STATE Vs. MITHU SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition arises out of the order dated 3-9-1986, the proceedings in criminal misc. case No. 14/84 under Section 16 of the Bonded Labour System (Abolition) Act, 1976 (for short 'the Act') were ordered to be dropped on account of absence of Assistant Public Prosecutor by the learned S.D.M., Chittorgarh.

(2.) Brief facts are that Shri Pratap S/o Shri Ratna Bheel R/o Galiamal lodged a written report on 18-6-1984 to S. P. Chittorgarh that Thakur Mithu Singh R/o Pichtoli is compelling him and his wife for the last five years to render work as bonded labour. Shri Mithu Singh advanced Rs. 1500/- to his father and got executed a writing for Rs. 7500/- about five years ago. His wife has also been confined in his house. On this report the case under Section 16 of the Act was registered and after due investigation, challan was filed against the non-petitioner. The case was listed for arguments for charge on 27-2-1984, on an application by Assistant Public Prosecutor, that a case under Sections342 and 384, IPC is also made out against the non-petitioner. This application was not pressed on 24-4-1985 and the case was fixed for evidence but instead of recording the evidence the case was fixed for arguments about the jurisdiction of S.D.M. Chittorgarh to try this case. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor sought adjournments to file before the Court the relevant notification conferring the jurisdiction to Executive Magistrates to try such offence under the Act. Ultimately, the impugned order dated 3-9-1986 was passed. Several opportunities were given to Assistant Public Prosecutor to produce the relevant notification and he was not present and as such the proceedings were dropped. Learned Public Prosecutor has argued that the relevant notification is on the record and, therefore, it was not correct to hold that notification was not filed by Assistant Public Prosecutor despite several opportunities. It is further argued that the offence under Section 16 of the Act is punishable with imprisonment for a term which may be extended to three years and also with a fine which may extend to Rs. 2000/- and a warrant case and, therefore, the proceedings could not be dropped in the manner it has been done in the impugned order. It is, therefore, urged that the impugned order be set aside and the case may be remanded back for trial according to law. Learned counsel for the non-petitioner has supported the impugned order that when the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor was not present, nothing could be done and the case was dropped. It is further contained that no useful purpose will be served in remanding the case after about more than 10 years.

(3.) I have anxiously considered the rival contentions. Section 16 of the Act provides for punishments for enforcement of bonded labour that after the commencement of the Act, whoever compels any person to render bonded labour shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may exceed to 3 years and also with a fine which may exceed to Rs. 2000/-.