( 1. ) THE applicant has filed this petition for expunging remarks viz. , "benefit of doubt" from the judgment dated 12th March, 2001 (Annexure A-3) delivered by learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Indore in Criminal Case No. 154/96.

( 2. ) TO appreciate controversy and contentions of the parties a reference to the relevant facts leading for filing of this petition would be apt: The respondent submitted a charge-sheet accusing the applicant for the offence punishable under Sections 467,420/511 of the Indian Penal Code before the Court below. It was alleged that the applicant was holding post of Cashier-cum-Clerk in the State Bank of India, in City Branch at Indore and on 27-1-85, she went to the Manager of the main branch of the Bank at Indore and presented a letter before the Manager purported to be signed by Dr. Vijay Jain. In the said letter, a request was made to transfer an amount of Rs. 30,17,000/- to his other A/c No. 28938 with the main branch of the Bank at Mumbai. It was, further alleged that the bank may retain Rs. 25,000/for adjustment towards loss of interest. On presentation of such letter, suspicion arose in the mind of the Branch Manager and therefore, he lodged FIR at Police Station, Sanyogitaganj, Indore.

( 3. ) AFTER usual investigation, charge-sheet was filed for the aforesaid offence. The Trial Court convicted the petitioner under Sections 420/511, IPC (attempt to cheat ).

( 4. ) AGAINST this judgment, petitioner appealed and the learned Appellate Court vide judgment dated 12-4-1999 (Annexure P-2) delivered in Criminal Appeal No. 79/96, set aside the conviction and remanded the case back to the Trial Court for examination of prosecution witness Dr. Vijay Jain and thereafter delivery of judgment on merit.

( 5. ) LEARNED Trial Court, after receiving the case back, given umpteen opportunities to the prosecution for securing the presence of Dr. Vijay Jain for his examination as a prosecution witness to prove important document, letter Article 44, said to have been written by him, but the prosecution did not secure his presence. Learned Trial Court again delivered the judgment (Annexure P-3) on 12th March, 2001 and acquitted the applicant/petitioner from all charges giving her benefit of doubt. In Paragraph 14 of the judgment, acquittal has been recorded in the following words :-

( 6. ) MR. S. C. Bagadia, Senior Advocate has submitted that because of use of words "benefit of doubt" the management issued show-cause notice dated 3-1-2002 (Annexure P-4) chosen to revive show-cause notice dated 14-2-86 for dismissal (Annexure P-5 ). According to him, the Management may ultimately dismiss the petitioner for misconduct or they may reinstate her without back wages of these 17 years. Thus prayed for interference of this Court invoking inherent powers enshrined under Section 482, Cr. PC for expunging the words "benefit of doubt" from the judgment dated 12-3-2001 (Annexure P-3 ). He placed reliance on a judgment of the Supreme Court in The Management of Reserve Bank of India v. Bhopal Singh Panchal (AIR 1994 SC 552 ).

( 7. ) ON the basis of the Provisions of Reserve Bank of India (Staff) Regulation, 1948, according to the petitioner, since there is absolutely no material against the petitioner, learned Trial Court should have acquitted her/petitioner by using words "clean acquittal" or "honourable acquittal". Since the acquittal is based by giving benefit of doubt, the management may consider the same as stigma and dismiss the petitioner from service or even reinstate her without back wages. All these submissions of the Counsel are based on presumption and assumption. Nothing can be said at this stage. It would just and proper to reproduce para 2 of the aforesaid judgment in case of The Management of RBI, New Delhi v. Bhopal Singh (supra):-

"the bank relied on Regulation 46 (4) of the Regulations and refuse reinstate the employee in service on the ground that he had not earned an honourable acquittal of the offenc