The Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court allowed a criminal revision petition seeking to convert an acquittal on 'benefit of doubt' to an 'honourable acquittal' for the accused, who had been shortlisted for a government post.
The finding of acquittal on benefit of doubt was modified to effect that the petitioner shall stand acquitted honourably.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 06.09.2011
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.PALANIVELU Crl.R.C.(MD) No.304 of 2011
M.Kesavan ... Petitioner/Accused -2
Vs
State rep.by The Sub-Inspector of Police, Thalavaipuram Police Station, Virudhunagar District.
(Crime No.22 of 2008) ... Respondent/complainant
Criminal Revision Case is filed under Sections 397 read with 401 and 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, to call for the records in judgment in C.C.No.103 of 2008 dated 17.02.2011 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Rajapalayam, Virudhunagar District and expunge the remark of acquittal of benefit of doubt and give honorary acquittal.
For Petitioner : Mr.R.Alagumani
For Respondent : Mr.Kandasamy Govt.Advocate (Crl.side)
O R D E R
This Criminal Revision Petition filed under Sections 397 read with 401 and 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, to call for the records in C.C.No.103 of 2008 dated 17.02.2011 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Rajapalayam, Virudhunagar District and expunge the remark of acquittal of 'benefit of' doubt and give 'honorary acquittal'.
2
"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"
Heard the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side).
Sd/Assistant Registrar (CO)
/True copy/
Sub Assistant Registrar(C.S)
To:
1.The Judicial Magistrate, Rajapalayam.
2.The Chief Judicial Magistrate, Virudhunagar at Srivilliputhur. +1. CC to Mr.R.Alagumani, Advocate, SR.No.30139
ssm
Crl.R.C.(MD) No.304 of 2011 06.09.2011
TR : 15.09.2011: 2p/4c
1 issue framed by the court
Whether an acquittal recorded on 'benefit of doubt' should be modified to 'honorary acquittal' to facilitate the petitioner's appointment as a Jail Warder.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Crl.R.C(MD)No.369 of 2008 dated 01.04.2008Relied on¶5
Somasundaram Vs. The State Through The Inspector of PoliceReferred¶5
SOMASUNDARAM VS. THE STATE THROUGH THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, MELUR POLICE STATION, MADURAI (CRL.R.C.No.289 of 2008 dated 28.02.2008)
1 provisions across 1 enactments
M.Kesavan
State
S.Palanivelu
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
