Raja S/o.Ranganathan vs Palani Chettiar, & Anr.

This Criminal appeal is directed against the Judgment passed by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No.I,

Chengalpattu made in C.A.No.126 of 2007 dated 19.08.2010, to set aside the judgment of acquittal and to confirm the order of conviction

passed by the Judicial Magistrate No.I, Chengalpattu made in CC.No.318 of 2005 dated 16.10.2007.

The appellant/victim/PW7 has filed the present appeal against the order of the lower appellate Court.

On 20.07.2005, PW1 to PW5/Revenue Officials based on the source information inspected the Velavan Rice Mill on 20.07.2005 conducted

enquiry and found 17 labourers including PW6 and PW7 has been employed as bonded labourers by the accused by paying advance amount of

Rs.5,000/- to Rs.10,000/- towards bonded debt and they were not permitted to go outside the rice mill and the accused ill-treated the labourers

and when one Elappan questioned the conduct of the accused, he was beaten and threatened by the accused. During the course of inspection, 17

persons containing 9 families had been employed as bonded labourers in the rice mill. Hence, the accused is liable to be punished under Section

374 IPC r/w sections 16 and 18 of the Bonded Labour System (Abolition) Act, 1976. The PW1 to PW5/Revenue Officials rescued the bonded

labourers and given each Rs.1000/- as rehabilitation amount and they were sent to their respective native places.

PW1 to PW5 have stated in their evidence that they visited the said rice mill on 20.07.2005 at 11.00am and rescued 17 persons belonging to 9

families as bonded labourers. PW2 who is the then Revenue Divisional Officer, Chengalpattu is said to have sent the report Ex.P1 to the

Investigating Officer/PW8. PW1 to PW5 have admitted in their evidence that the accused was not present in the rice mill at the time of inspection.

PW2 ought to have prepared the inspection report or enquiry report to show that the rice mill was inspected by them, but no such report was

prepared by the PW2 or other witnesses who are said to have accompanied with PW2 during the course of inspection.

PW8/Investigating Officer after receipt of the complaint/Ex.P1 from PW2, registered the FIR in Cr.No.314 of 2005 for the offences under

Sections 374 IPC r/w sections 16 and 18 of the Bonded Labour System (Abolition) Act, 1976. PW8 has also recorded the statements from

PW1/Purusothaman - Special Tahsildar, PW2/Selvi.Kavitha Ramu - Revenue Divisional Officer, PW3/Deputy Tahsildar - Rahamad,

PW4/Revenue Inspector - Ramachandran and PW5/Revenue Official- Srinivasan and also recorded the statements of Ellappan/PW6 and

Raja/PW7 one of the bonded labourer engaged in the said rice mill. Thereafter, PW8/IO forwarded the FIR along with the statements to the

Judicial Magistrate No.I, Chengalpattu and filed the charge sheet on 25.08.2005.

Before the trial Court, the prosecution has examined PW1 to PW8 and marked Exs.P1 and P2. No oral and documentary evidence was

adduced on the side of the accused. The trial Court after considering the facts and circumstances and after perusing the charge sheet and the

evidence of PW1 to PW8 has correctly comes to the conclusion by convicting the accused for the offences under Section 374 IPC r/w sections

16 and 18 of the Bonded Labour System (Abolition) Act, 1976 and imposed six months rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs.1000/- in default

to undergo simple imprisonment for further period of four months.

Aggrieved against the said order of conviction, the accused preferred an appeal before the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Chengalpattu

in Crl.A.No.126 of 2007, the appellate Court after considering all the materials on record comes to a conclusion by setting aside the order of

conviction passed by the trial Court and acquitted the accused from the charges. As against the order of acquittal, the appellant/victim/PW7

preferred the present criminal appeal before this Court.

The case of the prosecution is that on 20.07.2005, PW1 to PW5 inspected the Velavan Rice Mill and conducted enquiry, wherein it was found

that 17 labourers of 9 families have been employed as bonded labourers by the accused and the labourers had received an advance amount

ranging from Rs.5,000/- to Rs.10,000/- from the accused as bonded debt. The accused made the labourers to work in the rice mill daily from

6.00am to 6.00pm and they are not allowed to go outside the rice mill, if the labourers failed to do the work the accused and his men used to beat

the labourers. PW1 to PW5/Revenue Officials rescued the bonded labourers from the rice mill and given each Rs.1000/- as rehabilitation amount

and they were sent to their respective native places. PW8/Investigating Officer after receipt of the complaint/Ex.P1 from PW2, registered the FIR

in Cr.No.314 of 2005 for the offences under Sections 374 IPC r/w sections 16 and 18 of the Bonded Labour System (Abolition) Act, 1976.

On Perusal of the judgment of the trial Court and also the judgment of the appellate Court, wherein the evidences of PW1 to PW5/Revenue

Officials have spoken about the bonded labourers rescued from the rice mill.

PW6/Ellappan in his witness has categorically stated as follows :-

VERNACULAR MATTER OMITTED

PW6 has clearly stated that he was engaged by the accused as bonded labour and not allowed to go outside the rice mill and not paid minimum

wages. PW6 once left the rice mill and went to his native place, the accused and his henchmen came to the native place and asked for the money

or to come and work in the rice mill. Thereafter, PW6 and his wife were taken back to the rice mill. PW6 has also requested the accused for

payment of more wages.

PW7/Raja in his witness has categorically stated as follows :-

VERNACULAR MATTER OMITTED

PW7 has clearly stated that he received an advance amount of Rs.30,000/- before 2 1/2 years, he worked for more than one year and could not

repay the debt to the accused and hence asked for more pay. If any labourer left the rice mill for alternative job, the henchmen of the accused will

took back the labourers to the rice mill.

The learned counsel for the appellant/Victim/PW7 would submit that the complainant has not been examined and there is discrepancies in the

date of examination. The 17 bonded labourers of 9 families have not been examined in this case and the prosecution has examined two persons

and other workers were not been examined. PW1 to PW5 inspected the rice mill and after enquiry rescued the bonded labourers from the rice mill

and given each Rs.1000/- as rehabilitation amount and they were sent to their respective native places. PW8/Inspector of Police registered the FIR

and recorded the statement and filed the charge sheet on the file of Judicial Magistrate No.I, Chengalpattu. The trial Court after analysing the oral

and documentary evidences available on record correctly convicted the accused. On appeal by the accused, the learned Additional District and

Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Chengalpattu failed to consider the oral and documentary evidences and simply set aside the order of the trial

Court and acquitted the accused. Hence, the learned counsel prays to set aside the order of the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Fast Track

Court, Chengalpattu and to confirm the order of the trial Court.

The learned counsel for the first respondent/accused would submit that the accused is not at all owner of the rice mill and the accused has not

engaged any bonded labourer. The prosecution failed to collect the documents and prove that the accused is owner of the rice mill. The accused

has not engaged any workers on the date of inspection is not proved and there are contradictions in the evidences of PW1 to PW5. The

prosecution failed to examine all the labourers rescued from the mill, the prosecution has set up two persons and obtained false evidence from the

accused. Ex.P1 report is the true copy, the signature of PW2 does not find any place in the Ex.P1 and it has been signed by the personal assistant.

Thus the trial Court wrongly convicted the accused for the offences stated supra. Whereas, the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Fast Track

Court, Chengalpattu after looking into the contradictions in the evidences correctly set aside the order of the trial Court and acquitted the accused

from the charges and there is no reason to interfere with the judgment of the appellate Court.

Heard the rival submissions made on both sides and perused the records.

It is the case of the prosecution that PW1 to PW5/revenue officials have been examined by the prosecution before the trial Court and they

have categorically spoken about the engagement of the bonded labourers by the accused. PW6 and PW7 are the bonded labourer said to have

been engaged in the rice mill and they were clearly spoken about the bonded labourers worked in the rice mill and they were paid below the

minimum wages and paid only the advance amount and they were not allowed to go outside the rice mill. Even if they go outside they will be

brought back by the henchmen of the accused. From the evidence of PW1 to PW7, the prosecution has clearly established the case and the trial

Court has also appreciated the case of the prosecution and sentenced the accused. Whereas, the first appellate Court failed to appreciate the case

of the prosecution and acquitted the accused.

The learned counsel for the appellant/victim in support of his contentions submitted the following authorities :-

AIR 1982 SC 1473 - People''s Union for Democratic Rights and others V. Union of India (UOI) & others.

AIR 1984 SC 802 - Bandhua Mukti Morcha V. Union of India (UOI) & others.

(1994) 5 SCC 116 - Public Union for Civil Liberties and others V. State of T.N. and others.

AIR 2010 SC 3071 - State of UP V. Krishna Master and Others.

Somiben Mathurbai Vasava V. Lalji Hakku Parmar Leather Works Company.

1992 Crl.LJ 1228 - Govind Shanwar Chatal V. Dattatraya Waman Bhanushali and another.

2012 (91) ALR 59 - Sageer & others V. State of UP & Others.

In the case of Somiben Mathurbai Vasava Vs. Lalji Hakku Parmar Leather Works Company, wherein, it has held as follows :-

Minimum time rate wages for piece work:

Where an employee is employed on piece work for which minimum time rate and not a minimum piece rate has been fixed under this

Act, the employer shall pay to such employee wages at not less than the minimum time rate"" .

A bare reading of this section clearly contemplates that:

(a) an employee is employed on piece work;

(b) for which minimum time rate is fixed; and

(c ) no minimum piece rate is fixed.

In the present case all these three conditions are satisfied. Then, the section provides, the employer shall pay to such employee wages

at not less than the minimum time rate. Thus there is no escape from the conclusion that the petitioner, though employed on piece

work, is entitled to the minimum time rate fixed under the notification (Ann.A) and the Labour Court was clearly in error in holding

that the notification was not applicable to piece-rated workmen

In the case of Sageer & Others Vs. State of U.P. & Others reported in 2012 (91) AIR 59, the relevant portion of the judgment is extracted

here under:-

The ''bonded labour system'' as defined in Section 2(g) of the Bonded Labour (System) Abolition Act, 1976, shows that it is

usually as a result of advances given by way of bonded debt that a debtor or his dependents or heirs are compelled to provide forced

or partly forced labour to the creditor for a specified or unspecified period for no wage or for nominal wages, to forfeit their right to

freely sell their labour in the market, change their employer or to move about freely in India. Therefore, if any advance was given (as

may have been done in this case), it may have actually been a bonded debt.

It is pertinent to refer the unreported judgment in Crl.A.No.1180/2004 (State of U.P. Vs. Krishna Master & Others), wherein it is held as

follows:

It would not be proper for the appellate court to reject the evidence on the ground of variations or infirmities in the matter of trivial

details. Minor omissions in the police statements are never considered to be fatal. The statements given by the witnesses before the

Police are meant to be brief statements and could not take place of evidence in the court. Small/trivial omissions would not justify a

finding by court that the witnesses concerned are liars. The prosecution evidence may suffer from inconsistencies here and

discrepancies there, but that is a short-coming from which no criminal matter or pertain to insignificant aspects thereof

Therefore, the discrepancies noticed in the evidence of a rustic witness who is subjected to grueling cross-examination should not be

blown out of proportion. To do so is to ignore hard realities of village life and give undeserved benefit to the accused who have

perpetrated heinous crime. The basic principle of appreciation of evidence of a rustic witness who is not educated and comes from a

poor strata of society is that the evidence of such a witness should be appreciated as a whole. The rustic witness as compared to an

educated witness is not expected to remember every small detail of the incident and the manner in which the incident had happened

more particularly when his evidence is recorded after a lapse of time. Further, a witness is bound to face shock of the untimely death

of his near relative(s). Therefore, the court must keep in mind all these relevant factors while appreciating evidence of a rustic witness

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and also perusal of the materials placed before this court and submissions made by both

the learned counsel and on perusal of the authorities cited by the appellant/victim, this court has come to the conclusion that accused has engaged

bonded labours in the Rice Mill and at the time of occurrence, 17 persons consisting of 9 families were employed as bonded labourers and they

were released by the PW2/RDO on 20.07.2005 and they have been paid a sum of Rs.1,000/- each for their rehabilitation. Therefore, the

contention raised by first respondent/accused that he is not responsible for the offence is not at all acceptable one and the same is liable to be

rejected. From the evidence of PWs.1 to 8, the prosecution has proved that the accused is held responsible for the commission of offence.

Therefore, this Court is of the view that there is no reason to interfere with the well considered judgment of conviction passed by the trial court.

This court cannot slow down the object of the Bonded Labour (Abolition ) Act. Therefore, the punishment imposed by the trial court is also in

order and therefore, the judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the trial court is in order and hence, the appeal is allowed by setting aside

the judgment passed by the Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court No.I, Chengalpattu.

Accordingly, this criminal appeal is allowed by setting aside the judgment dated 19.08.2010 made in Crl.A.No.126 of 2007 passed by the

Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court No.I, Chengalpattu and by confirming the judgment dated 16.10.2007 made in CC.No.318 of 2005

passed by the Judicial Magistrate No.I, Chengalpattu. The trial Court is directed to secure the accused to undergo the remaining period of

imprisonment, if any.