LAWS(ORI)-2002-8-37

DHANURJAYA PUTEL Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

Decided On August 21, 2002
Dhanurjaya Putel Appellant
V/S
STATE OF ORISSA Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BOTH the petitioners are the accused persons in G. R. Case No. 94 of 1998 of the Court of J, M. F. C., Kantabanji. In that case learned Magistrate took cognizance of the offence under Section 367, I.P.C. read with Section 25 of the Inter State Migrant Workmen (Regulation of Employment and Condition of Services) Act, 1979 (in short 'the Act 1979'). Petitioners moved an application in the Court below to recall that order of cognizance on the ground of absence of prima, facie case. That application having been rejected by learned J.M.F.C. as per the impugned order dated 21.3.2001 petitioners have moved this application under Section 482, Cr.P.C.

(2.) AT the stage of argument, Mr. D. P. Dhal, learned counsel for the petitioner has confined his prayer to .quash the order of cognizance with respect to the offences under Section 367, I.P.C. He argues that though the offence under Section 25 of the Act, 1979 is also not absolutely made out but there being ah arguable point, petitioners shall raise such issue in the trial Court at the time of trial. He argues that so far as the offence under Section 367, I.P.C. is concerned, a case of kidnapping or abduction for slavery having not been made out from the statements of the victims, therefore, cognizance of the offence under Section 367, I.P.C. is legally not sustainable. Mr. Aswini Kumar Mishra, learned Standing Counsel on the other hand counters that argument by arguing that the terms 'slave' and 'slavery' having not been defined in the Penal Code, the dictionary meaning has to be followed and even if the prosecution allegation does not amount to using the victims as slaves as per the meaning attributed to the same in the Abolition of Slavery Act, then also the dictionary meaning makes it arguable whether the alleged conduct of the petitioners in inducing and abducting the labourers outside the State for exploitation with no right and liberty amounts to slavery and therefore, while in seisin of the matter under Section 482, Cr.P.C. the prosecution case should not be throttled at its threshold with respect to the offence under Section 367, I.P.C.

(3.) SECTION 367, I.P.C. provides for punishment for offence of kidnapping or abducting in order to subject the person to grievous hurt, slavery or for satisfying unnatural lust of any person. The act done facilitating that purpose or knowing it likely that the act done will tend to subject the victims for such purposes then the offence under Section 367, I.P.C. is said to have been committed. Admittedly, in this case the issue between the parties is relating to abduction of the laborers for the purpose of exploitations on payment of meagre amount and without providing them any right or remedy in that respect. Section 370, I.P.C. provides punishment for buying or disposing of any person as a slave and Section 371, I.P.C. provides punishment in case of habitual dealings in slaves.