1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 08.06.2011 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.SATHYANARAYANAN Crl.R.C.(MD) No.337 of 2011 K.Vilvalingam . . . Revision Petitioner/Accused No.38 Vs. The State through the Inspector of Police, Elanjamboor Police Station, Ramnad District. (In Crime No.51 of 2005). . . Respondent/Respondent Criminal Revision Case is filed under Sections 397 read with 401 and 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code against the order dated 10.06.2009 passed in S.T.C.No.412 of 2007 by the Court of Judicial Magistrate, Mudukulathur. For petitioner : Mr.T.Lajapathi Roy For Respondent : Mr.P.Kandasamy Government Advocate (Crl. side) O R D E R The revision petitioner is the accused in S.T.C.No.412 of 2009 on the file of Court of Judicial Magistrate, Muthukulathur and he has faced prosecution for the alleged commission of the offences under Section 188, 143, 279, 294(b) I.P.C. and 71(A) of M.C.P. Act read with 41(11) read with 177 and 188 of M.C.P. Act. 2. According to the prosecution on 29.10.2005, at about 11.00 A.M., accused Nos.1 to 42 in violation of Section 30(2) of the Police Act, constituted an unlawful assembly and thereby committed the above said offences. In so far as the revision petitioner/Accused No.38, the case was tried in S.T.C. No.412 of 2007 and in respect of other accused, the case was tried in S.T.C.No.109 of 2009. 3. The case after investigation had culminated into a positive final report, which was taken on file and as already stated, the revision petitioner/ accused No.38 faced prosecution in S.T.C.No.412 of 2007. 4. The prosecution in order to sustain their case, examined P.Ws.1 to 6 and marked Exs.P.1 to 6. The revision petitioner/accused No.38 was questioned under Section 313(1)(b) of https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 Cr.P.C. with regard to the incriminating circumstances made against him and he denied it as false. On behalf of the revision petitioner, no oral evidence was let in and no documents were marked. 5. The Court of Judicial Magistrate, Muthukulathur, on consideration of the oral and documentary evidence found that the prosecution has failed to prove the case against the accused as none of the witnesses examined and exhibits marked by the prosecution proved the guilt on the part of the revision petitioner/accused No.38. Citing the said reasons, the trial Court awarded benefit of doubt in favour of the revision petitioner and acquitted him vide judgment dated 10.06.2009. 6. The revision petitioner/accused No.38, aggrieved by that portion of the order under which he has been acquitted awarding the benefit of doubt instead of honourable acquittal, has preferred this Criminal Revision Case. 7. Mr.T.Lajapathi Roy, learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner/accused No.38 would submit that the revision petitioner appeared for the selection of the Grade - II Police Constables in the Tamil Nadu Uniformed Services Recruitment Board and in view of the acquittal awarding benefit of doubt he was not considered for selection and hence, he filed W.P.(MD) No.5741 of 2009, praying for the issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, to direct the respondent, namely the Director General of Police and Chairman, Tamil Nadu Uniformed Services Recruitment Board, Chennai to appoint him as Grade - II Police Constable in view of his representation dated 12.06.2009. This Court vide order dated 06.07.2009 has recorded the finding that the prosecution has failed to adduce any evidence in support of the case and therefore, was issued a direction to the respondents therein to consider and pass orders on the representation dated 12.06.2009 within a stipulated time. 8. It is the further submission of the learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner/ accused No.38 that the Director General of Police, after taking into consideration of the aforesaid order, passed an order dated 06.10.2009 rejecting the request made by the revision petitioner in terms of explanation (1) to the rule 14(b) of Tamil Nadu Special Police Subordinate Service Rules and the said order is unsustainable. 9. It is also submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner that the revision petitioner is taking steps to file writ petition against the order dated 06.10.2009 passed by the Director General of Police. Since the order awarding benefit of doubt is operating as a bar for considering his claim for appointment to any other post in the Government/Government Organization/Local Body, it may be modified to one of Honourable Acquittal. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 3 10. On the said submissions, the Court heard the submissions of the learned Government Advocate (Criminal side) also. 11. A perusal of the order dated 10.06.2009, made in S.T.C.No.412 of 2007 would clearly disclose that neither the witnesses nor the exhibits marked through the said witnesses supported the case of the prosecution and in fact, the trial Court in paragraphs 11 and 12 has categorically recorded the findings that there are absolutely no materials to sustain the case of the prosecution against the revision petitioner/accused No.38. Further, it has chosen to acquit the revision petitioner by awarding benefit of doubt. 12. However, in the considered opinion of the Court, the trial Court ought to have acquitted the revision petitioner honourably as the prosecution has failed to prove its case through the testimonies of the witnesses examined and the documents marked through them. 13. Similar case came up for consideration before this Court in the order dated 03.01.2011, made in Crl.R.C.(MD) No.955 of 2010, wherein a Single Bench of this Court considered its earlier order dated 01.04.2008 made in Crl.R.C.No.369 of 2008, wherein it has been held as follows: "The learned counsel would rely on the Judgment of this Court in Somasundaram Vs. The State Through the Inspector of Police, Melur Police Station, Madurai [CRL.R.C.No.269 of 2008, dated 28.02.2008], wherein in a similar case, the learned Single Judge of this Court, after referring to various Judgments of this Court as well as the Hon'ble Supreme Court has expunged the remarks. Further, the learned counsel for the petitioners brought to the notice of this Court that the petitioners seek public employment and if the said remark in the Judgment of the Lower Court is not expunged, that would carry a stigma and would be disqualification for them to seek employment. The Principles stated in the above said Judgment are squarely applicable to the facts of this case. In view of the above position, in my considered opinion, the observation of the learned III Additional Sessions cum PCR Court, Madurai, that the acquittal is on the basis of benefit of doubt requires to be modified so as to record the acquittal honourable. For all the reasons stated above, this Criminal Revision Petition is allowed and the finding of the Lower Court that the petitioners are acquitted on giving benefit of doubt is https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 4 modified and the petitioners shall stand acquitted honourably." 14. As the prosecution has failed to prove the case against the revision petitioner/accused No.38, he is entitled to be acquitted honourably. 15. In the result, the Criminal Revision Case is allowed and the order dated 10.06.2009, made in S.T.C.No.412 of 2007 by the Court of Judicial Magistrate, Mudhukulathur in awarding benefit of doubt to the revision petitioner/accused No.38, is modified to one of honourable acquittal. Sd/- Assistant Registrar(Crl.Side) /True Copy/ Sub Assistant Registrar To: 1.The Judicial Magistrate, Mudukulathur. 2.The Inspector of Police, Elanjamboor Police Station, Ramnad District. 3.The Addl.Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai. Copy to The Section Officer(Crl.Records), Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai +1cc to Mr.T.Lajapathi Roy, Advocate, Sr.No.17649 sj ssk/16.06.2011 /6c -4p/- Crl.R.C.(MD) No.337 of 2011 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/