B. S. A. SWAMY, J.

( 1 ) THE facts leading to the filing of these three writ petitions seeking writs of Habeas corpus are almost similar and the question raised in the petitions is also similar. Hence they are being disposed of by a common order.

( 2 ) THE detenus in these petitions were arrested on the ground of violation of the provisions of the Bonded Labour System (Abolition) Act, 1976 and Child Labour (Prohibition and Regulation) Act, 1986. Though nothing survives in these petitions after the release of the petitioners on bail, having noticed the thrust of the Government in implementing the provisions of the above two Acts and the illegalities committed by the investigating agencies and the Executive magistrate in all the three matters, we are inclined to give this judgment explaining the scope and ambit of these two Acts and action for implementation of the provisions of the two Acts. W. P. No. 15948 of 2002:

( 3 ) ON 22-8-2002 one A. Srinivasa Rao filed this petition seeking a writ of Habeas Corpus directing the respondents to produce his father Appa Rao, who was arrested by the police of P. S. Aspari, Kurnool District on 20-8-2002 in Crime No. 35 of 2002 registered under Sections 16 to 18 and 20 of Bonded labour System (Abolition) Act, 1976, before this court and set him at liberty.

( 4 ) ACCORDING to the petitioner, though the alleged offences under the Act are non- cognizable and bailable, the respondents have illegally detained his father without setting him at liberty.

( 5 ) THE facts of the case are not in dispute. During "chaduvula Panduga" programme one Jagannatha Rao, the Mandal Revenue officer (MRO) visited the lands of the accused where cotton seed plants are being raised and found some labourers, who are alleged to be minors, working in the field along with others. The MRO recorded their statements wherein they stated that they are working in the fields on daily wages of Rs. 30/- and their parents were paid some advances for utilizing their services. Basing on the above statements of the child labourers the MRO came to the conclusion that they are working as labourers in the accused s fields to clear of the debts given to their parents, which is an offence under the Act, and forwarded a complaint to the Station House Officer, Aspari Police station on 3-8-2002 to register a crime against the accused and take action according to law. Basing on the above complaint, the SHO of p. S. Aspari has registered a case in Crime no. 35 of 2002 under Sections 16 to 18 and 20 of the Act on the same day, arrested the accused on 20-8-2002 and produced him before the Executive Magistrate, who in turn remanded him to judicial custody for 10 days i. e. , upto 29-8-2002.

( 6 ) AGGRIEVED by the above order of the executive Magistrate (3rd respondent), the petitioner herein filed the present petition seeking a writ of Habeas Corpus contending that the action of the Executive Magistrate in sending his father to judicial remand for ten days is illegal and as such the court may direct the respondents to produce him before the court and set him at liberty. W. P. No. 15949 of 2002:

( 7 ) DURING "chaduvula Panduga" programme the Mandal Revenue Officer (MRO) of Nandavaram Mandal, Kurnool district visited the cotton seed fields of one mr. Y. Koteswara Rao of Mugathi Village, situated in that Mandal, at 11. 30 a. m. on 8-8-2002 and found 17 labourers, including four minor children, working in the fields. Thereafter he lodged a complaint with the 2nd respondent to register a crime against the said Koteswara Rao and take action as per the provisions of the Bonded Labour system (Abolition) Act, 1976 ( the Act for brevity ). The 2nd respondent accordingly registered a case in Crime No. 65 of 2002 under Sections 14 to 16 of the Act, issued FIR, and arrested Mr. Koteswara Rao on 19-8-2002 and produced him before the Executive magistrate-3rd respondent along with remand report. On the said day, some one in the office of the 3rd respondent made an

Click Here to Read the rest of this document