International Justice Mission vs State of Karnataka and Lakshmamma, Madamagiri, Madesh and Subramanyan

V. Jagannathan, J.—Heard Petitioner''s counsel and also learned Government Pleader for the 1st Respondent State in respect of the Petitioner calling in question the order passed by the trial court accepting the ''B'' report.

Submission of the Petitioner''s counsel is that, the Petitioner which is a social organization had filed a protest petition before the trial court following ''B'' report submitted by the police and the background facts are that the Tahsildar of Kunigal lodged a complaint with the P.S.I, Kunigal to the effect that accused Nos. 1 to 4 of Hutridurga village were extracting work from Chinnaraju, Kamalamma and their three children and one Madesha, Eramma and their two children and one Nagarashna and Rajagopal as bonded labourers and therefore action was sought to be taken against the accused persons. The said complaint by the Tahsildar was preceded by a report submitted by the Asst. Commissioner to the Tahsildar. The police however, after investigation, submitted a ''B'' report and this was called in question by the Petitioner by filing the protest petition. The court below accepted the ''B'' report and rejected the protest petition. It is this order which is now called in question.

Submission made by the Petitioner''s counsel is that, the trial court lost sight of the submission made by two witnesses viz., Mallika and Rajgopal and the said two witnesses have clearly stated about the accused confining the son of Rajgopal and therefore the order of the court below is totally perverse passed in ignorance of the materials placed through the said two witnesses.

Submission of the learned Government Pleader for the State is that the court below accepted the ''B'' report and therefore nothing remains and apart from that, the ''B'' report was accepted earlier but due to some technical reasons, the court thought it fit to once again examine the witnesses and thereafter the impugned order was passed. As such, no interference is called for.

Having thus heard both sides and after going through the sworn statement of the two witnesses viz., Rajgopal and Mallika and also having regard to the reasons assigned by the trial court in the impugned order, I find that the trial court did not advert to what was spoken to by the two witnesses in the course of its order, but had gone on in a different direction by stating that no document was produced in respect of the application having been filed before the Dy. Commissioner at Krishnagiri.

I therefore hold that the impugned order suffers from the defect of perversity and the reasons assigned are not based on the materials placed or on the statement of the two witnesses mentioned above. As such, the impugned order requires to be set aside and the court below is directed to reconsider the protest petition filed.

In the result, the petition is allowed and the impugned order of the court below accepting the ''B'' report is set aside and direction is given to the trial court to reconsider the protest petition in the light of the sworn statement of the two witnesses.