Bangalore District Court
Nayaz Ahamed Psi vs Jakeer Hussin on 27 April, 2024
1 CC.No.51192/2013
KABC0C0052772013
IN THE COURT OF THE X ADDL.C.M.M.
MAYO HALL UNIT, AT BENGALURU
Dated: This the 27th day of April 2024
PRESENT: Smt. ANJALI SHARMA.V.S
B.B.A.(Hons.), LL.B.(Hons.),
X Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate,
Bengaluru City.
C.C.No.51192/2013
Complainant State by, Police Sub Inspector
Shivajinagar Police Station
/vs/
Accused Jakir Hussain S/o Mohinuddin, 27 yrs,
Busvadiya Chiraiah Police Station, Motihari
District, Bihar State.
JUDGMENT
1. The PSI of Shivajinagar police station has filed this chargesheet against the accused for the offences punishable U/s.344, 374 of IPC, 23 & 26 of JJ Act and section 16, 17 Bonded Labour System (Abolition) Act, 1976.
2. It is alleged by the prosecution that accused being the owner of a Bag factory in the name of 'Z.H' at 2 nd floor, No.42, D.No. 2nd Street, Shivaji Cross Road unlawfully employed CW9 and CW10, child labors in his factory and compelled them to render bonded labor against their will by confining them to work from 8.00 am to 10.00 pm without leaving them to step out of the factor for more than a month and thereby committed offence under section 344, 374 of IPC and Section 16, 17 Bonded Labour System (Abolition) Act.
2 CC.No.51192/20133. On the basis of the FIS lodged by the informant, case was registered against the accused in Shivajinagar P.S., Cr. No.100/2013 and FIR was submitted to the court. On completion of investigation, charge sheet has been filed against the accused for the alleged offences.
4. Cognizance of offence was taken and summons was issued to the accused. Copy of charge sheet was furnished to accused U/s.207 of Cr.P.C. After hearing, charge was framed against the accused for the alleged offences. The accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
5. The prosecution in support of its case has examined five witnesses as PW.1 to PW.5 and got marked five documents as Ex.P1 to P5. As there was no incriminating evidence against the accused, statement of accused U/s.313 of Cr.P.C. was dispensed with.
6. Heard the arguments of Sr. APP appearing for the state and the counsel for accused and perused the records.
7. The following points arise for determination:
1) Whether the prosecution proves beyond doubt that accused being the owner of a Bag factory in the name of 'Z.H' at 2 nd floor, No.42, D.No. 2nd Street, Shivaji Cross Road unlawfully employed CW9 and CW10, child labors in his factory and compelled them to render bonded labor against their will by confining them to work from 8.00 am to 10.00 pm without leaving them to step out of the factor for more than a month and thereby committed offence under section 344, 374 of IPC and Section 16, 17 Bonded Labour System (Abolition) Act?
2) What order?
8. The above points are answered in the following manner;
Point No.1 : Negative,
Point No.2 : As per final order,
for the following;
3 CC.No.51192/2013
REASONS
9. POINT NO.1: It is the case of the prosecution that accused
unlawfully employed CW9 and CW10, child labors in his factory and compelled them to render bonded labor against their will by confining them, without leaving them to step out of the factor for over a month and thereby committed offence under section 344, 374 of IPC and Section 16, 17 Bonded Labour System (Abolition) Act.
10. CW.5, Gunasheela, Child Line worker was examined as PW.1. He deposed that on 15.04.2013 he received information that, in a bag factory, child labour was employed without providing any facility and accordingly he along with Labour Inspector, Ananthayya went to the Police Station and informed the same to the PSI and all of them went to the said Factory at 2.05 pm. At the factory, they saw that accused had hired eight under aged boys for labour work and as such mahazar was conducted as per Ex.P1. He deposed that they took the said boys to the police station and inquired them about the facilities provided to them at the factory and they were handed over to Child Welfare Department. PW.1 also deposed that on inquiry they got to know that the owner of the said Factory was accused by name Zakir Hussain.
11. In the cross-examination of PW.1, he deposed that he did not give any document to the police to show that he was working at Apsa Child welfare organization. On 15.04.2013, they got information from public and the same is mentioned in their documents. However, they did not give the said document to the police. Though they took photos of the children at the spot, they cannot show them anywhere. They did not obtain any document to show that the children were below the age of 14 years. However, the children told them that they were below 14 years of age. But, they did not mention the same in their documents. He denied all the other suggestions put forth to him.
4 CC.No.51192/201312. CW.8, Nayaz Ahmed, Police Inspector was examined as PW.2. He deposed that on 15.04.2013 Apsa Child Line workers, CW.5 to 7 and Labour Inspector, Cw.8 came to the police station and informed that in a Bag Factory called ZH in Shivajinagar, child labour were employed without providing any facility and accordingly he along with CW.2, 3 as mahazar witnesses and CW.13 to 18 went to the said Factory at No.43, II Floor, Shivaji Road Cross, Shivajinagar. At the factory, they saw that there were under age labours, Jithendra (CW9) and Krishna (CW10). On inquiry, they informed that they were from Bihar. He deposed that the two boys showed accused as the owner of the said factory. Accused was inquired and taken to custody. He conducted Ex.P1 spot mahazar at the spot. Thereafter, accused along with the boys were brought to the Police Station and he registered a suo moto complaint. He inquired the accused and conducted the arrest procedure and released the accused on station bail. The boys' statements were recorded and they were handed over to the Child Welfare Department. He recorded the statement of witnesses and obtained age certificate of CW.9 and 10 as per Ex.P4 and P5. Thereafter he completed the investigation and filed charge sheet.
13. In the cross-examination of PW.2, he deposed that the complaint was given by Apsa Childline, who are social workers. He entered the information in the station house diary. He does not know who was the Station House officer on that day. Childline workers, PW1 and PW3, showed him the spot. He did not give notice to mahazar witnesses in writing. He did not obtain the signatures of the boys on the mahazar and their photos were not taken. He also deposed that he did not obtain any identity cards of the boys. He also deposed that he obtained documents such as rent agreement, VAT Registration certificate, Tax Invoice of the bag factory. The owner of the house was made as CW11 in the charge-sheet. The mahazar was typed at the spot by PC 2563-Venugopal. He conducted 5 CC.No.51192/2013 the entire investigation in this case. Nothing else was elicited in his cross- examination.
14. CW.6, Radha, Social worker was examined as PW.3. She deposed that on 15.04.2013 she along with CW.5 to 7 received information that in a bag factory, child labour was employed without providing any facility and accordingly they along with Labour Inspector went to the Police Station and informed the same to the PSI and all of them went to the said Factory at 2.30 pm. At the factory, they saw that a ten year old Jithendra (CW9) and 12 year old Krishna (CW10) from Bihar were working as labours. It was told that from 8.00 am.,to 10.00 pm., they are made to work in the factory and even on Sundays they are made to work. They were rescude and handed over to the Child Welfare Department. She got to know that the said factory is called as ZH and accused is the owner of the said factory.
15. In the cross-examination of PW.3 deposed that she gave written complaint to the police. She verified the aadhar cards of the child labors, but the same was given to the police and it was not produced to the Court. She saw the accused at ZH factory. She denied all the other suggestions put forth to her.
16. CW.16, Raveendra Lamani, police official was examined as PW.4. He deposed the same as PW2 & 3. In the cross-examination of PW.4, he deposed that CW6 to 8 gave complaint on 15.04.2013 at 2.05 pm. He did not receive any document to show that CW9 and 10 were child labors. Apart from this, nothing else was elicited in his cross-examination.
17. CW.12, Doctor was examined as PW.5. He deposed that on 15.04.2013 he received requisition to verify the age of children at the Shivajinagar Police Station. Accordingly he went to the said police station and conducted the medical examination of CW.9 and 10, who were both 6 CC.No.51192/2013 above the age of 14 years. In this regard, he gave certificate as per Ex.P4 and P5.
18. In his cross examination, PW5 deposed that he did not receive any documents from the children to determine the age and based on the physical and clinical examination, he found their age.
19. On perusal of the oral and documentary evidence, it is alleged that the accused has committed offence under section 344, 374 of IPC and Section 16, 17 Bonded Labour System (Abolition) Act and also section 23, 26 of JJ Act. Section 23 and 26 of Juvenil Justice Act are not penal in nature. Section 344 of IPC is with regard to wrongful confinement for more than ten months and section 374 of IPC is with regard to punishment for compelling someone to render labor against their will. Section 16 and 17 of Bonded Labour System Act provides for punishment for emplying someone in bonded labour and keeping them in bonded debt. However, the offences alleged does not mention any contravention under Child Labour (Prohibition and Regulation) Act, 1986.
20. The allegation of the Apsa Child line workers is that they received information that the said bag factory had employed child labors and the same has been deposed by PW1 to 4 in their evidence. However, in order to consider if a boy is a child labour or not, he has to be below the age of 14 years. As per PW3, CW9 and 10 were aged about 10 and 12 respectively. However, as per PW5 and his report, Ex.P4 and 5, both were above the age of 14 years i.e. they had completed the age of 14 years. PW4, Investigating officer has not collected any document to show their age apart from getting them physically examined. Though PW3 submits that she verified the identity cards of CW9 and 10, the same are not produced before the Court. Therefore, there is nothing on record to show that they were child labors.
7 CC.No.51192/201321. Once it is considered that CW9 and 10 are not child labors, there is no question of hiding their identity. PW1 deposed that though they took photos of the children at the spot, they cannot show them anywhere. On the other hand, PW2 deposed that he did not obtain the signatures of the boys on the mahazar and their photos were not taken. He also deposed that he did not obtain any identity cards of the boys. Without the identity of the said labors, it cannot be stated that CW9 and 10 worked at the said factory.
22. Further, as per the witnesses, they inquired CW9 and 10, who told them about the working facilities at the factory and that they were made to work from 8.00 am to 10.00 pm and even on Sundays. However, no document is produced to show the same and CW9 and 10 were also not secured to depose about the working conditions at the factory and if they were compelled to work as bonded labours for a bonded debt. In fact, as noted earlier, there is no document to show that CW9 and 10 were employed with the factory.
23. It is also important to note that no document is produced to show that accused ran a bag factory by name, ZH at No.42, 2 nd floor, 2nd street, Shivaji Road Cross, Shivajinagar. The investigating officer has failed to produce rent agreement, VAT Registration certificate, or Tax Invoice of the bag factory, which he allegedly collected during his investigation. The owner of the house, CW11 who had given his house for rent to run the said bag factory was also not examined in this case.
24. Therefore, by considering the facts and circumstances, the prosecution is not able to prove the charges leveled against the accused beyond reasonable doubt. The prosecution has failed to prove that accused is the owner of ZH bag factory and that CW9 and 10 worked in the said factory. The prosecution has also failed to prove that CW9 and 10 were 8 CC.No.51192/2013 compelled to work in the work by confining them for over a month. Accordingly, Point No.1 is answered in the Negative.
25. POINT NO.2: For the aforesaid reasons, the following order is passed;
ORDER Acting Sec.248(1) of Cr.P.C. the accused is acquitted of the offences punishable U/s.344, 374 of IPC and 16, 17 Bonded Labour System (Abolition) Act.
Bail bond of accused stands canceled. Cash security is to be refunded after three months.
(Dictated to the Stenographer directly on computer, typed by him, same was corrected by me on computer and then pronounced in open court on this the 27th day of April 2024).
(ANJALI SHARMA.V.S) X A.C.M.M., BENGALURU.
ANNEXURE
LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED
Prosecution Defence
PW.1 : Gunasheela Nil
PW.2 : Nayaz Ahamed
PW.3 : Radha
PW.4 : Ravindra Lamani
PW.5 : Dr. Farhan
Exhibits Marked
9 CC.No.51192/2013
Ex.P1 - Mahazar
Ex.P1(a) - Signature of PW.1
Ex.P2 - Mahazar
Ex.P2(a) - Signature of PW.2
Ex.P3 - F.I.R
Ex.P3(a) - Signature of PW.2
Ex.P4 & 5 - Certificates of age
Ex.P4(a) - Signature of PW.2
Ex.P4(b) - Signature of PW.5
Ex.P5(a) - Signature of PW.2
Ex.P5(b) - Signature of PW.5
Material Objects got marked
No
(ANJALI SHARMA.V.S)
X A.C.M.M., BENGALURU.