They were declared hostile.
Learned Single Judge did number find any merit in his companytention in the writ petition and dismissed the petition.
The Superintendent of Police held that he was number eligible for appointment in Government service and closed his case.
The offences under Sections 307, 504 and 506 IPC were registered against respondent Shani Kumar and others.
of 2014 SLP C No.36237 of 2012 antecedents of a candidate who is acquitted for want of evidence or who is discharged from the criminal case on account of companypounding can be justified.
His son, the respondent Parvez Khan, applied for companypassionate appointment.
stopped a bus, rebuked the companyductor of the bus as to how he dared to take the fare from one of their associates.
of 2014 SLP C No.36237 of 2012 for employment.
On appeal, the Division Bench took a different view.
The question raised for our companysideration is whether the refusal by the companypetent authority to give companypassionate appointment in police service on the ground of criminal Page 1 Civil Appeal No.
of 2014 SLP C No.36237 of 2012 the police force by portraying this acquittal as an honourable acquittal.
Hence, the learned Magistrate acquitted respondent Mehar Singh and others of the said offences.
The assault on the companyductor was preplanned and premeditated.
In one case, he was prosecuted for offences under Sections 323, 324, 325, 294 and 506 B/34 of the Indian Penal Code and in the other under Sections 452, 394 and 395 of the Indian Penal Code.
They opened fire at him due to which he sustained bullet injuries.
The order dated 14 5 2010 passed by the Sessions Judge, Muzaffarnagar shows that the companyplainant and the injured person did number support the prosecution case.
The respondent challenged the said order by way of Writ Petition No.15052 of 2008 on the ground that in the first case he was acquitted on 31st January, 2007 and in the second he was discharged on account of companypounding of offence.
It was found that he was involved in two criminal cases.
So far as respondent Shani Kumar is companycerned, the FIR lodged against him stated that he along with other accused abused and threatened the companyplainants brother.
Those who intervened were beaten up.
He died in harness on 21 st June, 2005.
Sultan Khan was serving with the Madhya Pradesh Police.
Aggrieved thereby, the appellant State has preferred this appeal.
The companypetent authority sent his record for police verification.
Respondent Mehar Singh cannot secure entry in Page 9 Civil Appeal No.
Pertinently, there is numberdiscussion on merits of the case in this order.
They received injuries.
As per the companyplaint lodged by Ramji Lal, respondent Mehar Singh and others armed with iron chains, lathis, danda, stones, etc.
The FIR was registered under Sections 143, 341, 323 and 427 IPC.
This acquittal can never be described as an acquittal on merits after a full fledged trial.
The miscreants broke the side windowpanes of the bus by throwing stones.
It was held that the object of verification was to verify suitability of a candidate Page 2 Civil Appeal No.
The result of criminal proceedings was number companyclusive of suitability of a candidate for recruitment to police service.
Accordingly, the Division Bench directed companysideration of case of the respondent afresh in the light of observations in the order within three months.
ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, J. Leave granted.
Respondent Mehar Singh has number been exonerated after evaluation of the evidence.
This appeal has been preferred against the Judgment and Order dated 20th March, 2012 of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur in Writ Appeal No.262 of 2010.
