Allahabad High Court
Govind Yadav vs State Of U.P. And 3 Others on 12 July, 2022
Author: Saurabh Shyam Shamshery
Bench: Saurabh Shyam Shamshery
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD AFR Court No. - 36 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 9511 of 2022 Petitioner :- Govind Yadav Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Arvind Srivastava III, Girja Shanker Mishra Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Saurabh Shyam Shamshery,J.
1. Sri Arvind Srivastava III, learned counsel for petitioner has not disputed that petitioner was an accused in three criminal cases. In two criminal cases after trial petitioner was acquitted, however, in one case trial is pending. Details of criminal cases with their present status alongwith nature of acquittal are mentioned hereinafter:
Sl. No. Case No. Section Nature of acquittal
1. 394 of 2013 392, 411 IPC Benefit of doubt
2. 553 of 2013 392, 411, 467, 468, 471 IPC Benefit of doubt
3. 478A of 2014 147, 148, 149, 336, 323, 504, 506, 325 IPC Trial is pending
2. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that since petitioner was acquitted in two criminal cases, as the prosecution was failed to proved its case beyond reasonable doubt and also that the charges in third case are not of serious in nature, therefore, respondents-authorities ought to have considered the case of petitioner in the light of principles enumerated in Avtar Singh vs. Union of India and others, 2016(8) SCC 471, but they have not considered the case of petitioner in the light of aforesaid judgment, therefore, the impugned order is liable to be set aside and matter should be remanded back for consideration of case of petitioner in the light of Avtar Singh (supra).
3. Learned Standing Counsel appearing for State-Respondents, while opposing the above submissions submits that nature of acquittal of petitioner in two criminal cases does not fall under category of honourable/ clean acquittal, rather the order of acquittal was passed granting benefit of doubt as the prosecution was failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt, which has been considered in impugned order. Petitioner was involved in the offences which were serious in nature, i.e., robbery, and it cannot be considered to be a case of trivial nature as well as presently petitioner is facing trial for the offence being part of an unlawful assembly and causing hurt.
4. Heard learned counsel for parties and perused the material available on record.
5. From the chart mentioned above, undisputedly petitioner was charged for an offence of robbery in two criminal cases. Offence of robbery is a serious charge. Trial Court passed order of acquittal in the cases referred at Serial Nos. 1 and 2 of the chart. I have perused the said judgments. The Trial Court has acquitted petitioner, as the prosecution was failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt and, therefore, granted benefit of doubt.
6. The nature of acquittal i.e. honorable acquittal or acquittal on the basis of benefit of doubt are terminologies not mentioned in the Criminal Procedure Code. However, the Apex Court has discussed these terminologies in Deputy Inspector General of Police and another Vs. S.Samuthiram, 2013 (1) SCC 598, relevant paragraph 24 of which is reproduced below:
"24. The meaning of the expression ''honourable acquittal' came up for consideration before this Court in RBI Vs. Bhopal Singh Panchal, (1994) 1 SCC 541. In that case, this Court has considered the impact of Regulation 46(4) dealing with honourable acquittal by a criminal court on the disciplinary proceedings. In that context, this Court held that the mere acquittal does not entitle an employee to reinstatement in service, the acquittal, it was held, has to be honourable. 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." (Emphasis added)
7. The Apex Court in a recent case of State of Rajasthan and Ors. Vs. Love Kush Meena, 2021 SCC Online SC, 252 has also observed in this regard and relevant paragraph 15 of which is mentioned hereinafter:
"15. It is pointed out that various nuances arising in this judgment has been considering even in the subsequent judgments. In Union Territory, Chandigarh Administration & Ors. v. Pradeep Kumar & Anr., (2018) 1 SCC 797, a two Judge Bench of this Court dealt with the expression "honourable acquittal". It was opined that acquittal in a criminal case was not conclusive for suitability of the candidate concerned and it could not always be inferred from an acquittal or discharge that the person was falsely involved or has no criminal antecedents. Thus, unless it is an honourable acquittal, the candidate cannot claim the benefit of the case. No doubt, it was mentioned by relying on the earlier judgment of this Court in Inspector General of Police v. S. Samuthiram, (2013) 1 SCC 598, that while it was difficult to define precisely what is meant by the expression "honourable acquittal", an accused who is acquitted after full consideration of the prosecution evidence and prosecution has miserably failed to prove the charges levelled against the accused...."
(emphasis added)
8. It is also not in dispute that in the case mentioned at Serial No. 3 in the above referred chart, petitioner is facing trial wherein offences are under Sections 147, 148, 149, 336, 323, 504, 506, 325 IPC. Section 336 IPC provides details of an offence of doing an act endangering life or personal safety of others and Section 323 IPC provides punishment for voluntarily causing hurt. The petitioner was part of unlawful assembly and, therefore, nature of offence could not be termed to be trivial.
9. In Avtar Singh (supra) in para 38.5 the Court held that, "in a case where the employee has made declaration truthfully of a concluded criminal case, the employer still has the right to consider antecedents, and cannot be compelled to appoint the candidate." In Avtar Singh (supra) Court further held that, "Where conviction has been recorded in case which is not trivial in nature, employer may cancel candidature or terminate services of the employee. If acquittal had already been recorded in a case involving moral turpitude or offence of heinous/serious nature, on technical ground and it is not a case of clean acquittal, or benefit of reasonable doubt has been given, the employer may consider all relevant facts available as to antecedents, and may take appropriate decision as to the continuance of the employee."
10. Supreme Court in a recent judgment while considering Avtar Singh (supra) in Union of India and others vs. Methu Meda, (2022) 1 SCC 1 has observed as under:
"Acquittal on technical ground in respect of the offences of heinous/serious nature, which is not a clean acquittal, the employer may have a right to consider all relevant facts available as to the antecedents, and may take appropriate decision as to the continuance of the employee. Even in case, truthful declaration regarding concluded trial has been made by the employee, still the employer has the right to consider antecedents and cannot be compelled to appoint the candidate." (Emphasis added)
11. In the present case, the acquittal of petitioner in two criminal cases was not "honourable" as well as he is facing trial for the offence which could not be said to be of trivial in nature. As held in Methu Meda (supra), in these circumstances employer has a right to consider antecedents of employee, which was decided against the petitioner in the present case.
12. Considering the antecedents of petitioner the respondents-authorities have rightly refused to consider the candidature of petitioner for a part of disciplined force, therefore, after considering the facts as well as law, discussed above, this Court does not find any reason to interfere with the impugned order.
13. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed.
Order Date :- 12.07.2022 AK