Case Analysis By:
Vivek Jain
Research Intern, Legal WIND
Citation: Civil Appeal No. 6238 Of 2021
Date of Judgement: October 06, 2021
Bench: Hon'ble Justice Ms. Banerjee, Justice J.K. Maheshwari
Court: Supreme Court of India
Introduction:-
The case of Union of India v. Methu Meda was presented before the Supreme Court of India. This case discusses whether acquittal from charges of kidnapping is an honorable acquittal or benefit of the doubt is given to the victim. In the mentioned case, Methu Meda, the respondent, was charged with the kidnapping of a civilian but was later acquitted of the charges as the victim turned hostile in the courtroom. After that, the respondent got selected by the CISF for the post of constable but later got refused because of the previous case. The question before the court is whether the refusal of his post by the screening committee because of acquittal stands valid or is been interfered with. The following words talk about the facts, arguments, and judgment of the case, and include a brief explanation and concepts related to the case.
Facts: -
1. Methu Meda, the respondent, was tried before the session court of Jhabua, Madhya Pradesh. This concerned the kidnapping of Nilesh, a civilian. He was charged under Sections 347/327/323/506 (Part II) and 364A of the Indian Penal Code. The respondent was found to be involved in his kidnapping. He was soon acquitted of his charges as the victim turned hostile in the courtroom.
2. Afterwards, he applied and got selected for the post of constable in the CISF (Central Industrial Security force). Later at the time of the background check, the above case led to his disqualification from the post. A screening committee at CISF headquarters decided the respondent was not eligible for the post according to the guidelines mentioned in the CISF Circular No. EEG7023/TRG. SEC/ADM. I/CIRCULARS/20101157.
3. Upset by the decision, the respondent filed a petition in the high court of Indore, Madhya Pradesh. The Single Bench judge held the decision in favor of Methu Meda and directed the department to provide him with the position and all the job benefits except for the back wages.
4. CISF filed an appeal on this case in the divisional court, which was dismissed. Which led to the filing of the present appeal by the union.
Issues raised: -
1.Whether the decision of the Screening Committee rejecting the candidature of the respondent, when there was no allegation of malice against the Screening Committee and the respondent writ petitioner had been acquitted of serious charges of kidnapping for ransom as some prosecution witnesses had turned hostile, ought to have been interfered with?
Arguments advanced: -
Petitioner
A. That merely disclosing the criminal case in the attestation form is not enough for selection.
B. The respondent was charged for heinous offenses like offenses under section 327/347/364A of IPC. The respondent shall not be entitled until being honorably acquitted.
C. Provisional selection does not amount to final recruitment. Mere acquittal giving the benefit of the doubt as the witnesses have turned hostile would not make the candidate suitable for appointment.
Respondent
A. That the situation and background of the candidates hailing from the rural areas were relevant for consideration.
B. That mere registration of a criminal case and acquittal from the charges would not die entitle the candidate for appointment.
C. The respondent has concealed no facts or specific details regarding the criminal case. It would not dis entitle him from appointment to the post.
Explanation: -
The case is related to the appointment of the petitioner for a post in the police force. The main issue here is the petitioner before the application was charged for the case of kidnapping. He was charged under heinous offenses but got acquittal from the charges after the witnesses turned hostile in the courtroom.
The main issue arrived here is to decide whether the acquittal be considered as ‘honorable acquittal’ be given in benefit of the doubt. For this, it is important to understand the concept of acquittal, honorable acquittal, the acquittal of blame, and fully acquitted. This term is unknown to the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Indian Penal Code. These are developed with time by judicial pronouncements. The Expression “honorably acquitted” is unknown to courts of justice. It is mainly used in tribunals and court-martials. The term simply means that the accused is acquitted as completely as he can be acquitted. If the acquittal is directed by the court on a consideration of facts and material evidence on record with the finding of false implication or the finding that the guilt had not been proved, accepting the explanation of the accused as just, it is treated as an honorable acquittal. This was observed with Robert Stuart Wauchope vs. Emperor 61 ILR Cal. 168(1934).
There are multiple instances where mere acquittal did not amount to Honorable acquittal. In case the prosecution failed to take the steps to examine essential witnesses or the witnesses turned hostile, the acquittal would fall under the preview of giving the benefit of the doubt. Here, the accused cannot be treated as honorably acquitted. In Reserve Bank of India vs. Bhopal Singh Panchal 1 SCC 541 (1994) on an organizational level, guilt may be proven based on personal profoundness and probability.
The nature of acquittal is necessary, the relevant factors and the nature of the offense, the extent of his involvement, the propensity of such person to indulge in similar activity in the future, are the relevant aspects for consideration by the Screening Committee, which is competent to decide all these issues. The employer may consider the suitability of the candidate as per government orders, instructions, or rules at the time of deciding to appoint the candidate for employment. Acquittal on the technical ground regarding the offenses of heinous nature, which is not a clean acquittal, the employer has a right to consider all relevant facts available as to the descendants and may take an appropriate decision as to the further deployment of the employee. As said in Avtar Singh Vs. Union of India and Ors. AIR 18798 (2017). Even in the case, a truthful declaration about the proceeding trial has been made by the applicant, still, the employer may consider descendants and cannot be forced to appoint the candidate.
Observations by the court: -
The Bench considered the facts of the present case where the instructions of the home department prevailed at the time of selection and appointment. Where it is specified that the candidates similar to the case would not be considered for recruitment. If a candidate is found involved in any criminal case, whether it is completed or pending, the candidate may not be allowed to join without further instructions from the headquarter.
It is prevalent that a person who wishes to join the disciplinary force, like crime investigation forces in the current instance, must be a person of utmost rectitude and have impeccable character and integrity with no possibility of doubt. If a person has a past of being accused of being involved in criminal activities and having nuclear dismissal, the person may be unfit for the post. This may allow the screening committee to disqualify the candidate unless there is any malefaction in the decision.
If acquittal from grievous charges is given based on misconduct by the other party, there is a high probability that the acquittal is given in benefit of the doubt and it stays unclear whether or not the accused has done the offense. This should not lead to the risk of public safety and integrity of the disciplinary forces.
Judgment: -
The court in the above case held that, if a person is acquitted under the impression of the benefit of the doubt, from the charge of a highly grievous offense or because the witnesses turned hostile, it would not automatically entitle him for the employment, that too in disciplined forces. The employer is having a right to consider his candidature in terms of circulars issued by the screening committee. Only the mere disclosure of the offenses alleged, and the result of the trial, is not sufficient for final selection. In the said situation, the employer cannot may give an appointment to the candidate. Both the Single Bench and the Division Bench of the High Court have not considered the above legal provisions, as discussed in the orders impugned.
Regarding this, the court quashed the impugned orders passed by the high court and the division bench. The respondent was deemed not entitled to the position of constable and the salary and other benefits involved. This appeal was allowed, and the impugned orders were set aside. There was no judgment who will pay for proceedings for the petitioner.
Cases cited:-
1. Union Territory, Chandigarh Administration, and Ors. vs. Pradeep Kumar and Anr. 1 SCC 797(2018)
2. Commissioner of Police, New Delhi and Another vs. Mehar Singh 7 SCC 685(2013)
3. Avtar Singh vs. Union of India and Others 8 SCC 471(2016)
4. Chandigarh Administration and Ors. vs. Pradeep Kumar and Anr. 1 SCC 797 (2018)
5. Reserve Bank of India vs. Bhopal Singh Panchal 1 SCC 541(1994)
6. R.P. Kapur vs. Union of India SC 787(AIR 1964)
7. Major Robert Stuart Wauchope vs Emperor Cal 800 (AIR 1933)
8. State of Assam & Another vs. Raghava Rajgopalachari, 7 SLR 44(1972)
9. Panna Mehta vs. State of M.P. 4 M.P.H.T. 226(2002)
10.Rahul Yadav vs CISF and another, 178DLT 263(2011)
11. Inspector-General of Police & Another vs. S. Samuthiram 1 SCC 598(2013)
Comments