Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 2722 (MAD)

Jayavarthanan v. Station House Officer Pudupettai

2015-08-05

B.RAJENDRAN

body2015
ORDER : These revisions are preferred by accused Nos. 2 and 3 in C.C.No.46 of 2009 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate No.II, Panruti. They are aggrieved by the order passed in C.C.No.46 of 2009 on 02.11.2009 granting acquittal granting benefit of doubt, instead of honourable acquittal and hence, they preferred these revisions. There is a delay of 1915 days in filing the above revisions and hence, seeking to condone the delay Miscellaneous Petitions are filed. 2. Mr.Kovi Ramalingam, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that the petitioners are acquitted in the case in C.C.No.46 of 2009 by giving the benefit of doubt and since, they were not given honourable acquittal, they preferred the above revisions. The only ground, which is stated for the delay is earlier the petitioner in Crl.R.C.(SR) No.19814 of 2015 viz., Jayavarthanan filed a Writ Petition in W.P.No.3282 of 2011 before this Court, which is a wrong forum, therefore, the delay could be condoned. He would further submit that since the petitioners were acquitted giving benefit of doubt, it will carry a stigma on the petitioners and would disqualify them from seeking public employment and Government jobs, particularly uniformed service. 3. Mr.V.Arul, learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) appearing for the respondent would submit that the petitioners are doing mistake after mistake. At first, the petitioner in Crl.R.C.(SR) No.19814 of 2015 viz., Jayavarthanan filed a Writ Petition in W.P.No.3282 of 2011 seeking for a mandamus, directing the respondents to send the petitioner for Training for the post of Tamil Nadu Special Police as selected by them on the ground he is honourably acquitted and infact, this Court dismissed the said Writ Petition as early as 09.03.2012 and by following the Full Bench judgment has held in the said Writ Petition that when there is a criminal case pending or when an individual is involved in a criminal case, especially, in case of uniformed services, the rejection will always be reasonable and hence, mandamus cannot be issued. Not withstanding that dismissal, the petitioner in Crl.R.C.(SR) No.19814 of 2015 viz., Jayavarthanan again filed W.P.No.1113 of 2013, in which, he has sought to direct the first respondent therein to issue appointment order, in pursuant to the selection order, mainly on the ground that the criminal case ended in favour of the petitioner therein/Jayavarthanan. Not withstanding that dismissal, the petitioner in Crl.R.C.(SR) No.19814 of 2015 viz., Jayavarthanan again filed W.P.No.1113 of 2013, in which, he has sought to direct the first respondent therein to issue appointment order, in pursuant to the selection order, mainly on the ground that the criminal case ended in favour of the petitioner therein/Jayavarthanan. Once again, this Court pointed out to the judgment of the Supreme Court reported in 2011 (6) CTC 440, Ram Kumar vs. State of U.P. & others and also the judgment of this Court reported in 2008 (2) CTC 97 , Manikandan and others v. The Chairman, Tamil Nadu Uniformed Services Recruitment Board and categorically held that once acquittal is granted giving benefit of doubt, it cannot be a honourable acquittal, even, if it is honourable acquittal in case of uniformed service, it cannot be taken into consideration. This Writ Petition is dismissed as early as on 17.01.2013. Thereafter only, now after a period of another two years, he has come forward with this present revision as against the order of acquittal, that too, by filing petitions seeking to condone the delay. It is a delaying tactics. Even the appointment order, which has been originally given to the petitioner in Crl.R.C.(SR) No.19814 of 2015 viz., Jayavarthanan has been rightly cancelled by the orders of this Court passed in the Writ Petitions. These petitions cannot be entertained at this point of time. 4. On a perusal of the entire materials available on record, it is seen that on 12.01.2006, at about 7.00 a.m. it is alleged that the petitioners along with others assaulted the defacto complainant with hands and legs and thereby caused simple hurt and scolded her with filthy language and hence, a case in Cr.No.11 of 2006 was registered against the petitioners and others. After investigation, the charge sheet was laid against the accused under Sections 294, 323, 324 IPC. The case was taken on file in C.C.No.46 of 2009. After trial, the Trial Court found the accused not guilty for the aforesaid offences and acquitted giving benefit of doubt. After investigation, the charge sheet was laid against the accused under Sections 294, 323, 324 IPC. The case was taken on file in C.C.No.46 of 2009. After trial, the Trial Court found the accused not guilty for the aforesaid offences and acquitted giving benefit of doubt. After acquittal, the petitioner in Crl.R.C.(SR) No.19814 of 2015 viz., Jayavarthanan filed the first writ petition in W.P.No. 3282 of 2011, wherein, the prayer is as follows:- “Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to send the petitioner for training for the post Tamil Nadu Special Police as selected by them for such post of Tamil Nadu Special Police in Registered No.0503268.” 5. Infact, I had an occasion to deal with the above Writ Petition and I have held in the said Writ Petition in paragraph No.7 as follows:- “7.But unfortunately, that is not to be decided at this point of time. The simple fact remains whether the appointing authority is satisfied that the character and antecedents are satisfactory so as to qualify him for such service at the time of recruitment. In this case, the respondents have also considered that the petitioner is not eligible and rightly not included because there was a suppression in the fact in his own declaration before the authorities concerned. It is further made clear that the authorities have rightly come to the conclusion that he was not included in the final list and communicated the same to him. Therefore, writ of mandamus will not apply at this stage. The Full Bench decision of this Court also stated that when there is a criminal case pending or when an individual is involved in a criminal case especially in case of uniformed services, the rejection will always be reasonable. In any view of the matter, the mandamus cannot be issued. Hence, this writ petition is dismissed. No costs.” 6. I have clearly held in the above Writ Petition by following the decision of the Full Bench that no relief can be granted to the petitioner, when there is a criminal case pending or when an individual is involved in a criminal case especially in case of uniformed service, the rejection will always be reasonable. 7. No costs.” 6. I have clearly held in the above Writ Petition by following the decision of the Full Bench that no relief can be granted to the petitioner, when there is a criminal case pending or when an individual is involved in a criminal case especially in case of uniformed service, the rejection will always be reasonable. 7. Not withstanding the dismissal order, once again the accused filed another Writ Petition in W.P.No. 1113 of 2013, in which, the prayer reads as follows:- “Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records of the proceedings of the 2nd respondent dated 24.12.2012 in Na.Ka.No.A4/35540/2012 and to quash the same and further issue necessary direction to the 1st respondent to issue appointment order to the petitioner in pursuant to the selection process being made by the 1st respondents common recruitment to the post of Grade II Police Constables/ Grade II Jail Warders/Fireman-2012 vide notification No.142.” 8. The above Writ Petition was dismissed by order dated 17.01.2013 and in paragraph No.5, it was held by this Court as follows:- “5. In the present case, the explanation 2 to Rule 14(b) of the TNPSS Rules may not strictly apply to the case of the petitioner and it was only Explanation 1 covers the case. Even otherwise, the Special Rules framed for the purpose of recruitment, will apply and on the date of selection made. It is immaterial whether the petitioner's acquittal by granting benefit of doubt was done long after the amendment made to the Rule. The very Rule came to be challenged and was held intra vires of the Rule making powers of the appointing authority in Manikandan and others vs. The Chairman, Tamil Nadu Uniformed Services Recruitment Board, Chennai and others reported in 2008(2) CTC 97 . Therefore, this Court is not inclined to entertain the Writ Petition on a hyper technical argument advanced by the petitioner. The judgment referred to by petitioner stands on general footing and was not rendered on any Special Rules for appointment to the post by the respondents. 6. In the light of the above, the writ petition stands dismissed. No costs. The connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.” 9. The judgment referred to by petitioner stands on general footing and was not rendered on any Special Rules for appointment to the post by the respondents. 6. In the light of the above, the writ petition stands dismissed. No costs. The connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.” 9. If the petitioners have come to Court immediately after the order was passed in the first Writ Petition, then, we can say that there is some bona fide. But, after the dismissal of the first Writ Petition, the petitioner in Crl.R.C.(SR) No.19814 of 2015 has filed yet another Writ Petition and the said Writ Petition was also dismissed. Now, the petitioners have chosen to file this revision, after two years of the order passed in the second Writ Petition and after six years of the order passed in C.C.No.46 of 2009, granting acquittal giving benefit of doubt, that too, with the delay of 1915 days. The only reason stated in the affidavits filed in support of the condone delay petitions is that they approached the wrong Court. First, when they approached the wrong Court, why they should again go to wrong Court by filing yet another Writ Petition. Further, the reasons stated in the affidavits are not convincing and hence, these petitions are liable to be dismissed.