1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT Dated: 25.02.2011 Coram: The Honourable Mr. Justice C.T.SELVAM Crl.RC.(MD)No.150 of 2011 M.Jeyaraman .. Petitioner/Accused No.1 vs. State represented by The Sub-Inspector of Police, Palayamkottai Police Station, Cr.No.923 of 2002, Tirunelveli District. .. Respondent/Complainant Prayer: Criminal Revision Petition filed under Section 397 r/w 401 of Criminal Procedure Code to call for the records in C.C.No.32 of 2003 dated 23.06.2003 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate Court No.I, Tirunelveli and expunge the remarks of acquittal benefit of doubt as honorary the acquittal. For Petitioner : Mr.V.Bharathidasan For Respondents : Mr.R.M.Anbunithi, Government Advocate(Crl.Side) O R D E R This Criminal Revision is preferred to call for the records in C.C.No.32 of 2003, dated 23.06.2003, on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Tirunelveli and expunge the remarks of acquittal of benefit of doubt as Honorary acquittal for the petitioner. 2. The petitioner was the first accused in C.C.No.32 of 2003 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Tirunelveli, wherein two accused put up for trial stand acquitted under judgment dated 23.06.2003. Both accused were given the benefit of doubt. 3. The alleged occurrence was that owing to a dispute between the prosecution party and the accused regards selling of a two wheeler. The accused assaulted P.W.1, who was standing in front of a tailor shop and caused injuries to P.W.1 by using Aruval. The accused were charged for offence under Sections 324, 342, 506(ii) r/w 34 IPC. On appreciation of the material before it, the lower Court has afforded the accused the benefit of doubt. The petitioner herein, who fears prospects of employment and a poor future owing thereto seeks the relief afore stated. 4. Heard Mr.V.Bharathidasan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as Mr.R.M.Anbunithi, the learned Government Advocate (criminal side) appearing for the respondent. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner states that the petitioner herein was selected as Grade-II Warder for the year 2002-03 and the petitioner was denied the appointment on the ground that he had involved in the said criminal case and the petitioner is not entitled to enter into uniform services, if acquittal in any criminal case on the ground of benefit of doubt. He further states that if the petitioner is acquitted on the honorary acquittal, the petitioner is entitled to join any uniform services. 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.289 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. 6. Following the said Order of this 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. ssl Sd/- Deputy Registrar[W] /True copy/ To Assistant Registrar 1.The Judicial Magistrate Court No.I, Tirunelveli. 2.The Sub-Inspector of Police, Palayamkottai Police Station, Tirunelveli. 3.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai. Crl.RC.(MD)No.150 of 201 Dated:25.02.2011 2P/4C RPB 04.03.2011 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/