IMPORTANT POINT
The court upheld the prima facie evidence of bonded labour and unlawful confinement, rejecting the petitioners' claims of voluntary employment.

ORDER :

M.NAGAPRASANNA, J.

The petitioners/accused Nos.1 and 2 are before this Court calling in question proceedings in Spl.C.562 of 2023 registered for offences punishable under Sections 374, 344, 504, 370 r/w 34 of IPC, under Sections 16, 17, 18 of Bonded Labour System (Abolition) Act, 1976 and under Section 3(1)(h) of the Scheduled Castes and Schedule Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.

2. Heard Sri Venkatesh Somareddi, learned counsel appearing for petitioners and Sri Thejesh P, learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for respondent No.1.

3. Facts in brief germane are as follows:

The complainant is a Government servant – a Senior Labour Inspector. It is the case of the prosecution that the complainant visits the estate of the petitioners along with the Tahsildar, Revenue Inspector and the Village Accountant. The inspection of the estate revealed that there were 3 families staying in the estate all belonging to scheduled caste. The families are said to have been working for over 2 years in the estate. It is the further case of the prosecution that the families were made to forcibly work under difficult conditions, virtually treating them as bonded labourers. After the inspection and recording the statements of those families, a complaint comes to be registered which becomes a crime in Crime No.138 of 2023. The police, after investigation, file a charge sheet against these petitioners for the afore-quoted offences. Filing of the charge sheet is what has driven these petitioners/accused Nos.1 and 2 to this Court in the subject petition.

4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would vehemently contend that the complaint is registered on extraneous reasons. The families that were in the coffee estate were neither treated as bonded labourers nor were made to work in difficult conditions. Their statements are deliberately recorded and a complaint is registered. Nowhere the ingredients of any of the offences are found is the submission of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners. He would seek quashment of the entire proceedings.

5. Per-contra, the learned High Court Government Pleader would refute the submission contending that the statements of the families would clearly indicate them being treated as bonded labourers. It is his submission that the police after investigation have filed a charge sheet, therefore, it is for the petitioners to come out clean in a full blown trial.

6. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions made by the respective learned counsel and have perused the material on record.

7. The afore-narrated facts are not in dispute. The petitioners/accused Nos.1 and 2 are the owners of a coffee estate in the name and style of “Rameshwara Estate”, Hanbalu Hobli, Sakleshpura taluk. It is not in dispute that there were 3 families kept in the coffee estate for the purpose of employment. The complainant along with 3 other public servants conducts an inspection and during inspection records the statements of the members of those families. Based upon the statements so recorded, a complaint is registered. I deem it appropriate to notice the complaint. It reads as follows:

The police, after investigation, file a charge sheet. The summary of the charge sheet as obtaining in column No.17 reads as follows:

Before the learned Magistrate, the statements of the victims or the members of the family kept for employment in the coffee estate were recorded. The statement of one Chandramma is as follows:

“C.R.No.138/2023 of Sakaleshpur Rural Police Station.

Dt.22.09.2023

Preliminary Enquiry: The alleged victim is aware that she has come to the court. She submits that the intends to give her st