Court rejects discharge plea of jeweller who hired 15-year-old as a bonded labourer

Session court rejects discharge plea of Ghatkopar resident accused of trafficking a 15-year-old boy from Kolkata to work in his shop without pay.

MUMBAI: A sessions court on Friday rejected the discharge plea of a Ghatkopar resident accused of forcibly employing a 15-year-old boy from Kolkata in his shop to make gold jewellery without giving him any remuneration.

HT Image

Judge VM Sundale observed that the grounds on which the accused has filed a discharge application are not sufficient, adding that there is plenty of material on record to prove the offences against the jeweller.

The accused, a 45-year-old man, was arrested by the Ghatkopar police and was booked under section 370 (trafficking of persons for the purpose of exploitation) of the Indian Penal Code and under sections of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015.

According to the prosecution, the accused is the owner of a shop at MG Road who had brought the child from Kolkata to make gold jewellery. The statement given by the child confirmed that he was brought against his will and was made to work without any remuneration.

Praying to reject the plea, the investigating officer stated that there is sufficient evidence to frame charges against the shop owner. The case was filed based on a report submitted by an employee of the NGO, Pratham Mumbai Shikshan Upkram, who was involved in child welfare.

The incident came to light when an NGO worker along with her colleague visited the shop of the accused on January 5, and upon questioning, the child told the workers that he was 15 years old and was brought against his will from Kolkata.

The police registered a crime against the accused man based on the report of the NGO worker and subsequently submitted a chargesheet at the suburban juvenile justice board, after which the case was transferred to the sessions court for trial.

The accused filed the discharge application on the ground that he was falsely implicated. They submitted that the accused is neither the employer nor he brought any child from Kolkata. The minor, in his statement given to the police on June 13, 2015, said that he was brought to Mumbai by his uncle.

The sessions judge VM Sundale observed that the grounds on which the accused has filed a discharge application are not sufficient, adding that there is sufficient material on record to prove the offences against the accused.

The court also observed that the child stated that he was employed by the accused without his will. The statements given by the NGO worker and other witnesses proved that the child was engaged in labour work at the shop.

“It cannot be said that the charges levelled against the accused are baseless and not sufficient to proceed against him,” said judge VM Sundale.