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.130 of 2011 Panneerselvam .. Petitioner/Petitioner vs. State of Tamil Nadu through, the Sub-Inspector of Police, Komappatti Police Station, Virudhunagar District. .. Respondent/Respondent Prayer: Criminal Revision Petition filed under Section 397 r/w 401 of Criminal Procedure Code to call for the records in C.C.No.950 of 2008 dated 09.01.2009, on the file of the Judicial Magistrate No.I, Srivilliputtur and expunge the remarks of acquittal of benefit of doubt as Honorary acquittal for the petitioner. For Petitioner : Mr.M.Thirunavukkarasu For Respondent : Mr.R.M.Anbunithi Govt. Advocate (crl. side) ORDER This Criminal Revision is preferred to call for the records in C.C.No.950 of 2008, dated 09.01.2009, on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Srivilliputtur and expunge the remarks of acquittal of benefit of doubt as Honorary acquittal for the petitioner. 2. The petitioner was the third accused in C.C.No.950 of 2008 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Srivilliputtur, wherein seven accused put up for trial stand acquitted under judgment dated 09.01.2009. All the 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 a canal. The accused assaulted P.W.1, who was standing in front of her house and caused simple injuries to such person. The accused were charged for offence under Sections 147, 341, 323, 506(i) 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. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 4. Heard Mr.M.Thirunavukkarasu, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as Mr.R.M.Anbunithi, the learned Government Advocate (criminal side) appearing for the respondent. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner states that the petitioner herein was selected as Grade-II Police Constable for the year 2010 and the training orders were issued to the selected candidates, except to the petitioner herein and the other selected candidates are undergoing training from 01.02.2011. He further submits that 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. This Court finds that in the present case all the material witnesses have turned hostile and that the very occurrence alleged is a minor dispute between the neighbours. It is the admitted fact that no other case has been registered against the petitioner. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 3 7. 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. Sd/- Deputy Registrar(LA) /True Copy/ Assistant Registrar To 1.The Judicial Magistrate No.I, Srivilliputtur. 2.The Sub-Inspector of Police, Komappatti Police Station, Virudhunagar District. 3. The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai. +1cc to Mr.M.Thirunavukkarasu, Advocate SR.No.10183 ssl akm/28.02.11 /3p-5c/ Crl.RC.(MD).No.130 of 2011 25.02.2011 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/