Smt. Panna Mehta vs State Of M.P.

on 16 May, 2002

Madhya Pradesh High Court Madhya Pradesh High Court Smt. Panna Mehta vs State Of M.P. on 16 May, 2002 Equivalent citations: 2002 (4) MPHT 226 Author: S Kochar Bench: S Kochar ORDER S.L. Kochar, J. 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 :-^^vr% m foospuk QyLo:i] U;k;ky; vfHk;qk dks lansg dk ykHk fn;k tkdj Hkk-na-fo- dh /kkjk 420 lgifBr /kkjk 511 ds vkjksi ls nks"keq ?kksf"kr fd;k tkrk gSA** 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).
Indian Kanoon - http://indiankanoon.org/doc/1249472/ 1

Smt. Panna Mehta vs State Of M.P. on 16 May, 2002

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 offence. The respondent/ employee, therefore, raised an industrial dispute which was decided on 19th May, 1983, by the Central Government Industrial Tribunal. By the said Award, the Industrial Tribunal held that Regulation 46 (4) was invalid and improper and militated against industrial jurisprudence as developed and applied by the Courts in the country. The Tribunal further held that the dismissal was unjustified and quashed the same and ordered the bank to reinstate the employee with full backwages and to allow him continuity in service as if he was never dismissed from service." 8. The facts are clearly revealing that Regulation 46 (4) was held invalid by the Industrial Tribunal and the same has not been interfered by the Supreme Court in this judgment, which is clear from the facts mentioned at page 557 in the following words:-"While doing so, the Tribunal also held that Regulation 46 (4) was invalid. It is not necessary for us in these proceedings to decide as to whether the Tribunal had jurisdiction to hold such regulation invalid. 9. The ratio decidendi in this judgment is that 'Suspension of employee arrested for criminal offence acquitted subsequently employee does not automatically become entitled to full pay and allowances for suspension period. Discretion in that matter is rested exclusively in Bank and that power is unassailable'. 10. Mr. Girish Desai, learned Deputy Advocate General appearing for the respondent-State has submitted that in IPC or Cr.PC or even in Criminal Jurisprudence applicable in India, there is no words like "honourable acquittal" or "clean acquittal". If the person who has been tried for any offence, his acquittal simpliciter or by giving him benefit of doubt, there is no difference in the acquittal of the accused and will have the same effect. He submits that acquittal of the person concerned, will have the effect of completely wiping out of the charge for which he was tried. 11. In the Code of Criminal Procedure, Indian Penal Code, Evidence Act or any other enactment, the word "acquittal" has not been defined. As per the Law Lexicon, the Encyclopaedic Law Dictionary (Edn. 1992) "Acquittal" defined, Act X of 1882, Section 403, "the word acquittal is verbum equivocum, and may in ordinary language be used to express either the verdict of a jury, or the formal judgment of the Court, that the prisoner is not guilty". (Per Tindal, C.J., Burgess v. Boetefeur, 13 LJMC 126 : 135 ER 193). It is generally said that a party is acquitted by the jury, but in fact, the acquittal is by the judgment of the Court (ibid). According to the Oxford Dictionary, "acquittal" means that a person is not guilty of a crime, with which he has been charged. So in a Criminal Jurisprudence there is no difference between "clean acquittal", "honourable acquittal" or "acquittal based on giving benefit of doubt". When the accused is acquitted by giving benefit of doubt means the prosecution was not able to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. 12. As ruled by the Supreme Court in case of Manni Lal v. Parmai Lal (AIR 1971 SC 330) and Dilip Kumar Sharma and Ors. v. State of Madhya Pradesh (AIR 1976 SC 133), order of acquittal means a person concerned, has not committed the offence for which he was charged and tried. Criminal Courts are recording acquittal when the prosecution fails to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubt and benefit of doubt given to the accused does not mean that the accused was involved in the case but the same could not be proved by the prosecution. In Criminal Law, words "beyond reasonable doubt" cannot be termed as stigma or proof of any
Indian Kanoon - http://indiankanoon.org/doc/1249472/ 2

Smt. Panna Mehta vs State Of M.P. on 16 May, 2002

criminal charge against acquitted accused. Therefore, petition for expunging the same is not maintainable under Section 482, Cr.PC and the same is misconceived. 13. In the wake of the foregoing discussions, nothing is made out for invoking extra-ordinary powers as enumerated under Section 482, Cr.PC. 14. Consequently, this petition is dismissed.

Indian Kanoon - http://indiankanoon.org/doc/1249472/