Madhya Pradesh High Court
Dinesh Singh Parihar vs Principal Secretary State Of M.P. And 3 ... on 18 June, 2014
* 1 *
WP No. 896/2014
18.6.2014
Shri Rahul Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Shri C.S. Ujjainiya, learned P.L. for the respondents/State.
The petitioner before this Court has filed this present petition being aggrieved by an order dated 11.11.13 by which the petitioner has been declined an appointment to the post of Constable, General Duty in the services of Home Department (Police).
In the present case, the petitioner was subjected to prosecution in respect of offences under Section 324/34 IPC read with section 3(1)(10) of The Scheduled Caste & Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 registered at Crime No.44/2012 and he has been acquitted vide acquittal order dated 3.8.10. He was selected for the post of Constable, General Duty in the year 2013, however an order has been passed declaring him to be unfit for appointment solely on the ground that a criminal case was registered against him, in which he has been acquitted by giving the benefit of doubt. The contention of the petitioner is that he is entitled for appointment as he has been acquitted by the trial Court, irrespective of the fact whether it is on technical ground or whether it is on account of giving the benefit of doubt.
On the other hand a detailed and exhaustive reply has been filed in the matter and it has been stated that the petitioner * 2 * has not been honourably acquitted by the Trial Court and as the acquittal is not an honourable acquittal and as he has to be appointed as a member of police force, the question of appointing the petitioner does not arise. The respondents have also stated that they have rightly passed the impugned order dated 11.11.13 and the writ petition deserves to be dismissed.
Heard the learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the record.
In the present case, the petitioner has never at any point of time suppressed the factum of criminal case, which was registered at Crime No.44/2012 and he has been honourably acquitted. A similar controversy came up before this Court and this Court in the case of Rakesh Sharma Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh & 5 Ors. (WP No.9913/2012) and in the aforesaid case this Court has held as under :-
"The petitioner before this Court has filed this present writ petition for issuance of an appropriate writ, order or direction directing the respondents to appoint the petitioner on the post of Constable General Duty. Petitioner is also aggrieved by order dt. 13/7/12 by which the Inspector General of Police has rejected the claim of the petitioner.
In the present case, the petitioner has participated in the process of selection for the post of Constable in the year 2012 and has also submitted a police verification form stating categorically therein that he has been acquitted in S.T.No. 196/2007 on 14/2/2008. The petitioner by virtue of his merit was selected for the post of Constable, however, the appointing Authority as well as the Inspector General of Police have rejected the petitioner's claim for appointment even though he is more meritorious and persons who are less meritorious have been appointed to the post of Constable General Duty. The only reason assigned in the return is that the petitioner as he has been acquitted by giving benefit of doubt in respect of Crime No. 126/2006, cannot be appointed to the post of * 3 * Constable General Duty.
Learned counsel for the respondents - State has drawn attention of this Court towards paragraphs 53 of the M.P. Police Regulations and his contention is that a person who is seeking appointment on the post of a Constable should bear a good moral character and therefore, as the petitioner was prosecuted for an offence u/S. 302, 147, 148 and 149 of the Indian Penal Code, he does not bear good moral character, hence the order passed by the Inspector General of Police does not warrant any interference.
This Court is of the considered opinion that once the petitioner has been acquitted, the entire crime registered against him stands wiped out. An acquittal is an acquittal whether it is a "clean acquittal", whether it is "honourable acquittal" or "acquittal based on giving benefit of doubt". The "clean acquittal", the "honourable acquittal" or "acquittal based on giving benefit of doubt" has not been distinguished in the Code of Criminal Procedure. This court in the case of Smt Panna Mehta Vs. State of M.P. reported in 2002(4) M.P.H.T. 226 in paragraph 11 and 12 held as under :-
"11. In the Code of Criminal Procedure, Indian Penal Code, Evidence Act or any other enactment, the word, "acquittal" has not been defined. As per the Law Lexicon, the Encyclopaedic Law Dictionary (Edn. 1992) "Acquittal" defined, Act X of 1882, Section 403, "the word acquittal is verbum equivocum , and may in ordinary language be used to express either the verdict of a jury, or the formal judgment of the Court, that the prisoner is not guilty". (Per Tindal, C.J., Burgess Vs. Boetefeur, 13 LJMC 126 : 135 ER 193). It is generally said that a party is acquitted by the jury, but in fact, the acquittal is by the judgment of the court (ibid). According to the Oxford Dictionary, "acquittal" means that a person is not guilty oif a crime, with which he has been charged. So in a criminal jurisprudence there is no difference between "clean acquittal", "honourable acquittal" or "acquittal based on giving benefit of doubt". When the accused is acquitted by giving benefit of doubt means the prosecution was not able to prove its case beyond doubt.
12. As ruled by the SUPREME court in case of Manni Lal Vs. Parmai Lal (AIR 1971 SC 330) and Dilip KUmar Sharma and others Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh (AIR 1976 SC 133), order of acquittal means a person concerned, has not committed the offence for which he was charged and tried. Criminal Courts are recording acquittal when the prosecution fails to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubt and benefit of doubt given to the accused does not mean that the accused was involved in the case but the same could not be proved by the prosecution. In Criminal Law, words "beyond reasonable doubt" cannot be termed as stigma or proof of any * 4 * criminal charge against acquitted accused. Therefore, petition for expunging the same is not maintainable under Section 482, Cr.PC and the same is misconceived."
Keeping in view the aforesaid judgment, as the prosecution was not able to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt, it cannot be termed as stigma or proof of any criminal charge against the acquitted person.
Resultantly, there is no other material available against the petitioner and as there was no suppression on the part of the petitioner, the criminal case which is no longer in existence and in which the petitioner has been acquitted will not come in way of the petitioner in the matter of appointment.
Resultantly, in the light of the judgment delivered in the case of Smt. Panna Mehta (supra) as the petitioner has been acquitted, he is certainly entitled for appointment for the post of Constable General Duty.
The Writ Petition is allowed with the following directions :
(1) Respondent Superintendent of Police, Dewas is directed to issue an appointment order in respect of the petitioner forthwith on the post of Constable General Duty by virtue of his placement in the merit list and the criminal case in which the petitioner has been acquitted will not come in way of the petitioner. (2) The petitioner shall be entitled for the seniority from the date other persons have been appointed on the basis of same examination and shall be entitled for all consequential benefits except backwages.
(3) The exercise of appointing the petitioner and granting all consequential benefits be concluded within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order."
It is pertinent to note that the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court delivered in the case of Commissioner of Police, New Delhi Vs. Mehar Singh in Civil Appeal No.4842/2013 decided on 2.7.2013 relied upon by the learned counsel for the respondents was relating to appointment under the Delhi Police Establishment and there was a Standing Order i.e. Standing Order 398, which was applicable in the aforesaid case, whereas in the present case there is no such Standing * 5 * Order in existence, on the contrary the Madhya Pradesh Manual and Regulations under the regulation-54, even provides for appointment of a person, who has been convicted with the approval of Inspector General of Police on the post of Constable and therefore, in light of the aforesaid Regulations and also in light of the fact that there is no such Standing Order in existence in the present case, which has been considered by the Apex Court in the aforesaid case, the writ petition deserves to be allowed and is accordingly allowed.
Resultantly, the impugned order dated 11.11.13 is hereby quashed. The respondents are directed to take appropriate steps for issuance of appropriate orders for appointment of the petitioner within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order keeping in view his placement in the merit list. The petitioner shall not be entitled for back wages, however he shall be entitled for seniority and all other consequential benefits.
With the aforesaid, the writ petition is allowed. No order as to costs.
(S. C. Sharma) Judge skm