Honble SAXENA, J. — Notice was given to the learned Public Prosecutor, who has accepted the same. (2). Heard. Perused the impugned judgment dated 14.3.1991 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Pali, whereby he acquitted the accused petitioner-Santosh Das for the offences under Sections 342, 376 and 366 I.P.C. and co-accused persons Virendra Singh, Hakam Singh, Surendra Singh and Durga Bharti for the offences under Section 342 and 376 I.P.C. by giving them benefit of doubt. (3). Briefly stated the prosecution case is that when the complainant Smt. Santosh was standing at Beawar Bus Stand on 16.9.86 at about 10 P.M. in the night, one Santokdas r/o Babra persuaded, threatened and took her forcibly to Babra on a Vicky. Thereafter, she was subjected to rape by Santokdas and one more person and she was detained in a house situated outside the village. The trial of the accused persons inlcuding the petitioner was conducted by the learned Sessions Judge, who has acquitted the petitioner and other accused persons while giving them benefit of doubt as the prosecution has failed to prove its case and all the witnesses turned hostile. Even the prosecutrix Mst. Prema @ Santosh did not appear before the trial court. (4). The learned Sessions Judge vide para No. 18 of the impugned judgment has specifically mentioned that the prosecution has utterly failed to produce the prosecutrix Smt. Prema @ Santosh and that as per the report she has absconded and whose where abouts are not known. He has further mentioned that in this case all the prosecution witnesses have turned hostile and not supported the prosecution case. Thus, there is not a fringe of evidence against the accused petitioners and they are entitled for acquittal. However, in the penultimate paragraph of the impugned judgment while acquitting the petitioner and other co- accused persons for the said offences, he has mentioned that they are acquitted by giving them benefit of doubt. When there was not an iota of evidence against the accused persons, the question of acquitting them by giving benefit of doubt did not arise at all. The learned Sessions Judge has, therefore, committed a grave error in acquitting the petitioner and co-accused persons by putting a rider that they have been acquitted by giving them benefit of doubt. When there was not an iota of evidence against the accused persons, the question of acquitting them by giving benefit of doubt did not arise at all. The learned Sessions Judge has, therefore, committed a grave error in acquitting the petitioner and co-accused persons by putting a rider that they have been acquitted by giving them benefit of doubt. This rider is adversely affecting the career of the petitioner, who is a Peon in the State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur, Bali. (5). The co-accused Surendra Singh @ Surendra Kumar, who was also acquitted likewise in this case, filed a petition under section 482 Cr.P.C. bearing S.B.Cr. Misc. Petition No. 416/92 and this Court vide its order dated 7.4.1993 while allowing the said petition has held as under: — "In the result, this misc. petition is allowed. The words "benefit of doubt" appearing in the order dt. 14.3.1991 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Pali are deleted quo the petitioner Surendra Singh. However, this order will not come in the way of the Bank to proceed against the petitioner and the Bank, employer of the petitioner will be free to make any enquiry against the petitioner, if permissible, according to law." (6). In such circumstances, I am of the considered opinion that in adding the words "benefit of doubt" in para No. 19 of the impugned judgment, the learned Sessions Judge has acted against the provisions of law and that this rider is tantamount to abuse of the process of the Court and to secure the ends of justice, the same needs to be quashed. (7). In the premise of above discussion, this petition is allowed and the words "benefit of doubt" appearing in para No.19 of the impugned judgment dated 14.3.1991 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Pali in Sessions Case No. 4/87 State vs. Virendra Singh & Ors. are hereby quashed. However, it is made clear that this order will not come in the way of the State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur to proceed against the petitioner-Santosh Das to make any departmental enquiry against him in accordance with law.