1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT Dated: 29.07.2011 Coram: The Honourable Mr. Justice S.PALANIVELU Crl.RC.(MD).No.603 of 2011 Satheesh @ Selvam .. Petitioner vs. The State Rep. By :: The Inspector of Police, South Thamaraikulam Police Station, (In-charge Susindram Police Station) Kanyakumari District. (Crime No.200/2001) .. Respondent Criminal Revision Petition filed under Section 397 r/w. 401 of Criminal Procedure Code to call for the records in S.C.No.262 of 2002, on the file of the learned Sessions Judge, Kanyakumari District at Nagercoil, dated 25.08.2003 and expunge the remark of acquittal on benefit of doubt and term it as honorary acquittal for the petitioner in S.C.No.262 of 2002. For Petitioner : M/s.J.Jawahar 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 S.C. No.262 of 2002, dated 25.08.2003 on the file of the learned Sessions Judge, Kanyakumari District at Nagercoil, and expunge the remark of acquittal on benefit of doubt and term it as honorary acquittal for the petitioner. 2. The petitioner is the sixth accused in S.C.No.262 of 2002, on the file of the learned Sessions Judge, Kanyakumari District at Nagercoil. All the accused had been charged under Section 449, 148 and 302 IPC. The trial was held by the said Court and on 25.08.2003, all the accused were acquitted of all the charges granting benefit of doubt. The petitioner applied for the post of Grade-II Police Constable and he was selected for the post of Band Police Constable in the police department and an order of appointment came to be passed on 25.11.2009. At that time, the criminal case was also over. However, cancellation of appointment order was passed by the authorities on 17.12.2009 stating that the petitioner has involved in criminal cases. 3. Heard both sides. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the eye witnesses to the occurrence P.Ws.1 and 2 had turned hostile to the prosecution, so also the other witnesses who did not support the case of the prosecution and that there was no material evidence to record conviction of the accused and that they were acquitted. Since the trial Court had recorded finding that the charges framed against the accused have https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 not been established by the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt, they were acquitted, and that the said finding remains as a stigma on the petitioner throughout his entire career and hence, in view of the acquittal by the Sessions Court, an honourable acquittal may be accorded to him. 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: "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. 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 ASST REGISTRAR ( T AND P ) /TRUE COPY/ SUB ASST REGISTRAR srm To The Sessions Judge, Kanyakumari District at Nagercoil. 1CC TO MR.V.THIRUMAL, ADVOCATE, SR: 25329: DM::2011:AUGUST:25:: Crl.RC.(MD).No.603 of 2011 29.07.2011 2P:3C:: https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/