Gujarat High Court
Premkumar Ratanlal Dangar vs State Of Gujarat on 21 April, 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.RA/296/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 21/04/2026
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION (AGAINST ORDER PASSED BY
SUBORDINATE COURT) NO. 296 of 2020
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HASMUKH D. SUTHAR
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
√
==========================================================
PREMKUMAR RATANLAL DANGAR
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR JEET Y RAJYAGURU(8039) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MR RC KAKKAD(389) for the Respondent(s) No. 2,3,4,5
MR ROHAN RAVAL, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HASMUKH D. SUTHAR
Date : 21/04/2026
JUDGMENT
RULE. Learned APP and learned advocate Mr. R.C. Kakkad waive
service of notice of Rule for and on behalf of respective respondents.
With the consent of learned advocate appearing for the respective
parties, present application is taken up for final hearing.
[1.0] By way of present revision application under Section 397 read
with Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short
“CrPC“), the applicant has prayed for quashing and setting aside of the
impugned order dated 03.10.2019 passed by the learned 5 th (Ad-hoc)
Additional District & Special Judge, Gir Somnath at Veraval in Criminal
Inquiry Case No.1/2019, whereby the learned Judge has dismissed the
private complaint filed by the applicant against respondent Nos.2 to 5
Page 1 of 11
Uploaded by MR. AJAY C MENON(HC00939) on Wed Apr 22 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Apr 23 03:04:55 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.RA/296/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 21/04/2026
undefined
– accused for the offences punishable under Sections 374, 420, 166
and 114 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short “IPC“) as well as
Sections 3(1)(h), 3(2)(vii) and 4 of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled
Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act (for short “Atrocity Act”).
[2.0] The brief facts of the case are as follows:
[2.1] It is the case of the applicant that the applicant is the President
of Akhil Bhartiya Mazdoor Sangh (for short hereinafter referred to as
“Union”), a union registered under applicable laws and the applicant is
representing the cause of members of the said Union who essentially
belong to Schedule Cast and are working under respondent Nos.2 to
5. The SC members of applicant Union are working under respondent
Nos.2 to 5 in Class-IV cadre since about 20 to 25 years uninterruptedly
and the work done by SC members of Union is permanent and
perennial in nature. However, the respondent Nos.2 to 5 are neither
giving them any benefits of long services nor paying the minimum
wages as per the Minimum Wages Act. It is thus the case of the
applicant that the respondent Nos.2 to 5 are exploiting them since last
20 to 25 years. It is further the case that denying the minimum wages
to an employee is as good as forced labour work as contemplated
under Article 23 of the Constitution of India.
[2.2] It is also the case that respondent Nos.2 to 5 unlawfully
compelled the SC members of Union to work compulsorily against
their will, which amounts to an offence punishable under Section 374
of IPC. It is also alleged that the respondent Nos.2 to 5 dishonestly
induced the SC members of Union to regularize their services, pay
adequate salary and other benefits of a regular employee however,
even though the SC/ST members of Union are working under
Page 2 of 11
Uploaded by MR. AJAY C MENON(HC00939) on Wed Apr 22 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Apr 23 03:04:55 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.RA/296/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 21/04/2026
undefined
respondent Nos.2 to 5 for about 20-25 years, the respondent Nos.2 to
5 have fraudulently neither given any benefits to their services nor
paid the wages as per the Minimum Wages Act and on the contrary
have exploited them for all these years and thus respondent Nos.2 to
5 have deceived/cheated the SC members of Union and thus have
committed the offence punishable under Section 420 of the IPC. It is
further alleged that respondent Nos.2 to 5 are public servants, who
have knowingly disobeyed the provisions of Minimum Wages Act,
Industrial Disputes Act and practiced unfair labour on the SC/ST
members of Union and thereby have caused injury to the SC/ST
members of Union which act amounts to commission of offence
punishable under Sections 166 and 114 of the IPC.
[2.3] It is further alleged that respondent Nos.2 to 5 are not the
members of Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe though they made
the SC/ST members of Union to do forced labour and begging work,
other than compulsory service, which act on the part of respondent
Nos.2 to 5 amounts to an offence under Section 3(1)(h) of the Atrocity
Act. It is further alleged that respondent Nos.2 to 5 being Chief
Officer, President, Member of Talala Nagar Palika and Sanitary
Supervisor are public servants and yet, they have neglected their
duties required to be performed by them under the law, which
amounts to an offence under Section 4 of the Atrocity Act.
[2.4] Therefore, the applicant – Union on 04.01 2019, approached the
respondent No.6 Police Station requesting to register an FIR against
respondent Nos.2 to 5 for the offences punishable under Sections
374, 420, 166 and 114 of the IPC as well as Sections 3(1)(h) and 4 of
the Atrocity Act. However, the police did not register the FIR.
Therefore, on 18.1.2019, the applicant was constrained to file private
Page 3 of 11
Uploaded by MR. AJAY C MENON(HC00939) on Wed Apr 22 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Apr 23 03:04:55 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.RA/296/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 21/04/2026
undefined
complaint against respondent Nos.2 to 5 before the learned
Additional Chief JMFC, Talala and since the offences are both under
IPC and Atrocities Act, the case was transferred to the Court of
learned 5th (Ad-hoc) Additional District & Special Judge, Gir Somnath at
Veraval and the case was registered as Criminal Inquiry Case
No.1/2019.
[2.5] Thereafter, on 16.8.2019, the Deputy Police Officer, SC/ST Cell,
Gir Somnath submitted a report that no offence is made out. Relying
on the report dated 16.08.2019, the learned Special Judge dismissed
the Criminal Inquiry Case No.1/2019. Hence, present petition is filed.
[3.0] Heard learned advocate Mr. Jeet Rajyaguru for the applicant,
learned APP for respondent No.1 – State of Gujarat and learned
advocate Mr. R.C. Kakkad for the respondent Nos.2 to 5 – accused.
[4.0] Learned advocate Mr. Jeet Rajyaguru appearing for the
applicant has submitted that the impugned order is illegal, arbitrary,
perverse, contrary to the facts and circumstances of the case and
evidence on record and therefore, the private complaint given by the
applicant is required to be allowed and appropriate action deserves to
be taken against respondent Nos. 2 to 5 in accordance with law. He
has further submitted that the learned Special Judge has erred in
holding that no offence either under IPC or under the Atrocity Act is
made out against the respondent Nos.2 to 5. In fact, looking to the
facts and circumstances of the case, the learned Special Judge ought
to have taken the cognizance upon the private complaint filed by the
applicant. He has also submitted that the learned Special Judge has
dismissed the complaint of the applicant essentially on the ground
that looking to the documentary evidence produced on record there is
Page 4 of 11
Uploaded by MR. AJAY C MENON(HC00939) on Wed Apr 22 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Apr 23 03:04:55 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.RA/296/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 21/04/2026
undefined
dispute between employee and employer with regard to wages and
therefore the applicant may file appropriate proceedings before
appropriate forum and the learned Special Judge has completely
ignored the evidence on record which clearly establish commission of
offences alleged against respondent Nos.2 to 5. Further, the learned
Special Judge has erred in not considering the ratio laid down by the
Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Peoples Union for Democratic
Rights & Ors Vs. Union of India & Ors., delivered in Writ Petition
No.8143 of 1981 as it squarely applies to the facts of the case on hand
so far the forced labour and begging work taken by respondent Nos.2
to 5 from the SC/ST members of applicant Union is concerned and
therefore also, the learned Special Judge erred in dismissing the
complaint. Therefore, he has requested to allow the present
application.
[5.0] Learned APP appearing for respondent – State of Gujarat and
learned advocate Mr. R.C. Kakkad appearing for respondent Nos.2 to 5
have vehemently opposed the present application by submitting that
the impugned order is just and proper and no error has been
committed by the learned Special Judge in dismissing the complaint
filed by the applicant. They have requested to dismiss the present
application.
[6.0] Having heard the learned advocates appearing for the
respective parties and perusing the record, it appears that the
applicant – complainant preferred the complaint before the learned
Additional Chief JMFC, Talala in the capacity of Union leader mainly on
the ground that the respondent Nos.2 to 5 are office bearers of Talala
Municipality while respondent No.6 is the Police Sub Inspector, Talala.
The crux of the allegation against the respondents is that respondent
Page 5 of 11
Uploaded by MR. AJAY C MENON(HC00939) on Wed Apr 22 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Apr 23 03:04:55 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.RA/296/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 21/04/2026
undefined
Nos.2 to 5 are office bearers of Talala Municipality and members of SC
community were working as sweeper on daily wage basis with Talala
Municipality, which was paying them wages at the rate of Rs.4688/-
per month which is less than minimum wages as the sweeper
employees of Talala Municipality joined the Union headed by present
applicant, who approached the authority and made a demand on
behalf of the daily wagers to pay atleast minimum wages. At that
time, respondent No.2 being the Chief Officer assured the daily
wagers that their demand would be placed before the Managing
Committee which will take the decision. Keeping grudge of the said
agitation/protest, respondent Nos.3 to 5 went to their respective
wards and administered threat to the daily wagers / sweepers by
stating that they should not join the Union and shall leave the Union
otherwise they will have to face dire consequences and thereafter,
illegally the daily wagers were removed out of work and in this regard,
making false allegations, show-cause notice was issued to which the
employees / daily wagers had also replied and thereby the office
bearers – respondent Nos.2 to 5 have committed the offence by
removing the said employees though fully aware of the fact that the
daily wagers belong to SC community and though they were working
since long in Municipality as daily wagers, they were removed illegally
and thereby they have committed offence under Sections 3(1)(h) and
3(2)(vii) of the Atrocity Act and sections 374, 420, 166 and 114 of the
IPC and also committed breach of Articles 14, 16, 21 and 23 of the
Constitution of India. Therefore, the daily wagers authorised the
Union leader to file complaint on their behalf. Prior to lodging the
complaint, the applicant approached the respondent No.6 – PSI with
all documentary evidences but the PSI denied to register the
complaint because of which the applicant was constrained to file the
private complaint. After receiving the report from the authority,
Page 6 of 11
Uploaded by MR. AJAY C MENON(HC00939) on Wed Apr 22 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Apr 23 03:04:55 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.RA/296/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 21/04/2026
undefined
learned Special Judge come to the conclusion that no any offence
much less offence under Section 3(1)(h) and 3(2)(vii) of the Atrocity
Act is made out.
[6.1] Sections 3(1)(h) and 3(2)(vii) of the Atrocity Act read as under:
“3. Punishments for offences of atrocities.–
(1) Whoever, not being a member of a Scheduled Caste
or a Scheduled Tribe,–
(h) makes a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled
Tribe to do “beggar” or other forms of forced or bonded labour
other than any compulsory service for public purposes imposed by
the Government;
(2) Whoever, not being a member of a Scheduled Caste
or a Scheduled Tribe,–
being a public servant, commits any offence under this section,
shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not
be less than one year but which may extend to the punishment
provided for that offence.”
A bare perusal of the aforesaid provisions clearly reveal that
merely because daily wagers belong to SC or ST community itself does
not make any difference whether the offence under Section 3(1)(h) of
the Atrocity Act is made out or not. In absence of any evidence to
show that the daily wagers were forced or bonded labour other than
any compulsory services as they were engaged as sweeper for public
purpose as the Municipality is working as a public institution and as a
sweeper.
[6.2] Respondents have never compelled the daily wagers for forced
labour or treated them as bonded labour and no such allegation is also
levelled prior to filing of impugned complaint by the applicant. Merely
they joined the Union is not a ground to hold that they were bonded
Page 7 of 11
Uploaded by MR. AJAY C MENON(HC00939) on Wed Apr 22 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Apr 23 03:04:55 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.RA/296/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 21/04/2026
undefined
labour and were not paid any minimum wages or sufficient wage in
absence of any allegation of exploitation or otherwise abuse or insult
of caste merely because they belong to SC community, no offence is
made out under Section 3(1)(h) of the Atrocity Act and question does
not arise to invoke section 3(2)(vii) of the Atrocity Act against
respondent Nos.2 to 5 being public servants and therefore, the
learned Special Judge has not committed any error in dismissing the
complaint in absence of any such material or intention of respondent
authority or office bearers.
[6.3] Further, so far as section 4 of the Atrocity Act is concerned, no
any offence is made out under the said section and no negligence
found on the part of respondent No.6 – PSI as he was performing his
duty and therefore, no offence is made out against respondent No.6
and without any permission of competent authority under Section 161
of the Gujarat Police Act, question does not arise to initiate any
proceeding. Upto that extent, the learned Special Judge has not
committed any error.
[6.4] Now, so far as offence under Section 374 of the IPC is
concerned, no any evidence is brought on record, which shows that
respondent No.5 has committed any offence and unlawfully
compelled the daily wagers to engage in labour work against their will.
Herein, daily wagers had voluntarily joined and performed their duty
with Municipality and no any unlawful act or compulsion has been
imposed on the part of respondent No.5 and hence, no offence under
Section 374 of the IPC is made out in absence of any such allegation or
evidence.
[6.5] So far as offence under Section 420 of the IPC is concerned,
there is not an iota of evidence qua dishonesty or intention of
Page 8 of 11
Uploaded by MR. AJAY C MENON(HC00939) on Wed Apr 22 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Apr 23 03:04:55 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.RA/296/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 21/04/2026
undefined
cheating since inception and hence, no any offence under Section 420
of the IPC is made out. So far as section 166 of the IPC is concerned,
there is not an iota of evidence which shows that public servant has
disobeyed law with intent to cause any injury to any person. Hence, no
any offence under Section 166 of the IPC is also made out in absence
of any mens rea or any such evidence. Hence, learned Special Judge
has not committed any error in dismissing the complaint filed by the
applicant.
[7.0] Even if for the sake of argument it is accepted that the
respondents being statutory body or otherwise failed to comply with
the mandatory provisions and had not paid the daily wagers of Talala
Municipality as per the government notification then also, it would fall
under the breach of Minimum Wages Act, 1948 and under the said Act,
in case of default on the part of any authority, a separate mechanism
is provided and being a Union leader, the applicant might be aware of
the provisions under the Minimum Wages Act and other labour
legislation and such authority is given to appropriate government by
way of notification and Labour Commissioner has a right to inquire
into such type of offences and penalities for certain offences are
provided and if we accept for the sake of argument that the said
allegation of not paying the minimum wages as per the Government
Notification then said offence falls under Section 22(a) of the
Minimum Wages Act, 1948 but question does not arise to file any
proceeding under the IPC or the Atrocity Act.
[7.1] Even, as per the provision under Section 22(b) of the Minimum
Wages Act, for taking the cognizance, a written complaint by the
competent authority or appropriate government authorized officer is
must. Herein, the complainant having no such authority or no such
Page 9 of 11
Uploaded by MR. AJAY C MENON(HC00939) on Wed Apr 22 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Apr 23 03:04:55 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.RA/296/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 21/04/2026
undefined
power. Prima facie, it appears that filing of such complaint is nothing
but arm-twisting exercise and without authority complaint is filed
before the wrong forum. Even if for the sake of argument it is
accepted that there is any breach of fundamental rights enshrined
under the Constitution of India then also, the remedy is available
under the writ jurisdiction but question does not arise to file any
proceeding that too by giving cloak of criminality to civil dispute.
Hence, considering peculiar facts of the case, this Court is of
considered view that the learned Special Judge has not committed
any error and considering the scope of revisional jurisdiction, no case
for interference is made out.
[8.0] The revisional jurisdiction can be exercised where there is a
palpable error or non-compliance with the provision of law and where
decision is completely erroneous and where the judicial discretion is
exercised arbitrarily. Herein, if we examine the reasons assigned by
the learned Special Judge, it appears that learned Special Judge has
already appreciated the facts and finding of fact not to be upset
unless it is found perverse and finding of fact not to be substituted
keeping in mind the ratio of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of
Amit Kapoor vs. Ramesh Chander & Anr. reported in (2012)9 SCC
460 as no perversity is found in the reasons assigned by the learned
Special Judge and hence also, no interference at the hands of this
Court in exercise of revisional jurisdiction is required.
[8.1] It would be appropriate to refer to the decision of the Hon’ble
Supreme Court in the case of Malkeet Singh Gill vs. State of
Chhatisgarh reported in (2022)8 SCC 204 wherein the Hon’ble
Supreme Court held that section 397/401 CrPC vests jurisdiction for
the purpose of satisfying itself or himself as to the correctness,
Page 10 of 11
Uploaded by MR. AJAY C MENON(HC00939) on Wed Apr 22 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Apr 23 03:04:55 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.RA/296/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 21/04/2026
undefined
legality or propriety of any finding, sentence or order, recorded or
passed, and as to the regularity of any proceedings of such inferior
court. The object of the provision is to set right a patent defect or an
error of jurisdiction of law. There has to be well-founded error which is
to be determined on the merits of individual case. It is also well
settled that while considering the same, the Revisional Court does not
dwell at length upon the facts and evidence of the case to reverse
those findings. It is a settled legal proposition that if the Court below
has recorded the finding of fact, the question of re-appreciation of
evidence by this Court in exercise of revisional jurisdiction does not
arise unless it is found to be totally perverse.
[9.0] In wake of aforesaid conspectus, present revision application
fails and stands dismissed. Rule is hereby discharged.
Sd/-
(HASMUKH D. SUTHAR, J.)
Ajay
Page 11 of 11
Uploaded by MR. AJAY C MENON(HC00939) on Wed Apr 22 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Apr 23 03:04:55 IST 2026
