1989 P Cr (PLP)

In this case, which falls under section 491, Cr.P.C. all the adult male and female detenus have vocally, in open Court, alleged that the respondent No.1 has subjected them to forced labour, denied them the basic human facilities and dealt with them, generally, in a manner which is highly questionable. The respondent No.1 and his learned counsel have stated that the adult alleged detenus owe money to him aggregating Rs.2,00,000 (Rupees two lacs) and that they are working with him and, in the process, are also discharging their liabilities. Mr. Muhammad Yousif Leghari has, further pointed out that some 18 summons have been got issued and served by the respondent No.1 against the detenus under section 107, Cr.P.C. on 18‑3‑1989 for appearance on 22‑3‑1989 before the Mukhtiarkar and F.C.M. Mirpurkhas, and that this is occasioned on account of the respondent No.1 being bent upon harassing the detenus and to cause blatant contempt in relation to the proceedings pending in this Court. Such summons have been taken on record. On pointation that no one can be forced to work for another even though there be a lawful contract of service applicable to him or her and, in any case, contract of a minor was, ab initio, void, while this case was proceeding the learned counsel for the respondent No.1 and such respondent himself stated that the latter would have no objection if the detenus were set at liberty he, the respondent No.1, simultaneously, is permitted to claim his dues from such o: them, as may be liable to him, in accordance with law and on pursuing due process of law. On the other hand, the learned counsel and the respondent No.1 further suggest that in so far as the proceedings under section 107, Cr.P.C. are concerned the respondent No.1 would withdraw such proceedings and refrain from pursuing the same any further. Mr. Muhammad Yousif Leghari, however, states that even if such course is permitted similar victimizations elsewhere in the country would go on undeterred and that Human and Fundamental Rights, which are what is involved here, shall continue to be trampled under those who for self‑same reasons are disposed to destroying the very basis of human existence. It seems to me that this is not a case in which any lenient view of the situation can be taken. However, at the same time, no more need be done than that which is required by law and that which is in consonance with justice and fair-play. I have seen small children of tender ages, who have before a packed Court, said that they have been made to partake in brick‑making activities against their wills and all the cherished human values. These are matters which require to be dealt with in all seriousness anal cannot be trifled with. As such there being no justification, reason or cause for the detenus to be compelled to work with the respondent No.1, I have no hesitation whatsoever in setting them free which order I, accordingly, pass and, as a consequence, they shall be set at liberty, forthwith. As regards the claims, if any, that the respondent No.1 may have against the detenus it would be for him to pursue such lawful remedy as may be available to him. Regarding the proceedings under section 107, Cr.P.C. the respondent No.1 would be free to withdraw such proceedings but at the same time, I would like to issue notice to the Mukhtiarkar and F.C.M. Mirpurkhas, the concerned Magistrate, to be present in this Court to explain on 30‑3‑1989 as to under what circumstances he issued the process, which is complained of here and further whether he was made aware of the pendency of these proceedings at the time of ordering such process‑. For such purposes and for further proceedings the R and P of the proceedings under section 107, Cr.P.C. would be called from him, immediately, by the Additional Registrar of this Court. Now, the last question in this case which, apparently, is the most serious of all is the matter of prosecution of the respondent No.1 for what is alleged against him by the detenus, present in Court. As I have already recorded all of them, men, women and even children, are at one in saying that they have been subjected to forced labour which, having been treated as unlawful compulsory labour under section 347, P.P.C., is punishable and, likewise, all these unfortunate people have complained that they have been subjected to wrongful restraint within the purview of section 343, P.P.C. Besides, and above all, is the question of small children of tender ages having allegedly, been subjected to inhuman treatment. Inspector Bhulley Shah, who is present in Court, as indicated above, is directed to, forthwith take steps for registration of relevant cases against the respondent No.1, or, for the matter of that, against any other person or persons found to be in league or as accessories with such respondent. No delay in this context and no inaction, as a consequence, would be brooked and, as to these further proceedings, the said Inspector would be available on the next date to report all that, in the meantime, may have come to transpire. For such purposes the learned counsel for the petitioner would also cooperate with the police functionaries. This order, however, would not dispose of the controversy, as cognate matters, still remain to be dealt with consideration whereof would be taken in hand on the abovesaid date on which this case would be laid up in Court. The detenus, it is further ordered, would be at liberty to collect their belongings from the Brick Bhatta in dispute and, for such purpose, neither the respondent No.1 nor any of his representatives would interfere with them and the police authorities will ensure that the detenus are not denied any of their belongings under any circumstances. To come up again, as aforesaid, on 30‑3‑1989. A copy of this order should also be sent with the notice, as directed to be issued to Mukhtiarkar and F.C.M. Mirpurkhas. M.Y.H./S‑452/K???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Detenus released.