GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI Vs. AMIT PANWAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE issue as to when a brush with criminal law would not taint a person, disentitling him from public employment, has been extensively dealt with by us in a recent decision pronounced on April 29, 2013 : WP(C) No.4052/2012 ,,Commission of Police vs.Mukesh Kumar.

(2.) WITH reference to offences being categorized as felonies and misdemeanours, and in the context of the criminal law in India where offences are classified as cognizable and non-cognizable as also bailable and non-bailable, this Bench had opined that different wrongs would attract different degree of criminality; and unless the offence involves a moral turpitude, for non-serious offences, irrespective of whether the accused was convicted or acquitted, public employment should not be denied because keeping a person out of society breeds criminality. With respect to, when a person is acquitted by a Court, but is charged of a morally depriving offence, referring to the law declared by the Supreme Court in the decision reported as (1996) 11 SCC 615 Delhi Administration vs. Sushil Kumar and an unreported decision dated November 28, 2005 of a Division Bench in WP(C) No.6042-43/2005 Government of NCT of Delhi & Anr. vs. Deepak Kumar, this Bench had opined that the nature of the acquittal; the attendant circumstances pertaining to the acquittal; the nature of the crime alleged and the circumstances under which it was allegedly committed have to be taken note of. This Bench had opined that a few decisions rendered by Co- ordinate Benches of this Court holding that upon being acquitted, it has to be treated that the person accused was innocent, is a wrong view of the law for the reason if a person is acquitted at a criminal trial it does not necessarily mean that the person is innocent. It only means that the prosecution was unable to muster sufficient evidence to sustain the indictment. In para 23, it was observed as under:-

(3.) RESPONDENT Amit Panwar, found himself empanelled for being appointed as a Constable (Exe.) in the Delhi Police but appointment evaded him because admittedly he was an accused in FIR No.67 dated April 02, 2009, P.S. Lal Kurti, District Meerut (U.P.) for offences punishable under Section 324/294/34 IPC. Later on, the offence for which he faced trial was under Section 307/294 IPC. He was acquitted on October 01, 2010.