Document Fragment View
Fragment Information
Showing contexts for: section 374 ipc in Upon P. Vijayan vs . State Of Kerala And Anrs. Air 2010 on 30 May, 2016Matching 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.
6. Further , it is prayed by the Ld. counsel for accused that even if all the statement of witnesses including the statement of victims are considered to have been admitted or proved then also no case u/s 344/370/374 IPC is made out against the accused and ultimately the accused will be acquitted, therefore, it is prayed that the accused be discharged from the case. In support of the arguments, Ld. counsel for accused has relied upon P. Vijayan Vs. State of Kerala and anrs. AIR 2010 Supreme court 663, Yogesh @ Sachin Jagdish Joshi Vs. State of Maharashtra, 2008 Crl. L.J. 3872 and Dilawar Balu Kurane Vs. State of Maharashtra, (2002) 2 Supreme Court Cases 135.
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.
21. Section 374 IPC : Unlawful compulsory labour:
"whoever unlawfully compels any person to labour against the will of that person, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to one year, or with fine, or with both."
22. Prima facie case u/s 374 IPC is also not made out against the accused. Thus, I am of the opinion that prima facie no offence is made out against accused Rakesh Dua, because firstly, the victims are grown up , secondly, they are free to move and commute between the place of residence and place of employment, thirdly , they are carrying out their part time business after the employment, Fourthly, they were living freely FIR no. 52/14 Page 13 of 15 pages as per the statement of witnesses and family members of victims , that they have freely visited their families at the native village frequently and Fifthly in the charge sheet itself it is mentioned that they are free to roam in the market of Naya Bans where PS Lahori Gate is situated and they could have approached the police officials, at any point of time, if they had been exploited by the accused. Lastly , both the victims were also having their mobile phones, CDR of which are placed on record as per the CDR they were having frequent conversation with their friends and families and, therefore, in case of there being any restriction for them to leave the place of job , they could have easily approached the police or made the complaint with their family or friends or then their family or friends could have complained to the police or to the other authorities.