The Allahabad High Court has held that a technical acquittal due to the failure of the prosecution to prove serious offence cannot amount to a “honourable” acquittal.
A Single Bench of Justice Saurabh Shyam Shamshery said this while dismissing the petition of Govind Yadav.
Arvind Srivastava III, the counsel for the petitioner, has not disputed that the petitioner was an accused in three criminal cases. The petitioner was acquitted in two criminal cases after trial and trial in one case is pending, the Court noted.
The counsel for the petitioner submitted that since petitioner was acquitted in two criminal cases, as the prosecution was failed to proved its case beyond reasonable doubt and also that the charges in third case are not of serious in nature, therefore, respondents-authorities ought to have considered the case of petitioner in the light of principles enumerated in Avtar Singh vs Union of India and others, 2016(8) SCC 471, but they have not considered the case of petitioner in the light of aforesaid judgment, therefore, the impugned order is liable to be set aside and matter should be remanded back for consideration of case of petitioner in the light of Avtar Singh (supra).
Standing Counsel appearing for State-Respondents, while opposing the above submissions, submitted that nature of acquittal of petitioner in two criminal cases does not fall under category of honourable/ clean acquittal, rather the order of acquittal was passed granting benefit of doubt as the prosecution had failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt, which has been considered in impugned order. The petitioner was involved in the offences which were serious in nature, i.e, robbery, and it cannot be considered to be a case of trivial nature as well as presently petitioner is facing trial for the offence being part of an unlawful assembly and causing hurt.
The Court observed that, undisputedly, the petitioner was charged for an offence of robbery in two criminal cases. Offence of robbery is a serious charge. The Trial Court had passed an order of acquittal in the two criminal cases. I have perused the said judgments. The Trial Court has acquitted petitioner, as the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt and, therefore, granted benefit of doubt.
The Court held,
It is also not in dispute that the petitioner is facing trial wherein offences are under Sections 147, 148, 149, 336, 323, 504, 506, 325 IPC. Section 336 IPC provides details of an offence of doing an act endangering life or personal safety of others and Section 323 IPC provides punishment for voluntarily causing hurt. The petitioner was part of unlawful assembly and, therefore, the nature of offence could not be termed to be trivial.
In the case, the acquittal of petitioner in two criminal cases was not “honourable” as well as he is facing trial for the offence which could not be said to be of trivial in nature. As held in Methu Meda (supra), in these circumstances the employer has a right to consider antecedents of an employee, which was decided against the petitioner in the case.
“Considering the antecedents of petitioner the respondents-authorities have rightly refused to consider the candidature of petitioner for a part of disciplined force, therefore, after considering the facts as well as law, discussed above, the Court does not find any reason to interfere with the impugned order,” the Court further observed while dismissing the petition.