Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 18 (0.28 seconds)Rakesh Sharma & Ors vs State Of M.P. & Ors on 30 August, 2011
05. Per Contra Counsel for the respondent Manish
Verma has vehemently urged the fact that in the
matter of Rakesh Sharma Vs. State of MP in
WP No.9913/2012 considered by the learned
Single Judge and other cases it was considered
that nothing has been suppressed by the
respondent Shri Verma and in the police
verification form also quite categorically stated
that the case was pending against him and
subsequently it has resulted in an acquittal. The
acquittal is a clean acquittal and hence no
interference is called for in the judgment of the
learned Single Judge. Moreover Counsel submitted
that in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the
case the wife had also stated that she had no
objection if the applicant was considered for the
-9-
appointment primarily since the matrimonial
dispute had been compromised and they were now
living together as man and wife, Counsel prayed
that the appeal was without merit and the same be
dismissed.
Manni Lal vs Shri Parmai Lal & Ors on 13 August, 1970
12. As ruled by the SUPREME court in case of
Manni Lal Vs. Parmai Lal (AIR 1971 SC 330) and
Dilip Kumar Sharma and others Vs. State of Madhya
Pradesh (AIR 1976 SC 133), order of acquittal
means a person concerned, has not committed the
offence for which he was charged and tried.
Criminal Courts are recording acquittal when the
prosecution fails to prove its case beyond all
reasonable doubt and benefit of doubt given to the
accused does not mean that the accused was
involved in the case but the same could not be
proved by the prosecution. In Criminal Law, words
"beyond reasonable doubt" cannot be termed as
stigma or proof of any criminal charge against
acquitted accused. Therefore, petition for expunging
the same is not maintainable under Section 482,
Cr.PC and the same is misconceived." Keeping in
view the aforesaid judgment, as the prosecution
was not able to prove its case beyond reasonable
doubt, it cannot be termed as stigma or proof of any
criminal charge against the acquitted person.
Resultantly, there is no other material available
against the petitioner and as there was no
suppression on the part of the petitioner, the
criminal case which is no longer in existence and in
which the petitioner has been acquitted will not
come in way of the petitioner in the matter of
appointment.
Commissioner Of Police And Anr vs Mehar Singh on 2 July, 2013
07. On considering the above submissions and the
record we find that the Counsel for the appellants
has very vehemently urged the fact that the
findings of the Screening Committee could not
have been assailed in the writ petition since it was
specially constituted body and had considered the
case in accordance with the provisions of law. And
he relied on the cases of Pervez Khan and Mehar
Singh (supra), however we find that even in the
said case, the Court had held in impugned para-29
that the Screening committee's proceedings have
been assailed as being arbitrary, unguided and
unfettered. The Apex Court had also considered
the fact that the acquittal of Mehar Singh was
based on the compromise, however, disclosure
was not made in the said case regarding the
enmity and other important facts i.e. Mehar Singh
had other criminal cases also recorded against him
and in this regard the Apex Court had come to the
conclusion that the acquittal was not honourable.
State Of M.P vs Manish & Ors on 6 July, 2015
The judgment delivered has been considered by
the Division Bench of this court in the case of State of Madhya
Pradesh Vs. Manish. The judgment delivered by the Division
Bench in the aforesaid case dated 28-07-2015 reads as under :-
State Of M.P.& Ors vs Parvez Khan on 1 December, 2014
03. Counsel for the appellant/State has contended
that despite having considered the said case, the
learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition and
directed the Professional Board to issue the
consequential appointment order if he was
otherwise eligible according to the merit list and
the respondent Board could not deny appointment
to the petitioner only because he was involved in
the criminal case as he has been acquitted vide
judgment of acquittal dated 09.12.2013. Counsel
submitted that such a finding was contrary to the
facts of the case and Counsel placed reliance on
Commissioner of Delhi (supra) as well as the
another judgment by the Apex Court in the matter
of State of MP and others Vs. Parvez Khan
[Civil Appeal No.10613 of 2014] to bolster his
submissions. Counsel vehemently urged the fact
that the respondent was charged with offence
-8-
under Section 498-A of the IPC and the acquittal
was not honourable and the police service is a unit
force which requires a high degree of morality and
integrity and hence the petitioner cannot be
considered for appointment.