IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
M. Nagaprasanna, J.
Rajkumar - Appellant
Versus
The State of Karnataka & Ors. - Respondents
Criminal Petition No. 6118 of 2021
Decided On : 23-03-2022
Human Trafficking - Section 370 IPC - Summary of Section 370 of the IPC and its interpretation by the court
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner was accused of human trafficking under Section 370 of the IPC based on allegations that he was taking Indian nationals to Kuala Lumpur for employment purposes on tourist visas. The complaint and charge sheet presumed the petitioner's involvement in human trafficking.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that there was no allegation of exploitation by the petitioner, and the suspicion based on cash transactions was not enough to prosecute the petitioner for human trafficking under Section 370 of the IPC. The court concluded that allowing further proceedings would result in an abuse of the process of law and miscarriage of justice.
Issues: The issues revolved around the interpretation of Section 370 of the IPC and whether the circumstances warranted prosecution for human trafficking.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the lack of evidence of exploitation and the insufficiency of suspicion based on cash transactions to prosecute under Section 370 of the IPC.
Final Decision: The criminal petition was allowed, and the proceedings in C.C.Nos.3658/2020 were quashed.
ORDER
1. The petitioner is before this Court calling in question the proceedings in C.C.No.3658/2020, pending on the file of the Civil Judge and JMFC, Devanahalli, Bengaluru, registered for the offences punishable under Section 370 of the IPC.
2. Brief facts leading to the filing of the present petition, as borne out from the pleadings, are as follows: It is alleged that on 20.07.2019, when the Assistant Immigration Officer at Bangalore International Airport was on duty in the departure wing of the airport noticed 3 Indian nationals, who were intending to travel to Kaula Lampur by an Indigo flight. They were checked and questioned. While questioning it came to light that they were all traveling in a group and were accompanied by another passenger by name Rajkumar - the petitioner. On further questioning, it is the case of the complainant that the passengers reveal the fact that they were being taken by the petitioner to Kula Lampur for employment purposes on tourist VISAs. It was also informed that the petitioner was introduced to them by another agent named Kiran, based in Amritsar. Few of the persons who were questioned also indicated that they have paid some amounts to Rajkumar and others. Based upon the aforesaid interrogation and incident, a complaint came to be registered against the petitioner for offence punishable under Section 370 of the IPC and the case is now C.C.No.3658/2020 for offence punishable under Section 370 of the IPC. Since the issue springs from the complaint, the complaint requires to be noticed:
'Subject: For investigation and initiating suitable action against one Indian national namely RAJ KUMAR S/O LATE KARAM CHAND who was intercepted for illegal Human trafficking of 03 Indian nationals.
On July 20, 2019, when Shri Rahul Kumar, Assistant Immigration Officer was on duty in the departure wing, the following 03 Indian nationals who were intending to travel to Kuala Lumpur by Indigo Flight 6E-1813, were referred by the Counter Officers for secondary profiling.
| Sl | NAME | PASSPORT NO |
| 01 | RANJIT SINGH | S7043244 |
| 02 | MANKARAN SINGH | N4023633 |
| 03 | DAVINDER SINGH | R0199767 |
During their profiling it was found that all of them were travelling in a group and were accompanied by another passenger name RAJ KUMAR (PP NO.S0482497). Further, the profiling of three passengers revealed that they were being taken by RAJ KUMAR to Kuala Lumpur for employment purposes /petty jobs on tourist visas. They also told that RAJ KUMAR was introduced to them by another agent named 'KIRAN', based in Amritsar. While MANKARAN SINGH claims to have paid Rupees 30000.00 in case RAJ KUMAR at his residence, Ranjit Singh claims to have transferred Rs.50000.00 into the account of one 'Sheetal Vohra' on July 18, 2019. Davinder Singh claims to have transferred Rs.20000.00 into the account of one 'Gurbhej Singh' on July 15, 2019 and Rs.30000.00 in cash to agent 'Kiran' on July 18, 2019.
It was also learnt that the above mentioned three passengers were introduced to Raj Kumar at amritsar Bus Stand by agent Kiran on the night of July 19, 2019, assuring them that he would guide and & accompany them to Kuala Lumpur. They reached Delhi in the morning on July 20, 2019 and boarded Indigo Flight No.6E-2423 for Bangalore.
It is requested that necessary suitable action against Raj Kumar be initiated as he has been alleged by the three passengers to be acting as a carrier and hence indulging in illegal human trafficking.'
The police, after investigation, have also filed a charge sheet, summary of which reads as follows:
What can be gathered from the complaint and the charge sheet that is filed by the police is that, it is presumed that the petitioner had indulged himself in human trafficking and therefore, Section 370 of the IPC was invoked against the petitioner. Section 370 of the IPC deals with trafficking of a person and has manifold ingredients. Section 370 of the IPC reads as follows:
'370. Trafficking of person.-(1) Whoever, for the
AI
The essence of the legal framework applied by the court was the interpretation of Section 370 of the IPC, emphasizing the requirement of exploitation and the insufficiency of suspicion based on cash ....
The court established that prima facie evidence of trafficking and sexual harassment justified the continuation of criminal proceedings under IPC Sections 354A and 370.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement of evidence of exploitation for a conviction under Section 370(5)/34 of the IPC.
Customers cannot be prosecuted under the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act without evidence of trafficking, but may be liable under Section 370(A)(2) IPC if they had reason to believe victims were tra....
Sexual exploitation – In absence of any evidence likely to come on record, securing conviction against accused is impossible and case can be quashed.
The absence of evidence proving that victims were trafficked or exploited negates the applicability of Section 370(A)(2) IPC against customers.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.