Back
2014 Supreme(Mad) 4466
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
S. Nagamuthu, J.
E. Kalivarathan
Versus
State Rep. by the Sub-Inspector of Police, Pudupet Police Station, Cuddalore District
Crl. R.C. No. 684 of 2014
Decided On: 23 December 2014
V. Raghavachari for Ma.P. Thangavel, for Petitioner M. Maharaja, Additional Public Prosecutor, for Respondent
Headnote:
Tamil Nadu Subordinate Police Service Rules - Indian Evidence Act – Section 5 6 and 101 – Indian Penal Code - Sections 147, 148 and 323 – Criminal Procedure Code - Section 482 – Constitution of India, 1950 - Articles 19 and 21 – Acquittal of order - Written examination and physical test – Jurisdiction - Subsequently petitioner made an application for post of Grade Constable governed by Subordinate Police Service Rules - After written examination and physical test he was selected for said post - Then police verification of his antecedence was ordered and on such verification it was found that petitioner was an accused in above case and he was acquitted by Magistrate - However Recruitment Board rejected his candidature on ground that acquittal of petitioner in above case is not an honorable acquittal - It is therefore most humbly prayed that this Humble Court may be pleased to convert acquittal file of Judicial Magistrate Court as an honorable acquittal as far as petitioner is concerned by allowing present criminal revision petition and thereby render justice – Held, In so far as present case is concerned explanation to Rule 14(b) indicates that it is not exhaustive but it specifies certain instances which would explain term involvement in a criminal case - In any event assuming without admitting that there is some confusion in understanding of language by which Explanation has been stated that issue can however be appropriately addressed by Government by suitably amending Special subordinate Service Rule on lines of Delhi Police Rules and its Standing Order which is reproduced in Paragraph of judgment in case supra - Such a recommendation is made taking cue from decision of Humble Apex Court - Before parting with this order court wish to mention that incidence of false criminal cases is on increase - National Crime Records Bureau in its Report on Crime in India for has stated that of total cases registered in Country are false cases - Latest report on Crime India for has been released by National Crime Record Bureau which shows roughly of complaints were frivolous as accused were either acquitted by court or complaints were found to be false at investigation stage itself - For example so far as crimes against women are concerned statistics shows that in rapes dowry deaths harassment to married women and outraging of modesty of women percentage of false cases are respectively - Above statistics if compared to statistics of would go to show that registration of false cases is phenomenally on increase - Those who are implicated in these false cases suffer in terms of humiliation loss of money loss of working hours loss of mental peace and at last loss of employment as well - Most of accused implicated in these false cases hail from poor strata of society for whom some hearts bleed - Petition allowed
1. The petitioner was the fifth accused in C.C.No.12 of 2010 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Panruti. He stood prosecuted along with eight others for alleged offences under Sections 147, 148 and 323 of IPC. During trial as many as 12 witnesses were examined and 16 documents were exhibited on the side of the prosecution. But, no witness had implicated the petitioner in any manner with the alleged crime. The learned Magistrate by order dated 31.12.2012, acquitted all the accused including the petitioner. The said order of the learned Magistrate has become final.
2. Subsequently, the petitioner made an application for the post of Grade II Police Constable governed by the “Tamil Nadu Subordinate Police Service Rules”. After the written examination and the physical test, he was selected for the said post. Then police verification of his antecedence was ordered and on such verification, it was found that the petitioner was an accused in the above case and he was acquitted by the learned Magistrate. However, the Recruitment Board rejected his candidature on the ground that the acquittal of the petitioner in the above case is not an “honourable acquittal”.
3. Now the petitioner is before this Court with this criminal revision with the following prayer:
“It is therefore most humbly prayed that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to convert the acquittal in C.C.No.12 of 2010 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate Court No.II, Panruti dated 31.12.2012 as an honourable acquittal as far as the petitioner is concerned by allowing the present criminal revision petition and thereby render justice.”
4. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent. I have also perused the records.
5. At the outset, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor raised objections regarding the maintainability of this revision petition. According to him, a revision petition under Section 397 and 401 of Cr.P.C would not lie at the instance of an acquitted accused. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor would point out that the lower Court had acquitted him by giving benefit of doubt. As against the same, neither a revision would lie nor in such a situation the inherent powers of this Court under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. could be invoked to convert the said acquittal into one of a honourable acquittal, he contended.
6. His further contention is that the concept of honourable acquittal is unknown to criminal jurisprudence and therefore the request of the petitioner to convert the acquittal into one of honourable acquittal is not at all maintainable. In support of his contention, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor relies on a Division Bench Judgment of this Court in M. Krishnan v. State of Tamil Nadu 2014 (3) MWN (Cr.) 203 (DB).
7. Mr. V. Raghavachari, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that when a finding recorded in an order is adverse to his interest and contrary to law, the aggrieved should not be left in lurch without a remedy. He would further submit that the judgment of the Division Bench in M. Krishnan v.State of Tamil Nadu(supra) is contrary to the specific statutory provisions contained in the Cr.P.C. as well as various judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court. According to him, not only an order of acquittal or conviction or any other order could be challenged, but the correctness, legality or propriety of any finding could also be challenged by way of revision.
8. It is his further contention that, in the instant case, though there was no evidence on record, the learned Magistrate has acquitted him by giving him the benefit of doubt which amounts to a finding contrary to the facts. Thus, according to him, this finding can be challenged in a revision.
9. Since much reliance has been placed on the Division Bench judgment of this Court in M. Krishnan v. State of Tamil Nadu (supra) by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, let us begin our discus
