Madras High Court
A.Kanimozhi vs The State Rep. By on 25 January, 2016
Author: C.T.Selvam
Bench: C.T.Selvam
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED 25.01.2016 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.T.SELVAM Crl.R.C.No.62 of 2016 A.Kanimozhi .. Petitioner Vs The State rep. by Inspector of Police, Morappur Police Station, Morappur, Dharmapuri District. .. Respondent Criminal Revision filed under sections 397 and 401 of Criminal Procedure Code to call for the records in C.C.No.369 of 2013 dated 24.12.2014 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Harur, Dharmapuri District and expunge the remak of acquittal on behalf of doubt and term it as honorary acquittal of the petitioner in C.C.No.369 of 2013 and consequently allow the criminal revision petition. For Petitioner : Mr.M.V.Muralidaran For Respondent : Mr.C.Iyyapparaj, Govt. Advocate (Crl. Side) O R D E R
By way of this revision, the petitioner prays that the judgment of learned Judicial Magistrate, Harur, Dharmapuri District, passed in C.C.No.369 of 2013 on 24.12.2014 may be modified to one of acquittal simplicitor instead of one on benefit of doubt.
2. Petitioner/A8 and seven others faced prosecution in C.C.No.369 of 2013 on the file of learned Judicial Magistrate, Harur, Dharmapuri District for offence under Sections 147, 323 and 324 IPC. Under judgment of learned Judicial Magistrate, Harur, Dharmapuri District, dated 24.12.2014, the accused were acquitted holding that the prosecution had failed to prove its case. The petitioner now moved this revision praying that such acquittal informed to be a honourable one.
3. Heard learned counsel for petitioner and learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) for respondent.
4. This Court finds the decision in E.Kalivarathan Vs. The State rep.by the Sub Inspector of Police, Pudupet Police Station, Cuddalore District [2015 (1) CTC 87] applicable on all fours in the instant case. Paragraph Nos.49 to 52 thereof read thus:
49. Now comes the question as to whether the criminal court can use the expression honourable acquittal while acquitting an accused. This question is no more res integra in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Management of Reserve Bank of India, New Delhi v. Bhopal Singh Panchal, (1994) 1 SCC 541 wherein, the Supreme Court has held as follows:-
The expressions "honourable acquittal", "acquitted of blame", "fully exonerated" are unknown to the Code of Criminal Procedure or the Penal Code, which are coined by judicial pronouncements. It is difficult to define precisely what is meant by the expression "honourably acquitted". When the accused is acquitted after full consideration of prosecution evidence and that the prosecution had miserably failed to prove the charges levelled against the accused, it can possibly be said that the accused was honourably acquitted."
50. Thus, the expression honourable acquittal is relevant to service law jurisprudence or other jurisprudence and not for criminal law jurisprudence. Therefore, the criminal court while acquitting the accused, undoubtedly, cannot employ the term "that the accused is/are honourably acquitted". But at the same time, in all cases where there is no evidence at all against the accused as I have already concluded, the criminal court should simply say "acquitted". The criminal court may say that there is no evidence against the accused. But, the criminal court in such kind of cases, where there is no evidence at all against the accused, shall not employ the expressions "not proved beyond reasonable doubt" or "accused is acquitted by giving benefit of doubt".
51. The Division Bench has held under Question No.2 that a revision would not lie to convert an order of acquittal as an order of honourable acquittal as the term honourable acquittal is unknown to criminal law. Regarding this proposition also there can be no second opinion, for the criminal court, while acquitting an accused, cannot use the expression honourable acquittal.
52. Now, turning to the facts of the present case, a perusal of the judgment of the trial court would go to show that no one has spoken to anything incriminating him. Therefore, the trial court should have acquitted him by recording an order of acquittal without adding any adjectives such as "not proved beyond reasonable doubt" or "by giving the benefit of doubt". However, a perusal of the judgment of the trial court would go to show that the trial court has acquitted the accused on the ground that the charges have not been proved beyond reasonable doubt. This finding, in my considered opinion, needs to be set aside by this court. The trial court should have acquitted the accused simpliciter without adding any qualification to the word "acquittal". Of course, the term "honourable acquittal" is foreign to the criminal law jurisprudence and so this court cannot covert the order of acquittal into one of honourable acquittal. Therefore, this court only converts the order of acquittal on benefit of doubt into one of acquittal simpliciter. In the context of service law jurisprudence, if the petitioner seeks employment, it is for the appointing authority to consider the judgment of the trial court in its entirety and to find whether the acquittal is honourable or not for the purpose of employment in the light of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Management of Reserve Bank of India v. Bhopal Singh Panchal, [1994 (1) SCC 541]. This Criminal Revision is allowed. The judgment of acquittal of the Court below on the ground that the prosecution had failed to prove its case is converted into one of acquittal simpliciter. In the event of the petitioner seeking employment, it is for the appointing authority to consider the judgment of the trial Court in its entirety and to decide whether the acquittal C.T. SELVAM J., vsm is honourable or not for the purpose of employment in the light of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Management of Reserve Bank of India Vbhopa Singh Panchal [1994 (1) SCC 541].
25.01.2016 Index: Yes/No Website: Yes/No vsm Note: Issue order copy on 22.02.2016 To
1.The Judicial Magistrate, Harur, Dharmapuri District.
2.The Inspector of Police, Morappur Police Station, Morappur, Dharmapuri District.
3.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.Crl.R.C.No.62 of 2016