1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED:03.03.2011 Coram: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.T.SELVAM Crl.RC.(MD).No.182 of 2011 P.Kalimuthu .. Petitioner/Petitioner vs. The Inspector of Police, Krishnankovil Police Station, Srivilliputhur Taluk, Virudhunagar District. (Crime No.151/2009) .. Respondent/Respondent Prayer: Criminal Revision Petition filed under Section 397 r/w 401 of Criminal Procedure Code to call for the records in S.T.C.No.3837 of 2009 dated 30.11.2010 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Srivilliputhur and expunge the remark of acquittal on benefit of doubt and term it as Honorary Acquittal of the petitioner in S.T.C.No.3837/2009. For Petitioner : Mr.G.Thalaimutharasu For Respondent : Mr.R.M.Anbunithi Govt. Advocate (crl. side) O R D E R This Criminal Revision is preferred to call for the records in S.T.C.No.3837 of 2009 dated 30.11.2010 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Srivilliputhur and expunge the remark of acquittal on benefit of doubt and term it as Honorary Acquittal of the petitioner in S.T.C.No.3837/2009. 2. The petitioner was the second accused in S.T.C.No.3837 of 2009 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate, No.II, Srivilliputhur, wherein three accused put up for trial stand acquitted under judgment dated 30.11.2010. All the accused were given the benefit of doubt. 3. The petitioner along with two others stood trial in S.T.C.No.3837 of 2009 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Sankarankovil, Tirunelveli District. The case against the petitioner and two others was of offence under Sections 147, 341 and 188 I.P.C. 4. On conclusion of trial, it was found that there was no sufficient evidence to prove the allegations against the accused persons and accordingly they were granted the benefit of doubt and acquitted. The petitioner has preferred this revision towards altering the nature of acquittal from one of benefit of doubt to an honourable acquittal. 5. Heard Mr.G.Thalaimutharasu, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as Mr.R.M.Anbunithi, the learned Government Advocate https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 (criminal side) appearing for the respondent. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that the petitioner was selected by the Tamil Nadu Uniformed Services Recruitment Board for the post of Police Constable. He further submit that the petitioner was denied appointment on the ground that he was involved in the said criminal case and the petitioner is not entitled to enter into uniform services, if acquittal in any criminal case is on the ground of benefit of doubt. He further states that if the petitioner is acquitted honourably, he would be entitled to join any uniformed service. In support of his contention, he has relied on an order of this Court dated 01.04.2008 made in Crl.RC.No.369 of 2008, wherein a learned Single Judge has 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 modified and the petitioners shall stand acquitted honourably." 7.The Apex Court repeatedly has held that the effect of an acquittal is that it erases the stigma attached to commission of an offence. In Dhilp KUmar Sharma and other Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh (AIR 1976 SC 133), it is informed by the Apex Court as follows: 9. .... An order of acquittal in regard to the previous offence wipes out the guilt and turpitude attaching to the previous conviction, for, the true implication of an acquittal is as if the offender did not commit the offence for which he was tried, no matter whether the acquittal is founded on benefit of doubt or rests upon an overall rejection of the prosecution case. The sequiter that the order of acquittal implies the innocence of the accused is not dependent upon the stage of the Court proceeding at which the order was passed but it depends, plainly, upon the fact of acquittal itself. ... https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 3 31. There is authority for the proposition that an order of acquittal particularly one passed on merits, wipes off the conviction and sentence for all purposes, and as effectively as if it had never been passed. An order of acquittal annulling or voiding a conviction operates from nativity. As Kelson puts it, " it is a true annulment, an annulment with retroactive force". So when the conviction of Rohit for Prabhu's murder, was quashed, the High Court-to borrow the felicitous words of Krishan Iyer J. - "killed the conviction not then, but performed the formal obsequies of the order which had died at birth". 8.In a decision reported in 2001 (7) SCC 231 (B.R.Kapur Vs. State of Tamil Nadu), also the Apex Court informed as follows: 40. .... If the appeal of the accused succeeds the conviction is wiped out as cleanly as if it had never existed and the sentence is set aside. A successful appeal means that the stigma of the offence is altogether erased. 9. Following the rationale of the decisions of the Apex Court, the present Criminal Revision Petition is allowed and the finding of the Lower Court that the petitioner is acquitted on the benefit of doubt is modified to the effect that the petitioner shall stand acquitted honourably. vsm Sd/- Deputy Registrar[LA] /True copy/ Assistant Registrar To 1.The Judicial Magistrate No.II, Srivilliputhur 2.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai. +1 cc to M/s.G.Thalaimuthurasu, Advocate SR.No.11177. Crl.RC.(MD).No.182 of 2011 Dated:03.03.2011 3P/4C RPB 04.03.2011[I.T.] https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/