NARESH THAPAR Vs. CH. SAILU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition is filed to quash the proceedings in SC No.354 of 2019 on the file of V Additional District and Sessions Judge, Bhongir.

(2.) The petitioner is A1, who is the Director of SPS Yarns Private Limited, situated at Jalalpur Village, Pochampally Mandal. On 9/1/2018, police received reliable information that the management of SPS Yarns Private Limited procured children from other States with the help of contractors who are all minors and employed them as labourers without providing basic amenities. Accordingly, the team consisting of Sub-Inspector of Police, Choutuppal and others went to the factory and found 11 children, who are all minors working as labourers in the factory. It was also found that the petitioner with the help of A3 and A4 was procuring child labourers from other States. The 11 children who were rescued were produced before the Child Welfare Officer at Nalgonda. Investigation was undertaken and during the course of investigation, it was revealed that the petitioner was the Managing Director of SPS Yarns Private Limited and A2 was part of Management staff, A3 and A4 were labour contractors and agents, who procured labour including child labour to the company from various places.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the company SPS Yarns Private Limited is not made as an accused, for which reason, the prosecution is bad in law and the proceedings against the petitioner, who is the Managing Director has to be quashed. Further, even according to the investigation, it was A3 and A4, who had procured the child labour, as such, the petitioner cannot be prosecuted for the offences under Ss. 370(5), 374 of IPC Sec 79 of Juvenile Justice Act and Sec. 14(1) of Child Labour Act, 1986 and Sec. 16(23) of the Bonded Labour System (Abolition) Act, 1976. In support of his contentions, he relied on the judgments in the cases of; i) Sharad Kumar Sanghi v. Sangita Rane (2015) 12 Supreme Court Cases 781 and argued that in the absence of the company being arrayed as an accused, the proceedings have to be quashed; ii) Sunil Bharti Mittal v. Central Bureau of Investigation (2015) 4 Supreme Court Cases 609 and argued that unless there is incriminating evidence against the Directors, they cannot be roped in as accused; iii) Order in Criminal Petition No.315 of 2021, dtd. 22/3/2022 of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh, wherein the learned Judge while relying upon the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in Sharad Kumar Sanghi v. Sangita Rane (supra) held that the company being a legal entity and unless the company is made as a co-accused, complaint cannot be maintained and consequently quashed the proceedings under Sec. 420 of IPC.