Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

judicata

15. At this stage, Mr. Sudhir Bhatnagar, learned Additional Advocate General further argued that at no point of time petitioner .

ever came to be acquitted honourably, rather his acquittal is on technical ground and as such, benefit, if any, otherwise cannot be availed of judgment of acquittal recorded in his favour. However, having carefully perused the judgment dated 22.08.2008 (Annexure P-1) passed by learned Special Judge, Kullu, this Court sees no reason to be persuaded by aforesaid submission made by learned Additional Advocate General because if judgment is read in its entirety, it clearly suggests that prosecution was unable to prove that petitioner indulged in corrupt practice while unauthorizedly releasing pass port in favour of foreign national during pendency of criminal case against him and he made an attempt to destroy the evidence.

of IPC and SC/ST (POA) Act. Our attention was drawn to the said judgment which is produced at Exh. P-7, to evidence the fact that the charges in both the proceedings of the criminal case and the Disciplinary proceeding are similar. From perusal of the charge sheet issued in the disciplinary proceedings and the enquiry report submitted by the Enquiry Officer and the judgment in the criminal case, it is clear that they are almost similar and one and the same. In the criminal trial, the appellants have been acquitted honourably for want of evidence on record. The trial judge has categorically recorded the finding of fact on proper appreciation and evaluation of evidence on record and held that the charges framed in the criminal case are not proved against the appellants and therefore they have been honourably acquitted for the offences punishable under 3 (1) (x) of SC/ST (POA) Act and under Sections 307 and 302 read with Section 34 of the IPC. The law declared by this Court with regard to honourable acquittal of an accused for criminal offences means that they are acquitted for want of evidence to prove the charges.

22. The meaning of the expression "honourable acquittal"

was discussed by this Court in detail in the case of Deputy Inspector General of Police & Anr. v. S. Samuthiram[3], the relevant para from the said case reads as under :-
"24. The meaning of the expression "honourable acquittal"

came up for consideration before this Court in RBI v. Bhopal Singh Panchal. 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."