M.Pachaiappan vs The Deputy Superintendent Of Police on 22 September, 2017

[Cites 10, Cited by 0]

Madras High Court

M.Pachaiappan vs The Deputy Superintendent Of Police on 22 September, 2017

Bench: V.Bharathidasan

        

 

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT               

DATED: 22.09.2017  

CORAM   

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.BHARATHIDASAN             

Crl.R.C.(MD).No.751 of 2017 

M.Pachaiappan                                      ... Petitioner

Vs.

1.The Deputy Superintendent of Police,
   Tenkasi Sub-Division,
   Tenkasi, Tirunelveli District.

2.The Inspector of Police,
   Achanpudur Police Station,
   Kadayanallur Taluk,
   Tirunelveli District.
  (Crime No.78 of 2010)                          ... Respondents

PRAYER: Petition filed under Sections 397 read with 401 Cr.P.C, against the
judgment passed in Juvenile Case No.1 of 2012, dated 24.09.2013 by the
Learned II Additional Sessions Court, Tirunelveli District and seeks to
expunge the remarks of acquittal due to the reason of benefit of doubt as
Honorary Acquittal for the petitioner.

!For Petitioner                 : Mr.S.Selvakumar

^For Respondents                : Mr.K.S.Duraipandian,
                                   Additional Public Prosecutor.


:ORDER

This Criminal Revision Case has been filed against the judgment passed in Juvenile Case No.1 of 2012, dated 24.09.2013, by the learned II Additional Sessions Judge, Tirunelveli District and seeking a honorary acquittal, instead of acquitting the accused on benefit of doubt.

2. The petitioner stood charged for the offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 294(b), 323, 324 326, 307 r/w. 34 of I.P.C. After trial, since the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of the juvenile, the petitioner has been acquitted by the trial Court, by judgment dated 24.09.2013. Now, the petitioner has filed the Criminal Revision case on the ground that the trial Court acquitted the petitioner by giving benefit of doubt. When there is no evidence available on record against the accused, the trial Court ought to have acquitted the petitioner honourably instead of simply acquitting the accused.

3. The issue involved in this case is squarely covered by the decision of this Court in E.Kalivarathan Vs.The State rep by the Sub Inspector of Police, Pudupet Police Station, Cuddalore District reported in 2015 (1) CTC 87, wherein this Court has held as follows:-

?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 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....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.?

4. In view of the above, the relief sought for by the petitioner cannot be granted. If at all the petitioner wants to rely on the judgment of acquittal for his employment, it is for the appointing authority to look into the judgment in its entirety and find out whether the acquittal is honourable or not for the purpose of employment.

5. With the above observation, the Criminal Revision Case is disposed of.

1.The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Tenkasi Sub-Division, Tenkasi, Tirunelveli District.

2.The Inspector of Police, Achanpudur Police Station, Kadayanallur Taluk, Tirunelveli District.

3.The II Additional Sessions Judge, Tirunelveli District

4.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai..

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Madras High Court