Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

(ii) The Superintendent of Police, Kanyakumari District has forwarded the Police verification report in respect of the petitioner, in which it has been pointed out that he was involved in criminal case in Aralvoimozhi Police Station Cr.No.307 of 2009 u/s 147, 148, 294(b), 323, 324, 506(ii) IPC. The case was acquitted on 25.11.2010 at Judicial Magistrate Court, Boothapandy in C.C.No.73 of 2010 and the petitioner was discharged as per Cr.P.C. Section 248(1). Opinion was called for from the Assistant Public Prosecutor, Grade II Judicial Magistrate Court, Bhoothapandy. Additional Public Prosecutor, in her letter dated 12.02.2011 has stated that in the case of the petitioner, the Sub- Inspector of Police, Aralvoimozhi Police Station conducted the investigation, collected all the material facts and filed a final report. The prosecution witness 1 and 2 did not support the prosecution case and they were treated as hostile. She has opined that the individual was not honourably acquitted in this case, but acquitted due to the fact that the complainant turned hostile.

4. In the Additional Counter Affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents, it is stated as follows:

(i) The petitioner's name was included in the provisional select test for the post of Grade II Warden in Prison Department. He was subjected to police verification and medical examination. In the Police verification Roll, the petitioner has given the following undertaking.
"I am the applicant, do solemnly and sincerely declare that the answers furnished by me to the following questions are entirely true and accurate. I realize that if I am enlisted and my statement which has been made by me is false, I shall render myself liable to be dismissed for obtaining service under false pretences."

11. In this case, the name of the petitioner was included in the provisional select list for the post of Grade II Warden in Prison Department, after being subjected to written test and Physical Efficiency Test. But, when he was subjected to Police Verification, which was mandatory, he was found to have been involved in a criminal case in Crime No.307 of 2009 on the file of Aralvoimizhi Police Station for various criminal offences, which, ultimately ended in acquittal. At this juncture, the whole controversy is as to, whether the said acquittal is honourable or on benefit of doubt due to the fact that the complainant "turned hostile". In order to decide the said controversy, it is necessary to study the judgment of the criminal court, which acquitted the petitioner. Para 6 of the said judgment is quite relevant for this purpose. English translation of the said para reads as under :

18. That apart, while filling up the Police Verification Roll, the petitioner had written as "NO" for the question "Have you ever been concerned in any criminal case as defendant ?" When that being so, he has given an undertaking in the very same Police Verification Roll stating " I do solemnly and sincerely declare that the answers furnished by me to the following questions are entirely true and accurate. I realize that if I am enlisted and my statement which has been made by me is false, I shall render myself liable to be dismissed for obtaining service under false pretenses." By giving such an undertaking, without furnishing the details of the criminal case pending against him, the petitioner has suppressed the material fact of his involvement in the criminal case, thereby disentitling him from being appointed in service.