Judgment :- The short facts of the prosecution case are as follows:- 1. The revision petitioner / accused namely, Gopal Chettiar had engaged minors as bonded labourers after paying a sum of Rs.3,000/- to Venkatesan S/o Muniappan, Rs.2,500/- to Venkatesan S/o Mallan and Rs.1,000/- to Muthu S/o Muniappan on 13.11.2003. On 13.11.2003, the Sub Collector, Hosur, had enquired him about the bonded labourers. The said case was registered by the Inspector of Police, Royakottai Police Station in Crime No.31 of 2003 for offence under Section 374 and Bonded Labourer (Abolition) Act, 1976 for offence under Sections 16, 17 and 18. The said case was proceeded with before the Judicial Magistrate, Thenkanikottai as C.C.No.66 of 2006. On the side of the prosecution, no witness has been examined and no documents were marked and on the side of the defence, no documents were marked. 2. One Rajasekaran had given 161 statement stating that he is running a provision store at Rayakottai Bazaar and the accused is a neighbor. He is preparing snacks and sweets at home and distributed them to the various shops. The bonded labourers namely, Venkatesh S/o Muniyan aged about 20 years, Venkatesh S/o Mallan aged about 20 years, Muthu S/o Muniappan aged about 21 years worked under him. All the three bonded labourers belong to the irular community which comes under the scheduled tribe category. He had further stated that the said Gopal Chettiar used to pay Rs.1,000/-, Rs.2,000/- to whoever comes to work for preparing snacks and he paid a sum of Rs.170/- to 270/- as weekly payment to such labourers. Two labourers viz., Chinnarajan and Chettu escaped from his custody to Karnataka State. He further stated that the said Gopal Chettiar never gave any leave to the labourers. On 13.11.2003, the Sub Collector, Housr came to the accused shop and released all three labourers. 3. Similarly, the below mentioned persons namely, Varadaraj, Ramamurthy, Natarajan, Selvaraj, Lalvana, Anbarasu, Janakiraman and the three victims had given their statements which are corroborative with the statements of Rajasekar. 4. The charge sheet was read over to the accused and his reply was asked for. He has admitted that he was guilty. 3. Similarly, the below mentioned persons namely, Varadaraj, Ramamurthy, Natarajan, Selvaraj, Lalvana, Anbarasu, Janakiraman and the three victims had given their statements which are corroborative with the statements of Rajasekar. 4. The charge sheet was read over to the accused and his reply was asked for. He has admitted that he was guilty. Therefore, the learned Magistrate had imposed a (1) sentence of rigorous imprisonment for six months under Section 374 of I.P.C. (2) 12 months rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs.300/-under Section 16 of 1976 of Bonded Labour (Abolition) Act, (3) 12 months rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs.300/- were imposed on the accused under Section 17 of 1976 of Bonded Labour (Abolition) Act. 5. Against the said judgment and conviction, the accused had filed an appeal in C.A.No.119 of 2007 on the file of Additional District and Sessions Judge, Krishnagiri. The learned Judge, after hearing the arguments of the learned counsels on both sides and perusing the judgment of the trial Court, held that during the time of arguments, the learned counsel for the accused had produced sufficient documentary evidence to establish that during the time of framing of charges, the accused was affected by deafness and dumbness and unable to hear the material facts of the charges, for which, the learned appellate Judge had granted time from 23.09.2008 to 10.02.2009. Even though sufficient time was given to the learned counsel for the appellant, he had neither produced any documentary nor any oral evidence to prove that the accused was affected by deafness and dumbness. Therefore, the learned judge declined to interfere with the findings of the trial Court and dismissed the appeal. 6. Aggrieved by the said dismissal of the appeal, the above revision has been filed. 7. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner argued that originally the case was registered under Sections 16, 17 and 18 of Bonded Labour (Abolition) Act, 1976. Subsequently, the case was modified under Section 374 of I.P.C. and 16, 17 and 18 of Bonded Labour (Abolition) Act, 1976. The learned counsel further contended that on the date of the order i.e., 25.10.2007, there was boycott of the Court. Therefore, no counsel has come forward to represent on behalf of the petitioner. In the relevant time, the accused was suffering from deafness and dumbness. The learned counsel further contended that on the date of the order i.e., 25.10.2007, there was boycott of the Court. Therefore, no counsel has come forward to represent on behalf of the petitioner. In the relevant time, the accused was suffering from deafness and dumbness. So without hearing or understanding, the petitioner has informed the Court "Yes", in vernacular language "Mkh';f Iah". The learned counsel further submitted that the case was registered under Section 374 of I.P.C. The language of Section is as follows:- "Whoever unlawfully compels any person to labour against the will of that person, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to one year or with fine or with both." In the instant case, no unlawful compulsory labour had been involved since the labourers used to go out to distribute the snacks to other shops. Therefore, the so called "bonded labourers" moved around freelyfrom the shop of the revision petitioner. As per 161 statement of one Rajasekar, two employees had already left from the shop viz., Chinna Raju and Chettu for which the revision petitioner had not taken any steps to secure the erstwhile employees. The statement clearly proves that the revision petitioner is an innocent person. The learned counsel further submitted that the revision petitioner's age was 65 years in the relevant period and the so called "bonded labourerers" ages were 24, 21 and 20 years. Comparing the ages and physical strength of both the parties, compulsory labour cannot be carried out. 8. The learned counsel further submits that on the side of the prosecution, no one had come forward to establish the case and no documentary evidence had been furnished. The revision petitioner is an aged person and illiterate person, who is appearing for the first time in the Court without the support of the counsel and he got nervous and without knowing the facts had admitted his guilt. He was overwhelmed with the atmosphere prevalent in the Court. Without knowing the situation and mentality of the revision petitioner, the learned trial judge had imposed a punishment. 9. The learned counsel for the State would submit that the Sub Collector of Hosur, had released the bonded labourer from the custody of the revision petitioner. He was overwhelmed with the atmosphere prevalent in the Court. Without knowing the situation and mentality of the revision petitioner, the learned trial judge had imposed a punishment. 9. The learned counsel for the State would submit that the Sub Collector of Hosur, had released the bonded labourer from the custody of the revision petitioner. All the bonded labourers belong to irular community and they are coming from backward area and they are socially and economically and also educationally backward. Taking advantage of their illiteracy, the revision petitioner had engaged the bonded labourers. The same was confirmed from the 161 statement of 11 persons. On the basis of these statements, charge sheet was filed. At the time of questioning, the revision petitioner had categorically admitted that he was guilty. Therefore, the case was not tried on merits. As such, the prosecution did not have to produce the documentary and oral evidence. 10. Per contra, the learned counsel for the revision petitioner submitted that the revision petitioner's age was 76 years and his physical condition has deteriorated and he is bedridden and undergoing medical treatment. His physical condition does not permit him to undergo punishment of imprisonment. Already the fine amount has been paid by the revision petitioner, on 25.10.2007. 11. On considering the prosecution case and on submission made by the learned counsels on either side and on scrutinizing the judgment and conviction passed in C.A.No.119 of 2007, on the file of Additional District and Sessions Judge, Krishnagiri, dated 17.02.2009, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the judgment and conviction of the first appellate Court and confirms the trial Court's judgment. However, considering the age of the revision petitioner and his health condition, this Court waives (a) the sentence of imprisonment imposed for six months under Section 374 of I.P.C., (b) the sentence of rigorous imprisonment imposed under Section 16 of 1976 for a period of 12 months, (c) the sentence of rigorous imprisonment imposed under Section 17 of 1976 for a period of 12 months and (d) the sentence of rigorous imprisonment imposed under Section 18 of 1976 of Bonded Labour (Abolition) Act, but, however the fine amount imposed on the accused is confirmed. Hence, the accused is set free. 12. Resultantly, the above revision is disposed of with the above observations. Hence, the accused is set free. 12. Resultantly, the above revision is disposed of with the above observations. Consequently, the conviction and sentence passed in C.A.No.119 of 2007, on the file of Additional District and Sessions Judge, Krishnagiri, dated 17.02.2009, confirming the conviction and sentence passed in C.C.No.66 of 2006, on the file of District Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate, Thenkanikottai, dated 25.10.2007 is modified. Accordingly ordered.