Bangalore District Court
The State Of Karnataka vs Syed Mohinuddin on 12 January, 2023
KABC010175872017
IN THE COURT OF THE LVI ADDL. CITY CIVIL &
SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU CITY (C.C.H.57)
:PRESENT:
Sri.T.Govindaiah, B.Com., LL.B.,
LVI Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge,
Bengaluru.
Dated this the 12th Day of January, 2022.
S.C No.897/2017
COMPLAINANT : The State of Karnataka,
By Chandra layout
Police Station,
Bengaluru.
(By Public Prosecutor)
Vs
ACCUSED 1. Syed Mohinuddin
S/o Syed Badruddin
Aged about 47 years
R/at No.37/18, 5th Cross,
9th Main Road, BTM layout
1st stage New Gurappana Palya
Bengaluru South
(By Sri.B.K.R. Advocate)
Date of offence 30.01.2016
Date of report of offence 30.01.2016
Name of the complainant H.Nagabhushan
1 S.C.No.897/2017
Date of commencement 18.01.20188
of recording of evidence
Date of closing of 06.03.2021
evidence
Offences complained of U/Sec.370 and 342 of IPC and
Secs.16 to 18 of Bounded labours
System (Abolition) Act.
Opinion of the Judge Accused is Acquitted
State represented by Learned Public Prosecutor
Accused defended by Sri. B.K.R.. Advocate,
********
JUDGMENT
This is a charge sheet presented by the police Sub Inspector of Chandra layout Police station against the accused for the offences punishable under Sec.342 and 370 of IPC and Sec.16, 17, 18 of Bounded Labours System (Abolition) Act, 1976.
2. The prosecution case is that: The accused being the owner of Nayandahalli Azeez sait Industrial estate, in 4th cross, shed No.183 manufacturing plastic lumps and gyanuals and MM 2 S.C.No.897/2017 polymers by running factory since 8 months. He imported C.W.2 to 5 from Bihar as slaves with the help of accused No.2 and 3. Further the accused wrongfully confined C.W.2 to 5 and buying or dispossessing of C.W.2 to 5 who belngs to Bihar state with the help of accused No.2 and 3. Further the accused without paying salary and without providing proper facility, he took the work from C.W.2 to 5 about more than 12 hours and thereby the accused committed the offences punishable under Sec.342 and 370 of IPC and Sec.16, 17, 18 of Bounded Labours System (Abolition) Act, 1976.
3. Charge was framed against accused for the offences punishable under Secs.342 and 370 of IPC and Sec.16, 17, 18 of Bounded Labours System (Abolition) Act, 1976. The accused pleaded not guilt and claimed to be tried.
3 S.C.No.897/2017
4. In order to prove the guilt of the accused prosecution examined 5 witnesses as P.Ws.1 to 5 and got marked Ex.P.1 to 16. Statement of accused under section 313 Cr.P.C was recorded. Accused denied the incriminating evidence and has not adduced any defence evidence.
5. Heard the arguments of both sides.
6. The points that arise for my consideration are :
1. Whether the prosecution proves beyond reasonable doubt that the accused after buying C.W.2 to 5 confined them in a factory and thereby committed the offence punishable under Sec.342 of IPC?
2. Whether the prosecution proves beyond reasonable doubt that the accused imported C.W.2 to 5 from Bihar to keep them as slaves and thereby committed the offence punishable under Sec.370 of IPC?
3. Whether the prosecution proves beyond reasonable doubt that the accused buy the C.W.2 to 5 as slaves from Bihar and took work 4 S.C.No.897/2017 from C.W.2 to 5 about more than 12 hours without paying any salary and without providing proper facility to keep and thereby committed the offence punishable under Sec.16 to 18 of Bounded Labour System (Abolition) Act?
4. What order?
7. My answer to the above points are as under: Point No.1 to 3 : In the Negative.
Point No.4 : As per final order,
for the following:
:REASONS:
8. Point No.1 to 3: Since all the points are interconnected to each other they are taken together for discussion in order to avoid repetition of the facts and discussion.
9. C.W.11 Lakkanna, ASI examined as P.W.1. In the evidence of P.W.1 he deposed that on 30.01.2016, when he was incharge of the police station, C.W.1 has gave report as per Ex.P.1. On the basis of the said report 5 S.C.No.897/2017 he registered the case against the accused and submitted FIR as per Ex.P.2 before the court and his higher officer. He admits his signature on Ex.P.1 and 2 as Ex.P.1(a) and Ex.P.2(a). Further he recorded the statement of C.W.2 to
5. He shifted C.W.2 to 5 to Child Labour Bhavan, Hosur Road, Bengaluru. Thereafter he gave charge of this case to C.W.12.
10. C.W.12 C.Ravikumar PSI and also IO examined as P.W.2. He deposed that on 31.01.2016 he obtained charge of this case from C.W.11. On the same day he recorded the statement of C.W.6 to 9. On 27.02.2016 he obtained the bounded labour release certificate as per Ex.P.3 to 6 from Assistant Commissioner South Division. N 04.03.2016 accused appeared before the IO by obtaining anticipatory bail. After completion of procedure he released the accused on bail. Further he recorded the statement of accused. He also obtained necessary documents in respect of factory of accused. Further he obtained the memo as per Ex.P.7 6 S.C.No.897/2017 issued by Joint Director in respect of M.M.Polymer factory. He also obtained reply as per Ex.P.8 issued by Joint Director. Further he obtained the memo of industrialist as per Ex.P.9. He also obtained letter from BBMP as per Ex.P.10. Further he received trade licence certificate as per Ex.P.11, renewal certificate as per Ex.P.12, tax paid by accused to BBMP as per Ex.P.13, certificate of terms and conditions issued by Environmental department as per Ex.P.14, report issued by the pollution control board as per Ex.P.15. After completion of the investigation he filed charge sheet against the accused.
11. In the cross examination of P.W.2 he clearly admits that he visited the said factory, he further admits that there is no customs to pay the salary for 6 days. He further admits that C.W.6 and 7 have working as NGO. This fact clearly goes to show that he police sub inspector visited the factory of accused within 6 days. Under such circumstances there is no possibility of payment of salary 7 S.C.No.897/2017 to the labourers or workers. He further admits that license and other documents obtained by the accused i.e. Ex.P.6 to 14 are obtained as per law. This fact clearly goes to show that the accused by obtaining necessary permission and other documents started to run the factory. The admission given by the P.W.2 clearly goes to show that, the accused has not violated any terms and conditions of bounded labourers act, 1967. Further on perusal of the admission given by the P.W.2 he obtained necessary permission from the pollution control board and other authorities.
12. It is important to note that the admission given by the P.W.2 are clearly goes to show that accused started to run his factory by violated all the procedure and he also obtained necessary permission from the BBMP and other concerned department.
13. C.W.1 H.Nagabhushan Dy.S.P. examined as P.W.3. In the evidence of P.W.3 he deposed that on 8 S.C.No.897/2017 30.01.2016 when he was in his office, as per the information given by his higher authority he called C.W.6, 7, 9 and 10 and visited the polymer factory. On the investigation he found 4 workers between the age of 1819 who belongs to the state of Bihar by name Sunil, Karukumar, Ajaykumar and Rajaram Kumar. On enquiry of said persons he came to know that the accused has not paid salary properly and he used to take work from the said persons from 9.00 a.m to 9.00 p.m. They also informed that the owner has not provided residential facility to them. Thereafter he protected 4 persons and gave report as per Ex.P.1 to the concerned jurisdictional police. He also states that he conducted the spot and seizure mahazar in the presence of C.W.6 and 7 as per Ex.P.16 and his signature at Ex.P.16(a).
14. In the cross examination of P.W.3 he clearly admits that he has not obtained assistance of local police station and he clearly admits that he do not mentioned how the accused has violated the terms and conditions in 9 S.C.No.897/2017 his report. Further he clearly admits that there is no impediment to him to call local panchas and local witnesses. This fact clearly goes to show that without informing the local police station this witness visited the factory of accused and draw the mahazar in the said factory. Therefore the evidence of P.W.2 and 3 are not helpful to prove the case of prosecution.
15. C.W.10 V.Govindaiah police officials examined as P.W.4. This witness deposed that on 30.01.2016 at about 3.00 p.m as per the direction of C.W.1 himself and C.W.9 have visited the factory of accused and protected bounded labours. He further deposed that labour inspector also came to the spot along with them. They have enquired the labours in the spot and he also put his signature on Ex.P.16 as per Ex.P.16(b).
16. During the course of cross examination P.W.4 clearly admits that, C.W.1 has not gave written intimation. He further admits that, he do not know on 10 S.C.No.897/2017 which factory the labour officer has conducted raid. He do not know the boundaries of the said factory. This fact clearly goes to show that he was not present at the time of visiting the factory and conducting mahazar in the spot. Therefore the evidence of P.W.4 is not helpful to the case of prosecution.
17. C.W.8 Srikanth Patil senior labour inspector examined as P.W.5. In his evidence he deposed that on 30.01.2016 between 2.30 to 2.45 he received the phone call from police. As per the instruction of police he conducted raid in the factory found by accused and found child labours are working in the said factory. The labours have informed the owner of the factory. The labours are originally belongs to Bihar state, they came to Bengaluru city for searching job. He further states that, accused without paying salary to the labours he obtained work from them from 9.00 a.m to 9.00 p.m. The accused has not provided necessary facilities to the labours. The owner of the factory intentionally locked the 11 S.C.No.897/2017 factory along with labours. Thereafter in the evening between 5.00 p.m to 6.00 p.m conducted the mahazar in the presence of witnesses and the same is marked as Ex.P.16 and his signature at Ex.P.16(c)
18. During the course of cross examination this witness clearly admits that, he has not visited the said factory before receiving the phone call. He do not know the names of the other factories on the side of factory belongs to the accused. They have not collected the local witnesses for drawing the mahazar. He further admits that he do not know the measurement and boundaries of the factory. This fact clearly goes to show that he was not present at the time of drawing of Ex.P.16. Therefore evidence of this witness is not helpful to the case of prosecution.
19. C.W.6 Seema Divan is one of the NGO in Talash association examined as P.W.5. In her evidence she deposed on 30.01.2016 the investigation officer has 12 S.C.No.897/2017 visited the factory belongs to the accused along with labour inspectors. She was presenting at the time of Ex.P.16 and her signature at Ex.P.16(d).
20. It is important to note that during the course of cross examination she clearly admits that, she has not produced her identity card to show that she is working in Talash association. She do not know the registration number of the vehicle which she went to the spot. Therefore, there was a doubt arise in the mind of the court regarding the presence of these witness at the time of drawing of Ex.P.16.
21. It is important to note that, as per the case of prosecution, C.W.2 to 5 are the bounded labourers working in the factory of accused. But herein this case C.W.2 to 5 are not examined before this court to prove the case of prosecution. It is very fatal to the case prove prosecution. If really accused has labours in is factory and he taking work without paying salary and without 13 S.C.No.897/2017 providing necessary facilities, the same has to prove by examining the bounded labour i.e. C.W.2 to 5. Further the prosecution have not seized any properties from the custody of accused. Further except the official witnesses and police officials, the prosecution have not examined any independent witnesses to prove the guilt of the accused. On perusal of the entire prosecution witnesses they have not states any thing about the fault committed by the accused. Because the accused started to run the factory by obtaining necessary permission from BBMP, he obtained necessary certificate from Pollutiion Control board and other concerned authorities. If really the accused have any bounded laybours, they have to examined before the case of prosecution. But in this case, the prosecution have not examined the C.W.2 to 5. Accordingly, points No.1 to 3 are answered in the Negative.
14 S.C.No.897/2017
22. Point No.4: In view of my findings on points No.1 to 3, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER Acting under Section 235(1) of Cr.P.C., the accused is acquitted of the offences punishable under Section 342 and 370 of IPC and Sec.16, 17, and 18 of Bounded labours System (Abolition) Act.
The bail bond and surety bond of accused stands cancelled.
(Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by her, corrected, and then pronounced by me in the Open Court on this the 12 th Day of January, 2023) (T.Govindaiah) LVI Addl.City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru.
: ANNEXURE :
1. List of witnesses examined by prosecution.
P.W.1 C.W.11 Lakkajnna K.G.
P.W.2 C.W.12 Ravi Kumar
15 S.C.No.897/2017
P.W.3 C.W.1 H.nagabhushan
P.W.4 C.W.10 G.Govindaiah
P.W.5 C.W.8 Srikanth Patil
2. List of witnesses examined by defence.
Nil [
3. List of documents marked by prosecution.
Ex.P.1 Complaint
Ex.P.1(a) Signature of P.W.1
Ex.P.1(b) Signature of P.W.2
Ex.P.2 FIR
Ex.P.2(a) Signature of P.W.1
Ex.P.3 to 6 Bounded labour release certificates
Ex.P.7 Letter issued by Joint Director
Ex.P.8 Reply issued by Joint Director
Ex.P.9 Certificate issued by Directorate of
Industries and Connerce.
Ex.P.10 Letter issued by BBMP
Ex.P.11 Certified copy of trade license certificate
Ex.P.12 Renewal certificate
Ex.P.13 Tax paid by the accused to BBMP
Ex.P.14 Certified copy of terms and conditions
Ex.P.15 Report from Pollution control board
Ex.P.16 Spot mahazar
Ex.p.16(a) Signature of P.W.3
Ex.P.16(b) Signature of P.W.4
Ex.P.16(c) Signature of P.W.5
4. List of documents by defence.
Nil
16 S.C.No.897/2017
5. List of material objects marked by prosecution.
Nil LVI Addl.City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru.
17 S.C.No.897/2017 18 S.C.No.897/2017 Judgment pronounced in open Court. (Vide separate order) ORDER Acting under Section 235(1) of Cr.P.C., the accused is acquitted of the offences punishable under Section 342 and 370 of IPC and Sec.16, 17, and 18 of Bounded labours System (Abolition) Act. The bail bond and surety bond of accused stands cancelled. LVI Addl.City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru. 19 S.C.No.897/2017