JUDGMENT

Sanjay K. Agrawal, J. - The petitioner herein stood trial for offences punishable under Sections 13(1)(d) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and after fulldressed trial he was acquitted of the said offences by the jurisdictional special court (under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988) by judgment and order dated 24.04.2018, but the said acquittal is based on extending the benefit of doubt. Petitioner seeks to expunge remarks "benefit of doubt" from the judgment and order dated 24.04.2018 (paragraph-85), principally on the ground that same operated as a stigma for getting service benefit on retirement and also cast aspersion on his integrity.

2. The State of Chhattisgarh has filed its return opposing the writ petition stating inter alia that petitioner has been acquitted extending the benefit of doubt on the basis of evidence on record as the petitioner is not entitled for honourable/clean acquittal on the evidence brought-out by the prosecution as such acquittal of petitioner is based on benefit of doubt is supportable in law and writ petition deserves to be dismissed as petitioner's remedy, if any, is to file appeal against the judgement and order dated 24.04.2018.

3. No rejoinder has been filed by the petitioner in opposition of the return filed by the respondent/State.

4. Ms. Hamida Siddique, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, would submit that though the learned Special Judge (PC Act) has clearly recorded a finding that prosecution has failed to prove any of the ingredients of charged offences to the petitioner beyond reasonable doubt, yet instead of acquitting him honorably, extended and gave him the benefit of doubt, which operated as stigma for grant of service benefit to him as well as it affects his reputation socially, therefore it deserves to be expunged in exercise of jurisdiction vested in the court under Article 227 of Constitution of India or under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure. The phrase "benefit of doubt" as mentioned in the judgment and order dated 24.04.2018 (paragraph 85) deserves to be expunged in the ends of justice.

5. Mr. Chandresh Shrivastava learned Deputy Advocate General appearing for State of Chhattisgarh would support the observation made by learned Special Judge (P.C. Act) acquitting the petitioner by extending him the benefit of doubt and submit that writ petition as framed and filed being not maintainable deserves to be dismissed.

6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and considered their respective submissions made hereinabove and went through the record with utmost circumspection.

7. The question for consideration would be whether the peitoiner has madeout a case for expunging the phrase "Benefit of Doubt" in paragraph 85 of the Judgment, by learned Special Judge (PC Act) while acquitting the petitioner ?

8. In order to adjudicate the plea so raised, it would be appropriate to notice here the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 which takes cognizance and speak of "acquittal". Sections 227, 235, 248, 255 and 330 of the Code speaks of acquittal. The word 'discharge' is employed under Sections 227, 239 and 245 of the Code. As a matter of fact, Section 227 of Cr.P.C. enjoins a court of Session to discharge an accused, if upon consideration of record of the case, and documents submitted, it considers that there is no sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. Section 232 of Code, enjoins a court of session to order for acquittal of an individual, if after taking the evidence for prosecution, examining the accused and hearing the prosecution and the defence on point, the judge considers that there is no evidence to show that the accused committed the offence. It is pertinent to mention under Section 232 of Code, order of acquittal can be passed after evidence of prosecution is recorded, but order of discharge can be passed prior to recording of evidence.

9. Thus, in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, or any