Judgment :- 1. The revision petitioner has come forward with this revision seeking for the relief of quashing the order of acquittal insofar as the observation of benefit of doubt made by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Neyveli, in the order dated 06.02.2009 in C.C. No.251 of 2008 and to term it as one of honourable acquittal. 2. Mr. V. Madhavan, learned counsel for the petitioner, would submit that the revision petitioner has been arrayed as A1 out of seven accused and the he has been implicated in this case for the alleged offences under Sections 147, 148, 294 and 323 IPC and after facing the trial, the revision petitioner and all the other accused have been acquitted by the learned Magistrate by order dated 06.02.2009. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that four witnesses/P.Ws.1 to 4 have been examined by the prosecution to substantiate its case including the investigating officer/P.W.4 and all the three witnesses/P.Ws. 1 to 3 have not implicated the accused during the course of their examination before the trial court. It is contended that the learned Magistrate has specifically held that there is no evidence available on record to come to the conclusion that the accused are guilty. It is contended that though P.Ws.1 to 3 have been treated as hostile, the learned Magistrate apart from giving the above said specific finding has clearly held that the revision petitioner and the other accused cannot be found guilty merely on the basis of the evidence adduced through the investigating officer/P.W.4. It is also contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the trial Magistrate has held ultimately that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt and therefore, it is contended that the judgment of acquittal passed by the learned Magistrate has to be construed to be as an honourable acquittal. 3. Heard Mr. J.C. Durairaj, learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side), on the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner. It is submitted by the learned Government Advocate that the prosecution has examined four witnesses/P.Ws.1 to 4 and P.W.4 is the Investigating Officer. It is submitted that P.Ws.1 to 3 have not implicated the revision petitioner and other accused. The learned Government Advocate would submit that it is also reported before the trial court that the matter was compromised between the parties. It is submitted that P.Ws.1 to 3 have not implicated the revision petitioner and other accused. The learned Government Advocate would submit that it is also reported before the trial court that the matter was compromised between the parties. It is contended that the entire prosecution case rests on the evidence of P.W.4, the Investigating Officer. 4. This Court carefully considered the submissions made by both sides and also perused the impugned order of acquittal passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Neyveli. 5. The crux of the question involved in this matter is that whether the order of acquittal passed by the learned Magistrate is one of honourable acquittal or the acquittal by giving benefit of doubt. 6. At the outset, it is to be stated that in respect of a criminal case, there is no definition for the honourable acquittal in any statute. However, this Court has come across rule under Rule 14(b) of the Tamil Nadu Special Police Subordinate Service Rules. The said rule reads as hereunder: “14 (b). No person shall be eligible for appointment to the service by direct recruitment unless he satisfies the appointing authority. i) that he is of sound health, active habits and free from any bodily defect or infirmity unfitting him for such service; and ii) that his character and antecedents are such as to qualify him for such service; and iii) that such a person does not have more than one wife living. Explanation: (1) A person who is acquitted or discharged on benefit of doubt or due to the fact that the complainant “turned hostile” shall be treated as person involved in a criminal case. Explanation: (2) A person involved in a criminal case at the time of police verification and the case yet to be disposed of and subsequently ended in honourable acquittal or treated as mistake of fact shall be treated as not involved in a criminal case and he can claim right for appointment only by participating in the next recruitment.” A reading of the above said provision under Rule 14(b) Explanation (1) reveals that it is specifically stated that a person, who is acquitted or discharged on benefit of doubt or due to the fact that the complainant turned hostile shall be treated as a person involved in a criminal case. Several persons, who have been implicated in a criminal case and ultimately acquitted by the trial court, have to face difficulty in view of the cases ended on the basis of the benefit of doubt given by the trial court as it causes a stigma on the concerned persons. In view of such a situation, the revision petitioners have approached this Court seeking the above said relief of modifying the observation of the learned Magistrate that the accused acquitted on the ground that the prosecution has not proved its case beyond reasonable doubt to one of honourable acquittal. 7. At this juncture, it is relevant to refer to the Division Bench of this Court in The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Sriperumbudur Sub Division, I/C, Chengalpattur Sub Division, Kanchipuram District, Vs. W.D. Sekaranand and another reported in 2005 (5) CTC 672 . The Division Bench of this Court in the said decision has held as follows: “In the light of our discussion, it is clear that it is not axiomatic that in all cases where the criminal proceedings based on the very same set of facts ended in acquittal, the departmental action should not be proceeded with. As rightly observed by the earlier Division Bench of this Court in State of Tamil Nadu Vs. H.A. Munaf and another, 2002(3) LLJ 66, cited supra, if the acquittal in the criminal proceedings is not a honourable one, it is always open to proceed with the departmental proceedings. The Tribunal has not gone into the above relevant aspects and committed an error in quashing the charge memo at the threshold”. In view of the above said principle of law laid down by the Division Bench of this Court in the decision cited supra, this Court is of the considered view that acquittal of the petitioner by giving benefit of doubt itself would amount to a stigma in respect of his career and as such, this Court is of the considered view that the petitioner is having reasonable apprehension that such finding may likely to affect his future career in respect of jointing duty in the government service. 8. This Court in D. Mahadevan Vs. The Director General of Police, Mylapore, Chennai – 4, reported in referred to a Bombay High Court in H.I. Kazi Vs. 8. This Court in D. Mahadevan Vs. The Director General of Police, Mylapore, Chennai – 4, reported in referred to a Bombay High Court in H.I. Kazi Vs. J.C. Agarwal 1980 (41) F.L.R. 171, wherein, while dealing with the term ‘honourable acquittal, the Bombay High Court has observed as follows: “It is very difficult to define what is the meaning of the word, ‘honourable acquittal’. In my view, it will depend on the fact and circumstances of each case as to whether a person can be said to have been discharged or acquitted honourably or not. The judgment of Supreme Court in State of Assam Vs. Raghvan (1972 S.L.R. 344), is relied on by both sides on the meaning of honourable acquittal as well as to show whether in the facts and circumstances of the present case petitioner can be said to have been honourably acquitted. At page 347 paragraph 8, a reference is made to a note and administrative instructions appearing under the rule similar to one applicable in this case, which seem to show that the words ‘honourably’ meant, acquitted of or that the Government servant has been fully exonerated. According to the Supreme Court, this meaning was supported by a judgment of Calcutta High Court in Robert Stuart Wauchope Vs. Emperor, 1934 (61) ILR Cal. 168.” 9. In D. Mahadevan’s case (cited supra), this Court has clearly held as follows: “The learned trial Judge holds that there is no evidence and that the case has not been proved beyond reasonable doubt. The judgment also reads that the accused are acquitted, “giving them the benefit of doubt”. Though the words ‘benefit of doubt’ are used, the case is really one of honourable acquittal. Even the complainant, P.W.1 did not implicate the petitioner. This is not a case where the acquittal was because of witnesses turned hostile or on the basis of technicalities like belated registration of F.I.R. This is a case of no evidence.” 10. As far as the case on hand is concerned, a perusal of the impugned order passed by the learned Magistrate reveals that the learned Magistrate has given a specific finding to the effect that there is absolutely no evidence available on record to arrive at the conclusion that the accused including the revision petitioner have committed the offence alleged against them in this case. It is also pertinent to note that in the order of acquittal, it is clearly stated K.N. Basha, J. that the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. The learned Magistrate has not observed or given any finding to the effect that the accused has been acquitted by giving benefit of doubt. Therefore, it is crystal clear that the accused in this case including the revision petitioner have been acquitted as there is no evidence available on record against anyone of the accused much less, the revision petitioner, who has been arrayed as A1 in this case. Therefore, this Court is of the considered view that it is very clear that the order of acquittal passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Neyveli, dated 06.02.2009 in C.C. No.215 of 2008 is one of honourable acquittal. 11. By making it clear that the revision petitioner has been acquitted honourably, this revision petition is disposed of.