1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT Dated: 04.02.2011 Coram: The Honourable Mr. Justice C.T.SELVAM Crl.RC.(MD).No.89 of 2011 K.Thiruvendran .. Petitioner/A-2 vs. The State through, The Sub-Inspector of Police, Mamsapuram Police Station, Virudhunagar District, (in Crime No.313 of 2009) .. 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.3 of 2010 order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Srivilliputhur, dated 21.12.2010 and expunge the remark of acquittal on benefit of doubt as Honorary Acquittal for the petitioner in C.C.No.3 of 2010. For Petitioner : Mr.C.Mayil Vahana Rajendraan 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 C.C.No. 3 of 2010, on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Srivilliputhur, dated 21.12.2010 and expunge the remark of acquittal on benefit of doubt and term it as Honorary Acquittal for the petitioner. 2. The petitioner was the second accused in C.C.No.3 of 2010, on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Srivilliputhur, wherein, nine accused put up for trial stand acquitted under judgment, dated 21.12.2010. All the accused were given the benefit of doubt. The accused were charged of offences under Sections 147, 148, 323 and 324 I.P.C. and this petitioner was charged of offences under Sections 148, 323 and 324 I.P.C. 3. In the said case, the accused party is said to have attacked the rival party and caused injuries at about 4.30p.m. on 17.10.2009 owing to prior enmity. Upon due trial, in which seventeen witnesses were examined and fifteen prosecution exhibits were marked, the lower Court found the evidence insufficient to convict the accused and all the accused were granted the benefit of doubt. The particular overt act which was alleged by the prosecution against this accused was that he had caused a scratch injury in the right fore-arm of P.W.1 by using a knife. On appreciation of evidence, the lower Court found no proof in support thereof. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 4. The petitioner, who is now aged 25 years and who is eagerly awaiting appointment as a police constable with the Tamil Nadu Uniformed Services, seeks the relief of a finding that instead of an acquittal based on benefit of doubt, he be given the relief of an honourable acquittal in C.C.No.3 of 2010, on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Srivilliputhur. 5. Heard Mr.C.Mayil Vahana Rajendran, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as Mr.R.M.Anbunithi, learned Government Advocate (criminal side) appearing for the respondent. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that unless the acquittal of the petitioner is an honourable one, the petitioner's future prospects in life would be severely impaired. 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. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and in view of the fact that the petitioner who is in the prime of youth should not suffer a bleak future, because of the acquittal rendered to him on benefit of doubt, this Court considers it appropriate to alter the finding to one of Honourable acquittal. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 3 8.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/- Assistant Registrar (C.O) /True Copy/ Sub Assistant Registrar (C.S) To 1.The Judicial Magistrate No.II, Srivilliputhur. 2.The Sub-Inspector of Police, Mamsapuram Police Station, Virudhunagar District. 3.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai. + 1 cc to Mr.C.Mayil Vahana Rajendran, Advocate, SR No.4464 Crl.RC.(MD).No.89 of 2011 04.02.2011 ssl RJ/8.2.11 (IT) 3p/5c https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/