1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT Dated: 22.09.2011 Coram: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.PALANIVELU Crl.RC.(MD).No.802 of 2011 S.Ramesh .. Petitioner/A2 vs. The State through The Inspector of Police, Kallidaikuruchi Police Station, Ambasamudram Taluk, (Crime No.184/2006) .. Respondent Criminal Revision Petition filed under Section 397 r/w. 401 and 482 of Criminal Procedure Code to call for the records in C.C.No.1 of 2007 order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Ambasamudram, dated 16.06.2008 and expunge the remark of acquittal and hold it as Honorary Acquittal for the petitioner in C.C.No.1 of 2007. For Petitioner : M/s.T.Lajapathi Roy For Respondent : Mr.P.Kandasamy Government Advocate (Crl. side) O R D E R This Criminal Revision is preferred to call for the records related to the order passed in C.C. No.1 of 2007 dated 16.06.2008 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Ambasamudram and expunge the remark of acquittal on the ground of benefit of doubt as that of Honourable acquittal. 2. The petitioner is the sole accused in C.C.No.1 of 2007, on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Ambasamudram. He was charged under Sections 294(b) and 506(i) IPC. In the trial, P.Ws.1 to 3, who are reportedly related to the occurrence, did not say anything in accordance with the complaint and hence, the Court below has observed that their evidence were entirely contradictory and exaggerative which do not attract the ingredients in the provisions under Sections 294(b) and 506 (i). Hence, the Court below has acquitted the accused of all charges extending the benefit of doubt to him. 3. Heard the learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) appearing for the respondent. 4. Mr.T.Lajapathi Roy, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner got selected for the post of Grade II Police Constable and even though he was acquitted in the criminal case since it was the outcome of the extension of benefit of doubt, the authorities would say that he has to get honorary acquittal from the Court and hence, he may be accorded honorary acquittal. 5. In support of his contention, the learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the order of this Court dated 01.04.2008 in Crl.R.C(MD)No.369 of 2008, wherein the learned Single Judge following an earlier Judgment of this Court has held as follows: https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 "A careful perusal of the deposition of all these witnesses would go to show that no witness has said anything about these two accused. Not even their presence has been spoken to by any of the witnesses. When that be so, the learned Sessions Judge should have segregated these two accused and to have acquitted them honourably and not on giving benefit of doubt as it was down in the case of other accused against benefit of doubt as it was down in the case of other accused against whom there is some evidence. 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". 6. He has also garnered support from a decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court reported in (2011) 4 SCC 644, (Commissioner of Police and others v. Sandeep Kumar), wherein in paragraphs 8 and 9 it has been held as follows: "8.We respectfully agree with the Delhi High Court that the cancellation of his candidature was illegal, but we wish to give our own opinion in the matter. When the incident happened the respondent must have been about 20 years of age. At that age young people often commit indiscretions, and such indiscretions can often be condoned. After all, youth will be youth. They are not expected to behave in as mature a manner as older people. Hence, our approach should be to condone minor indiscretions made by young people rather than to brand them as criminals for the rest of their lives. 9.In this connection, we may refer to the character "Jean Valjean" in Victor Hugo's novel Les Miserables, in which for committing a minor offence of stealing a loaf of bread for his hungry family Jean Valjean was branded as a thief for his whole life. The modern approach should be to reform a person instead of branding him as a criminal all his life." 7. In view of the above said circumstances, I am of the considered opinion that the order of acquittal can be modified to one of the acquittal honourably. In the result, the criminal revision case is allowed and the finding of the lower Court that the petitioner is acquitted on benefit of doubt is modified to the effect that the petitioner shall stand acquitted honourably. Sd/- Assistant Registrar (Records) / True Copy / Sub Assistant Registrar https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 3 To 1. The Judicial Magistrate, Ambasamudram. 2. The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai. 3. The Inspector of Police, Kallidai Kurichi Police Station, Ambasamudram Taluk. +1CC TO MR.T.LAJAPATHI ROY, ADVOCATE SR : 32923 Srm SR : 27.09.2011 : 3p/5c : IT Crl.RC.(MD).No.802 of 2011 22.09.2011 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/