ORDER 1. The revision petitioner/A.3 has focused the instant Criminal Revision Petition as against the judgment dated 1.10.2012 in S.C. No. 46 of 2010 passed by the Learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Sivagangai. 2. The Learned Counsel for the petitioner/A.3 urges before this Court that the Learned Assistant Sessions Judge, after disbelieving the prosecution evidence and documents should have passed the judgment in S.C. No. 46 of 2010, acquitting the revision petitioner honourably in respect of the offences under Sections 147,294 (b), 341 and 323 of IPC, but unfortunately, the benefit of honourable acquittal had not been showered on the revision petitioner by the trial Court. 3. Advancing his arguments, the Learned Counsel for the revision petitioner strenuously submits that the revision petitioner with B.Com Educational qualification, has been selected for the post of Grade – II Police Constable in Police Department and because of the judgment of the trial Court, wherein he has been acquitted in the Sessions Case based on the reason of ‘Benefit of Doubt’ will amount to stigma in his career and therefore, he prays for an order of Honourable acquittal may be showered on him. 4. At this juncture, the Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner draws the attention of this Court to the observation made by the Learned Assistant Sessions Judge in the judgment in S.C. No. 46 of 2010 dated 1.10.2012, wherein it is specifically observed that the witnesses on the side of the prosecution viz., P.Ws.1 to 3 had not supported the prosecution and resultantly, the benefit of doubt was granted to the petitioner, culminating in his acquittal as per Section 235(1) of Cr.P.C. 5. The Learned Counsel for the petitioner seeks in aid of the order passed by this Court in Cr.R.C. No. 289 of 2008 dated 28.2.2008 between Somasundaram v. The State, Through The Inspector of Police, Melur Police Station, Madurai, wherein in paragraph Nos. 7 and 8, it is observed as follows: “7. This Court is of the considered view that there is much force in the above said contention put forward by the learned counsel for the revision petitioner. It is also seen that the revision petitioner is a graduate and he has also been selected for the post of Sub-Inspector of Police in the Police Department and he is yet to join in the service. It is also seen that the revision petitioner is a graduate and he has also been selected for the post of Sub-Inspector of Police in the Police Department and he is yet to join in the service. The Division Bench of this Court has also held in the decision in The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Sriperumbudur Sub-Division, I/c, Chengalpattu Sub-Division, Kanchipuram District v. W.D. Sekaran and Another 2005 (5) CTC 672 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 v. H.A. Munaf and Another, 2002-III-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.” 8. 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 joining duty in the Police Department. Therefore, in order to prevent the miscarriage of justice, this Court is constrained to expunge the finding of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Melur in the judgment dated 10.09.2003 in C.C. No. 212 of 2003 in so far as the same relates to the finding portion at paragraph 8 to the effect of giving benefit of doubt to the accused and acquitting the petitioner and other accused for the offence alleged against them. It is made clear that it has been construed that the petitioner has to be acquitted honourably in view of the earlier finding given by the learned Magistrate at paragraph 7 to the effect that all the eye-witnesses namely, P.W.2 to P.W.4 have categorically stated that all the accused have not at all attacked them. It is made clear that it has been construed that the petitioner has to be acquitted honourably in view of the earlier finding given by the learned Magistrate at paragraph 7 to the effect that all the eye-witnesses namely, P.W.2 to P.W.4 have categorically stated that all the accused have not at all attacked them. The Criminal Revision is ordered accordingly.” 6. Further, the Learned Counsel also produced an order copy dated 1.4.2008 in Crl. R.C. No. 369 of 2008 passed by this Court wherein in paragraph Nos. 4 to 6, it is observed and held as follows: “4. The learned counsel for the petitioners has taken this Court through the evidence of all the 22 witnesses. A careful perusal of the deposition of all these witnesses would go to show that no witness has said anything about these two accused. Not even their presence has been spoken to by any of the witnesses. When that be so, the learned Sessions Judge should have segregated these two accused and to have acquitted them honourably and not on giving benefit of doubt as it was done in the case of other accused against whom there is some evidence. The learned counsel would rely on the judgment of this Court in Somasundaram v. The State Through The Inspector of Police, Melur Police Station, Madurai (Crl. R.C. No. 289 of 2008 dated 28.2.2008), wherein in a similar case, the learned Single Judge of this Court, after referring to various judgments of this Court as well as the Hon’ble Supreme Court has expunged the remarks. Further, the learned counsel for the petitioners brought to the notice of this Court that the petitioners seek public employment and if the said remark in the judgment of the lower Court is not expunged, that would carry a stigma and would be a disqualification for them to seek employment. 5. The principles stated in the above said judgment are squarely applicable to the facts of this case. In view of the above position, in my considered opinion, the observation of the learned III Additional Sessions cum PCR Court, Madurai that the acquittal is on the basis of benefit of doubt requires to be modified so as to record the acquittal honourable. 6. In view of the above position, in my considered opinion, the observation of the learned III Additional Sessions cum PCR Court, Madurai that the acquittal is on the basis of benefit of doubt requires to be modified so as to record the acquittal honourable. 6. For all the reasons stated above, this Criminal Revision Case is allowed and the finding of the lower Court that the petitioners are acquitted on giving benefit of doubt is modified and the petitioners shall stand acquitted honourably.” 7. Taking note of the fact that the Petitioner is seeking an employment prospectus and he desires to remove the stigma in respect of his carrier in regard to the benefit of doubt given to him which ended in acquittal in S.C. No. 46 of 2010 on the file of the trial Court, this Court comes to an inevitable conclusion that the prosecution witnesses viz., P.Ws.1 to 3 have not supported either the prosecution case nor their evidences have been helpful to the Court in bringing home the guilt of the Accused. As such this Court grants the relief of Honourable Acquittal. 8. Consequently, this criminal revision petition is ordered in the above terms. No costs. Ordered accordingly.