SELVAKUMAR vs. MANJULA

1 NON­REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NOs.  _1603­1604 OF 2022 ARISING OUT OF SLP (CRL) NOs. 8683­8684 OF 2019 SELVAKUMAR               ...APPELLANT(S) VERSUS MANJULA & ANR.        ..RESPONDENT(S) J U D G M E N T 1. Leave granted. 2. This appeal by Accused No. 2 is against the judgment and order 1 of  the  High  Court  of   Judicature   at  Madras   convicting   him   under Sections  16   and   17   of  the   Bonded  Labour  System   (Abolition) Act, 2 1976 .  By the said judgment, the High Court reversed the decision of 3 the   Principal   Sessions   Judge ,   Kancheepuram   at   Chengalpattu,  by which the Appellant was acquitted under the Act as well under the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as the 1989 Act).  Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by DEEPAK SINGH Date: 2022.09.21 11:17:19 IST Reason: 3. The Appellant/Accused No. 2 is the son of Accused No. 1 who 1  In Crl. Appeal No. 335 of 2013 dated 22.08.2019 and 27.08.2019 2  hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’. 3  In Sessions Case No. 51 of 2007 dated 30.07.2012 2 expired during the pendency of the matter before the Trial Court itself. The case of the prosecution is that upon a complaint received at his office   on   03.03.2006,   the   District   Revenue   Officer,   Chengalpattu (hereinafter   referred   to   as   PW­8),   raided   M/s   Murugesa   Naicker Selvakumar   Rice   Mill,   Paramasivam   Nagar,   Thirukazhukundram, Tamil Nadu, along with other officers and found PW’s 1 to 6 working in the Rice  Mill  as  bonded  labourers.    He  issued  necessary  order under exhibit P­4 to P­10 to release the labourers. Following the raid, an FIR came to be filed on 16.03.2006 against Accused No. 1, the father   of   the   Appellant   herein,   and   also   against   the   Appellant   as Accused No. 2.  4. After   completing   the   formalities,   the   Sessions   Judge   framed charges against Accused Nos. 1 and 2 for offences under Section 16 and 17 of the Act and also under Section 3(1)(x) of the 1989 Act. During   the   trial,   the   prosecution   examined   PW­1   to   PW­13   and marked documents being Ex. P­1 to P­12.  5. Prosecution   against   Accused   No.   1   having   abated   due   to   his death   during   Trial,   the   Sessions   Court   proceeded   against   the Appellant. At the outset, the Sessions Court held that the prosecution could not prove that the victims were members of any Schedule Caste or Schedule Tribe and therefore, charge under the 1989 Act did not 3 lie. In so far as the prosecution under the Act is concerned, the Trial Court held that the prosecution could not prove the case against the Appellant for having committed the crime under Section 16 of the Act. The Sessions Court held that there is no evidence to link the Appellant to the Rice Mill business run by his deceased father.   The relevant portion of the order is as under: ­ “ … The Defence Counsel denied that there is no connection between the A2 and the Rice Mill and A2 Selvakumar is residing at Chengalpattu.   In this regard, while perusing the evidence of PW 13 Investigating Officer, he has clearly deposed that he has not examined whether the A2 was residing along with his father at Thirukazhukundram or whether  A2   is   residing   at   Chengalpattu.   Hence without   proper   investigation   and   proof   A2   has been implicated as accused in this case.   If we peruse   Ex.   P4   to   Ex.   P10   Release   Certificates issued by PW 8 Tmt. Karthika Revenue Divisional Officer,   Chengalpattu   it   is   stated   specially   that Murugesa Naicker is the owner of the above Rice Mill and not A2 Selvakumar.  Hence the evidence adduced by the prosecution is not sufficient to link A2   with   the   functioning   of   Rice   Mill   and   the participation of A2 in the day today affairs of the Rice Mill. Under such circumstances it cannot be believed that the A2 gave Rs. 3000/­ as advance to PW1 and A2 and compelled to work and PW1 Mani,   PW3   Kuppan,   PW4   Ramesh,   PW5   Anbu, PW6 Manjula, Vanitha, Kumaresan without giving sufficient wages and they have been treated as bonded labours.” 6. In view of the above referred finding of the Sessions Court, that there is no evidence connecting the Appellant to the Rice Mill, the 4 Sessions Court acquitted him of all the charges. 7. There is no appeal by the State against the judgment of acquittal by the Sessions Court. However, Mrs. Manjula (PW­6) preferred an appeal to the High Court being Crl. Appeal No. 335 of 2013. As stated earlier, the High Court reversed the judgment of the Principal Sessions Judge and convicted the Appellant under Sections 16 and 17 of the Act and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 3 years and also directed him to pay compensation of Rs. 50,000/­ to each of the victims.  8. The High Court came to the conclusion that there is sufficient evidence that ‘Bonded Labourers’ were working at the Rice Mill and also that, they have been denied their due wages.  The High Court also concluded that the ‘Bonded Labourers’ were ill­treated and prohibited from seeking alternative employment by use of force.  As regards the contention of the Appellant that he is not connected with the running of the Mill, the High Court rejected this submission and held as under: ­ “ 15. On a reading the evidence of P.Ws. 1 to 6, they have clearly stated that they were working st as bonded labourers  in  the  1   respondent Rice st Mill.  Though the 1  respondent denied that he is not owner of the Mill and he is no way connected with the said Mill and the Mill is not under his management,   but   the   evidence   of   P.Ws.1   to   6 clearly shows that they were working in the Rice 5 st Mill belong to the 1  respondent.  The name of the Rice Mill itself shows that M/s Selvakumar Rice Mill.  He has not denied the fact that he is not the son of A1 and he admitted the name of the Mill that it is M/s Selvakumar Rice Mill…..” 9.1  Shri M.N Rao, learned senior counsel assisted by Ms. Promila, Advocate and Shri S. Thananjayan, AOR, submitted that the High Court simply presumed that the Appellant was the employer and that he was in control of the workmen.  He further submitted that there is no evidence establishing that the Appellant had compelled any person to render any bonded labour. He has taken us through the evidences of witnesses including that of the Investigation officer and the District Revenue Officer.  9.2  We have heard Shri Aristotle, standing counsel for the State of Tamil   Nadu   as   well   as   Shri   David   Sundar   Singh,   Advocate   and   Shri Gaichangpou Gangmei, AOR appearing on behalf of Respondent No. 1. 10. The only question for consideration is whether there was any involvement of the Appellant in the commission of the offences under Sections 16 and 17 of the Act.  “ 16. Punishment for enforcement of bonded labour­  Whoever, after the commencement of this Act, compels any person to render any bonded labour shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years and also with   fine   which   may   extend   to   two   thousand 6 rupees. 17. Punishment for advancement of bonded debt ­Whoever advances, after the commencement of this Act, any bonded debt shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years and also with fine which may extend to two thousand rupees.” 11. For   attracting   the   provision   of   Section   16   of   the   Act,   the prosecution must establish that an accused has forced and compelled the victim to render bonded labour. This force and compulsion must be at the instance of the accused and the prosecution must establish the same beyond reasonable doubt.  Similarly, under Section 17 of the Act, there is an obligation on the prosecution to establish that the accused has advanced a bonded debt to the victim.  12. We   will   now   examine   the   FIR   as   well   as   other   documentary evidences coupled with the oral evidence produced by the prosecution to examine if there is any relationship between the Appellant and the victims to either   enforce bonded labour ,   or if he had   advanced any bonded debt. 13. In the FIR, though the name of the Appellant is shown as the second   accused,   with   the   first  accused   being   his   deceased   father, there  is  nothing   as   to   how   and   in   what   manner   the   Appellant   is involved in the commission of the offence. All the allegations in the FIR 7 are   relatable   to   the   Appellant’s   father   and   there   is   no   allegation towards the Appellant compelling any person to render any bonded labour   or   having   advanced   any   bonded   debt.   In   fact,   nothing   is attributed to the Appellant except for mentioning his name in the list of accused. The absence of any allegations against him must be seen in the context of his submission from the very beginning that he is not residing   with   his   father.   It   is   his   case   that   he   is   residing   at Chengalpattu.  14. We proceeded further and examined the evidence of PW­1, the Complainant. This witness made specific allegations against the father of the Appellant for his abusive behaviour. Here again, there is no reference   to   the   Appellant   for   having   compelled   bonded   labour   or advanced any bonded debt. PW­3, Kuppan made a general observation that the Rice Mill belongs to the Appellant and his father.   We will shortly be dealing with the evidence of the Investigating Officer in this regard in the context of his obligation to establish the co­ownership of the   Appellant.   Before   that,   we   may   note   that   PW­3   also,   fails   to mention as to when the Appellant compelled him to render bonded labour   or   any   such   forceful   labour.   The   witness   makes   general allegations   and   uses   the   expression   ‘they’,   which   is   an   ominous reference. At one place, the witness also stated that the Appellant beat 8 his   father­in­law,   PW­1,   with   a   stick.   The   other   witnesses   do   not corroborate the same, neither have they levelled any other allegation against him.  15. So   far   as   the   District   Revenue   Officer   examined   as   PW­8   is concerned, he only mentions the raid conducted at the Rice Mill on the basis of a complaint, but does not mention anything about the Appellant.   Even   the   Investigation   Officer   examined   as   PW­13   has nothing to say against the Appellant.  16. The   reasoning   adopted   by   the   High   Court   that   the   Rice   Mill belongs to the Appellant’s father and also that it also bears the name of Appellant by itself cannot be the basis for convicting the Appellant for commission of the offence under Sections 16 and 17 of the Act. The conviction is a  non sequitur  and the name of his Rice Mill certainly cannot be a proof beyond reasonable doubt to convict and sentence him for three years. The High Court was examining an appeal against the   acquittal.   The   principles   governing   consideration   in   cases   of appeals   against   acquittals   is   well   entrenched   in   our   criminal 4 jurisprudence .  17. For the reason stated above, we are of the opinion that the High Court is not justified in reversing the judgment of acquittal of the 4   Sheo Swarup v. King Emperor,   AIR 1934 PC 227;   Anwar Ali and Anr. vs. State of Himachal Pradesh  (2020) 10 SCC 166;  Dhanapal vs. State by Public Prosecutor, Madras , (2009) 10 SCC 401; Chandrappa and Ors. vs. State of Karnataka,  (2007) 4 SCC 415 . 9 Appellant and convicting and sentencing him under Sections 16 and 17 of the Act. 18. We   have   no   doubt   concluded   that   there   is   no   evidence   to establish the culpability of the Appellant so as to find him guilty.  But regarding the incident having occurred in the factory owned by the deceased Accused No. 1, there is certain evidence to show that the incident   has   in   fact   occurred.   The   evidence   of   PW­7   and   PW­8 indicates that the labourers concerned were working in the factory. Unfortunately, Accused No. 1 father of the Appellant is no more, to that extent the offence alleged against him has abated and therefore the   finding   recorded   about   his   culpability   cannot   be   examined. Though culpability of this Appellant in the offence alleged has not been established and he cannot be held guilty in a criminal proceeding merely   for   being   the   son   of   the   deceased   Accused   No.1,   there   is however   another   dimension   to   this   matter   in   this   peculiar circumstance. 19. The allegation is that the labourers concerned were employed in the Rice Mill and the liability of fine under Sections 16 and 17 of the Act must be attached to the estate (the Rice Mill).  Notwithstanding the Appellant not being culpable, he being the son of Accused No. 1, has succeeded   to   the   business.   Hence,   he   can   be   burdened   with   the 10 financial liability even though the concept of vicarious liability does not   arise   in   criminal   prosecution   and   even   if   it   be   dehors   the requirement   of   Section   357   of   Cr.P.C.   Accused   No.   1   though   not available at this juncture, had in the course of the trial taken the defence that there was no restraint on the workers, moving out to the market etc. so as to contend that they were not bonded labourers. Therefore, what becomes evident according to deceased Accused No. 1 is that the said workers had worked in the factory but not as bonded labourers. However, neither has Accused No. 1 placed any material to show that  the  notified  wages  were  paid  nor   has   he  disproved the existence of the bonded debt of Rs. 3000/­. 20. Further,   the   enactment   under   which   the   proceedings   were initiated being a social welfare legislation and in view of the peculiar facts and to meet the ends of justice, we deem it appropriate not to interfere with the direction given to the Appellant by the High Court to pay a compensation of Rs. 50,000/­ to each of the workmen.   This direction shall remain payable notwithstanding the acquittal of the Appellant for the conviction under Sections 16 and 17 of the Act. 21. For the reasons stated above: ­ (a)  Criminal Appeals arising out of SLP (Crl.) Nos. 8683­8684 of 2019 are hereby allowed and the judgment and order of the High 11 Court of Judicature at Madras in Crl. Appeal No. 335 of 2013 dated   22.08.2019   and   27.08.2019   are   hereby   set   aside.   The Appellant is acquitted of all the charges, bail bonds if any stand discharged,  (b)  We direct the Appellant to pay an amount of Rs. 50,000/­ to each of the workmen within a period of three months from today. (c) Parties shall bear their own costs. ……………………………….J.                                                             [A.S. BOPANNA] ……………………………….J. [PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA] NEW DELHI; SEPTEMBER 19, 2022 12 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NO(S). 2022 (ARISING OUT OF SLP(CRL.) NOS. 8683-8684 OF 2019 SELVAKUMAR Appellant(s) VERSUS MANJULA & ANR. Respondent(s) JUDGMENT After pronouncement of the judgment, the learned counsel for the appellant-accused submits that the amount of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand Only) , which was directed to be paid to each of the workmen has already been deposited before the Trial Court. In that view, we take note that the said deposit amounts to compliance of the direction at Para-21 (b) issued in pronounced judgment, directing to deposit. Since, the appeal has now been disposed of by this Court, the Trial Court shall take steps to disburse the amount to the concerned workmen on proper identification. ...................J. (A.S. BOPANNA) ...................J. (PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA) New Delhi th 19 September, 2022 13 ITEM NO.1501 COURT NO.16 SECTION II-C (FOR JUDGMENT) S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Petition(s) for Special Leave To Appeal (Crl.)No.(s).8683-8684/2019 (Arising out of impugned final judgments and orders dated 22.08.2019 and 27-08-2019 in CRLA No.335/2013 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Madras. SELVAKUMAR Appellant(s) VERSUS MANJULA & ANR. Respondent(s) Date : 19-09-2022 These appeals were called on for pronouncement of judgment today For Appellant(s) Mr. M.N. Rao, Sr. Adv. Ms. Promila Thananjayan, Adv. Ms. Jaswanthi Anbuselvan, Adv. Ms. Aaina Verma, Adv. Mr. S. Thananjayan, AOR For Respondent(s) Mr. David Sundar Singh, Adv. Shri. Gaichangpou Gangmei, AOR Dr. Joseph Aristotle S., AOR Mr. Nupur Sharma, Adv. Mr. Shobhit Dwivedi, Adv. Mr. Sanjeev Kumar Mahara, Adv. Hon’ble Mr. Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha pronounced the non-reportable judgment of the Bench comprising Hon’ble Mr. Justice A.S. Bopanna and His Lordship. Leave granted. The Appeals are allowed and the judgment and order of the High Court of Judicature at Madras in Crl. Appeal No. 335 of 2013 dated 22.08.2019 and 27.08.2019 are hereby set aside. The Appellant is acquitted of all the charges, bail bonds if any stand discharged and the Appellant is directed to pay an amount of Rs. 50,000/- to 14 each of the workmen within a period of three months from today in terms of the signed non-reportable judgment. After pronouncement of the judgment, the learned counsel for the appellant-accused submits that the amount of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand Only) , which was directed to be paid to each of the workmen has already been deposited before the Trial Court. In that view, we take note that the said deposit amounts to compliance of the direction at Para-21 (b) issued in pronounced judgment, directing to deposit. Since, the appeal has now been disposed of by this Court, the Trial Court shall take steps to disburse the amount to the concerned workmen on proper identification. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of. (NISHA KHULBEY) (DIPTI KHURANA) SENIOR PERSONAL ASSISTANT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR (signed non-reportable judgment and the signed order are placed on the file)