Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

1. By this order, I shall dispose of the point of framing of charge against the accused.

2. Present charge sheet has been filed against the accused Rakesh Dua u/s 16/17/18 Bonded Labour Act, 22 Minimum wages Act and 344/370/374 IPC. Out of these offences only offences under section 370 IPC is session trial and, therefore, the case FIR no. 52/14 Page 1 of 15 pages was committed to the court of sessions. The investigation of the case was carried out by the IO and after completion of the investigation, charge sheet was filed.

15. Therefore, I am of the opinion that no prima facie case u/s 16,17,18 of bonded labour act is made out against the accused Rakesh Dua.

16. As regards section 344/370/374 IPC, section 344/370/374 IPC reads as under:­ Section 344 . Wrongful confinement for ten or more days__whoever wrongfully confines any person for ten days, or more, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, and shall also be liable to fine.

(2)­­­­­­­­­­­ (3)­­­­­­­­­­­­ (4) ­­­­­­­­­­­ (5) ­­­­­­­­­­­ (6) ­­­­­­­­­­­ (7) ­­­­­­­­­­­

19. Section 370 IPC deals with the trafficking of person and the basic requirement of Section 370 IPC is that a person for the purpose of exploitation, recruits, transports, harbours, transfers or receive , a person or persons by using threats or force or by abduction or by practicing fraud or abuse of power commits the offence of trafficking.

Explanation (1) attached with the section 370 IPC , provides that the expression "exploitation' may include any act of physical exploitation or any form of sexual exploitation, slavery or practices similar to slavery.

20. In the present case, there is no prima facie allegations of there being any exploitation by using threats or force or abduction. Victim Vinod Kumar and Debideen have categoriclaly stated that they have started working with accused Rakesh Dua in 1992 and there is no allegations of physical FIR no. 52/14 Page 12 of 15 pages exploitation or sexual exploitation suffered by the victims by accused Rakesh Dua. The only allegation of victims is that after joining the job, they have taken certain loan from the employer and now the employer demands the return of that money, it is nowhere stated by the victims in their statement u/s 161 Cr.P.C. that they have already paid the amount of the employer and despite that the employer is not permitting them to leave the job, the allegation which might have fallen within the parameters of Section 2(e) and section 2(g) of Bonded Labour Act but not necessarily u/s 370 IPC.