shamit sanyal (advocate) 13 July 2008

came across this news.

Hi all

i am posting this news,for you all

anticipating comments

The full bench of Madras High Court held that a person acquitted on benefit of doubt or discharged in a criminal case, would not be eligible for selection in the police service.
The full bench comprising, Chief Justie A P Shah, Mr Justice F M Ibrahim Kalifulla and Mr Justice V Ramasubramanian gave the ruling, while dismissing a batch of Writ petitions, challenging their non selection to police service on the ground that they were acquitted or discharged in a criminal case.
The bench upheld the Government Order, refusing to issue appointment orders to more than 60 candidates who appeared for grade II constable posts after they successfuly cleared physical fitness test, written test, interview and medical test in the entire process of selection.
By virtue of Tamil Nadu Special Police subordinate service rules, a person acquitted on benefit of doubt or disqualified for selection to the police service of the State and the same could not be termed as illegal or unjustified, the bench said.
The bench held that ''the failure of a person to disclose in the application form, either his involvement in a criminal case or the pendency of a criminal case against him, would entitle the appointing authority to reject his application on the ground of concealment of a material fact, irrespective of the ultimate outcome of the criminal case.''

Reply Follow

2 Replies

podicheti.srinivas (advocate/legal consultant) 14 July 2008

yes ,I agree with the contentions of the learned judges .they are not absolved from the offences,they have been given a benefit of doubt that doesnt mean that they have been absolved from the offences they have commited.the same may be given for various reasons because sufficient evidence was not let in by the prosecution ,as the evidence was not sufficient to bring home the gilt of the accused which may have forced the court to give benefit of doubt.

anonymus (confidential) 26 October 2008

THAT IS WHY THE COURTS R EXPECTED TO RECORD ABOUT THE FINDING WHETHER THE ACCUSED IS AQUITTED FOR NOT PROVING BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT OR FOR NOT PROVING THE GUILT BY INSUFFICIENT EVIDENCE.