Skip to main content

HC: Acquitted Men Can't Join Police - Madras HC

In a landmark ruling, a five-judge bench of the Madras High Court here by a majority ruling has held that persons acquitted from criminal cases or suppressing information about their past brush with law can be disqualified from joining the Police Department.

The verdict sets to rest past interpretations to the contrary by various single judges of the High Court. In essence, the larger bench by a 4:1 majority has upheld the February 2008 judgment (Manikandan Case) laid down by the three-judge Full Bench of the High Court disallowing those acquitted in criminal cases from being recruited as policemen as per Rule 14 (b) (iv) of the Tamil Nadu Special Police Subordinate Service Rules.

The larger bench comprising Justices R Sudhakar, S Tamilvanan, A Selvam, M Sathyanarayanan and B Rajendren, was constituted by then Chief Justice R K Agrawal on a reference by Justice S Nagamuthu last year.

Delivering a common verdict, the four members of the larger bench, except for Justice Tamilvanan, upheld the constitutionalist of Rule 14 (b) (iv) of the Police Service Rules.

The Rule says: (a) A person acquitted on benefit of doubt or discharged in a criminal case, can still be considered as disqualified for selection to the police service of the State and that the same cannot be termed as illegal or unjustified; and  (b) That the failure of a person to disclose in the application form, either his involvement in a criminal case or the pendency of a criminal case against him, would entitle the appointing authority to reject his application on the ground of concealment of a material fact, irrespective of the ultimate outcome of the criminal case.

Article referred: http://www.newindianexpress.com/states/tamil_nadu/HC-Acquitted-Men-Cant-Join-Police/2014/02/28/article2081809.ece#.UxAzNfmSzl8

Comments

Post a Comment

Most viewed this month

The recovery of vehicles by the financier not an offence - SC

Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 8907  of 2009 Anup Sarmah (Petitioner) Vs Bhola Nath Sharma & Ors.(Respondents) The petitioner submitted that  respondents-financer had forcibly taken away the vehicle financed by them and  illegally deprived the petitioner from its lawful possession  and  thus,  committed  a crime. The complaint filed by the petitioner had been  entertained  by  the Judicial Magistrate (Ist Class), Gauhati (Assam) in Complaint Case  No.  608 of 2009, even directing the interim custody of the vehicle (Maruti  Zen)  be given to the petitioner vide order dated  17.3.2009.  The respondent on approaching the Guwahati High  Court against this order, the hon'ble court squashed the criminal  proceedings  pending   before  the  learned Magistrate. After hearing both sides, the Hon'ble Supreme Court decided on 30th...
7 comments
Read more

Court approached in the early stages of arbitration will prevail in all other subsequent proceedings

In National Highway Authority of India v. Hindustan Steelworks Construction Limited, the Hon'ble Delhi High Court opined that once the parties have approached a certain court for relief under Act at earlier stages of disputes then it is same court that, parties must return to for all other subsequent proceedings. Language of Section 42 of Act is categorical and brooks no exception. In fact, the language used has the effect of jurisdiction of all courts since it states that once an application has been made in Part I of the Act then ―that Court alone shall have jurisdiction over arbitral proceedings and all subsequent applications arising out of that agreement and arbitral proceedings shall be made in that Court and in no other Court. Court holds that NHAI in present case cannot take advantage of Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963 for explaining inordinate delay in filing present petition under Section 34 of this Act in this Court.
Post a Comment
Read more

No Rebate For Stamp Duty Paid In Another State - Bombay HC

A three judge bench of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court (Bombay HC) in a recent judgment in the matter of Chief Controlling Revenue Authority, Maharashtra State, Pune and Superintendent of Stamp (Headquarters), Mumbai v Reliance Industries Limited, Mumbai and Reliance Petroleum Limited, Gujarat1 has held that orders in case of a scheme of arrangement under Section 391 to 394 of the Companies Act, 1956 (Act) involving different High Courts in multiple states, are separate instruments in themselves. Accordingly, stamp duty would be payable on all the orders (and consequently, all the states) without the benefit of remission, rebate or set-off.
Post a Comment
Read more