Ramlakhan Gupta vs State of Chhattisgarh

L.C. Bhadoo, J.—This revision has been preferred by the applicant Ramlakhan Gupta, being aggrieved by the order dated 26-9-2002 passed by learned Special Judge (Atrocities), Ambikapur, District Sarguja in Special Criminal Case No. 53/2002 by which the learned Special Judge has framed the charges u/s 374 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3(1)(vi) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.

I have heard learned Counsel for the parties.

Learned Counsel for the accused/applicant argued that OH the basis of statement of Jeethram, Maniyaro and other witnesses the offence u/s 3(1)(vi) Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Act is not prima facie made out. Even the learned Special Judge has framed the charges against the present accused/applicant without any evidence therefore, the revision may be allowed and the charges may be quashed. However, he very candidly conceded that as far as charge u/s 374, IPC is concerned he has no grievance against that.

On the other hand learned Dy. Government Advocate argued that on the basis of the statement of the witnesses'' prima facie case u/s 3(1)(vi) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Act is made out therefore, this revision is without merit.

I have perused the statement of witness Jeethram, the complainant has clearly stated in his statement that since last 20 to 25 years he is working at the residence of the accused. He works daily at the residence of the accused since early morning till late night. For this the accused/applicant pays only Rs. 1500/- per year and 12 khadis of paddy. He further stated that if for any reason he is not able to go for work to the residence of the accused then by force and against his Will he compels him to do work at the residence of the accused. Even when he is tired or became ill, the accused compels his wife to come to his residence to do work and for that the accused does not pay any amount. Accused Ramlakhan Gupta compels him to work at his residence against his wishes and if any day the complainant is not able to do work as per the wishes of the accused then the accused beats him and also abused him with filthy languages and some times accused takes him to his residence beating all the way. He is working at his residence on account of fear. Further said he requests to get him free from compulsions of accused. He wants to remain independent and work according to his wishes. He stated that he is a Scheduled Caste and landless poor man. His wife Maniyaro, the witnesses Bharos s/o Sitaram, Rambharos s/o Teliram, Likanram, Devnarayan have also supported the statement of Jeethram.

After going through these statements if we may look at Section 3(1)(vi) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Act, it says that whoever, not being a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe to do ''begar'' or other similar forms of forced or bonded labour other than any compulsory service for public purposes imposed by Government than that shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than six months but which may extend to five years and with fine.

Therefore, on the basis of the above statements a prima facie case is clearly made out against the accused/applicant and Hon''ble Apex court in State of M.P. Vs. S.B. Johari and Others, , has held that "if prima facie case is made out charge has to be framed. The charge can be quashed if the evidence which the prosecutor proposes to adduce to prove the guilt of the accused, even if fully accepted before it is challenged by cross-examination or rebutted by defence evidence, if any, cannot show that the accused committed the particular offence. The Court is not required to appreciate the evidence and arrive at the conclusion that the materials produced are sufficient or not for convicting the accused. If the Court is satisfied that a prima facie case is made out for proceeding further, then a charge has to be framed".

In other case Munna Devi Vs. State of Rajasthan and anr, , Hon''ble Supreme Court has held that "Revisional powers cannot be exercised in a routine and casual manner - Recourse to such powers for quashing the charges can be taken only if there is a legal bar against the continuance of the criminal proceedings or the framing of charge where no offence is being made out against the accused considering the entire facts stated in the FIR. In revision, the High Court cannot appreciate the evidence in the manner the Trial Court and the Appellate Court are required to do".

In view of the law laid down by Hon''ble Supreme Court and in view of the evidence available on the record, I am of the view that the learned Special Judge has not committed any error/illegality in framing the charge against the accused/applicant u/s 374 of the Indian Penal Code and 3(1)(vi) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. The order of the Special Judge is correct and requires no interference by this Court, as such the revision of the accused/applicant being without force same is liable to be rejected. Accordingly it is rejected. However, before parting with the order, it is made clear that the Trial Court while passing the final judgment shall not be influenced or otherwise, by any of the observation made in this order.