JUDGMENT

P. K. TRIPATHY, J. — 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 Sec. 367, I.P.C. read with Section 25 of the Inter-State Migrant Workmen (Regulation of Employment and Condi¬tion of Services) Act, 1979 (in short ‘the Act 1979’). Petition¬ers 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 appli¬cation under Sec. 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 Sec. 367, I.P.C. He argues that though the offence under Sec. 25 of the Act, 1979 is also not absolutely made out but there being an 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 Sec. 367, I.P.C. is concerned, a case of kidnapping or abduction for slavery having not been made out from the state¬ments of the victims, therefore, cognizance of the offence under Sec. 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 at¬tributed 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 labour¬ers outside the State for exploitation with no right and liberty amounts to slavery and therefore, while in seisin of the matter under Sec. 482, Cr.P.C. the prosecution case should not be throt¬tled at its threshold with respect to the offence under Sec. 367, I.P.C.

3. Position of law is well settled that an order of cogni¬zance is subject to interference by superior Courts when it finds lack of prima facie case to constitute the ingredients of the offence complained of or any other offence punishable under law. In other words, if the allegations available from the evidence collected during investigation does not make out a prima facie case satisfying the ingredients of any of the offences complained of or otherwise, then the order of cognizance with respect to such particular offence can be interfered with by the superior Court. On the other hand, if prima facie materials are there or the point is debatable as to whether a particular fact constitute an offence or not and that will be dependent on collection of evidence at the time of trial, then in such case the order of cognizance is not to be interfered with. Keeping in view that settled position of law, this Court has to analyse and adjudicate the contention of the parties.

4. 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 Sec. 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 labourers 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.

5. The term ‘abduction’ has been defined in Section 362, I.P.C. and it reads as hereunder :

“362. A