prosecution under Sec. (s) 342 and 323 read with 34 I.P.C. cannot be maintained.

(3.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Additional Government Advocate for OP No.1.