2014 (1) TMI 1949 - HC - Indian Laws

Appeal against an acquittal can be said to be a continuation of criminal case - Claim for settlement of wages of suspension period rejected. Rejection on the ground that having acquitted of an offence under Section 13 (1) (e) and 13 (2) of Prevention of Corruption Act 1988 filing of an appeal against the order of acquittal does not tantamount to judicial proceeding as would prevent the petitioner from claiming his lawful right of wages? HELD THAT - Section 2 (i) of the Criminal Procedure Code 1973 defines expression judicial proceeding includes any proceeding in the course of which evidence is or may be legally taken on oath. The definition as apparent is not exhaustive. Therefore before proceeding can be held to be a judicial proceeding it must be found that in the course of that proceeding evidence is or may be legally taken on oath. If evidence could not be taken legally on oath it would not judicial proceeding - With the acquittal the charges of commission of offence gets washed of. A person so acquitted of the charges stand at par with a person who is not being charged and was not subjected to a criminal proceeding. The preferment of a criminal revision or an appeal against an acquittal cannot be regarded as a continuance of the trial and cannot be treated to be pendency of judicial proceeding as the initial presumption of innocence gets re-enforced by the orders of acquittal. The contention therefore put forth by the respondents that the filing of revision against the judgment dated 12.12.2000 would tantamount to the pendency of judicial proceeding does not reason with the provisions as they stand under law. Since with the acquittal of petitioner for an offence under Section 13 (1) (e) and 13 (2) of 1988 Act his suspension which was based on criminal proceedings stands unjustified. The respondents are directed to settle the same within a period of 3 months from the date of communication of this order - Petition allowed.

Summary

Issues:
1. Rejection of claim for settlement of wages during suspension period based on appeal against acquittal under Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
2. Interpretation of whether an appeal against acquittal constitutes a continuation of judicial proceedings.

Analysis:
The petitioner challenged the rejection of his claim for settlement of wages during the suspension period following an acquittal under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The petitioner, a Sub Engineer in the Public Works Department, was suspended in 1999 during criminal proceedings under Section 13 (1) (e) and 13 (2) of the Act. After being acquitted in 2010, he sought regularization of the suspension period, which was denied due to an appeal against the acquittal. The petitioner argued that the appeal did not imply pending proceedings against him post-acquittal. The respondents contended that the appeal kept the petitioner under a cloud, justifying the delay in finalizing the suspension period.

The court delved into the definition of "judicial proceeding," citing the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, which includes proceedings involving evidence taken on oath. The court emphasized that a criminal proceeding begins with the initiation of charges and culminates in conviction or acquittal. Acquittal signifies the accused's innocence and equivalence to an individual not charged. Therefore, filing a revision or appeal post-acquittal does not constitute a continuation of the trial or ongoing judicial proceedings. The court referred to a Himachal Pradesh High Court judgment to support this interpretation.

Consequently, the court ruled in favor of the petitioner, stating that the suspension based on criminal proceedings became unjustified post-acquittal. The respondents were directed to settle the suspension period within three months from the date of the order. The petition was allowed without costs.