Order on Board

Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice

12.06.2023 Heard Mr. Punit Ruparel, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. Gagan Tiwari, learned Deputy Government Advocate, appearing for the respondent/State.

2. The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner with the following prayers:

“i. That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct to remove/expunge the remark “benefit of doubt” in the order passed by CJM, Janjgir, District Janjgir-Champa in Criminal Case No. 1048/2013 passed on 27.11.2017 in paragraph no.10.

ii. Cost of the petition may also be granted to the petitioner.

iii. Any other relief, which this Hon’ble Court deems fit and proper, may also, kindly be granted to the petitioner in the interest of justice.”

3. The petitioner herein stood trial for offences punishable under Section 34(2) of Excise Act and after full-dressed trial he was acquitted of the said offence by the jurisdictional Court i.e., Chief Judicial Magistrate, Janjgir, District Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) by judgment and order dated 27.11.2017, 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 27.11.2017 (paragraph No. 10), principally on the ground that same operated as a stigma for getting service benefit on retirement and also cast aspersion on his integrity.

4. 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 judgment and order dated 27.11.2017.

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

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner, would submit that though the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate has clearly recorded a finding that prosecution has failed to prove any of the ingredients of charged offence 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 the 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 27.11.2017 (paragraph No. 10) deserves to be expunged in the ends of justice.

7. Learned Deputy Government Advocate would support the observation made by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate 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.

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

9. The question for consideration would be whether the petitioner has made-out a case for expunging the phrase “Benefit of Doubt” in paragraph No. 10 of the Judgment, by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate while acquitting the petitioner ?

10. 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 conside