Pending appeal against acquittal does not amount to criminal proceeding for withholding Second Higher Pay Scale under sealed cover.

An appeal against acquittal does not by itself amount to pending criminal proceedings for applying the sealed cover procedure to deny the Second Higher Pay Scale. Once acquittal is recorded after investigation and trial, the criminal proceeding is treated as concluded, the charges stand erased for service-law purposes, and the presumption of innocence is reinforced. A pending appeal or revision against acquittal does not continue the trial or create pendency of judicial proceedings. Accordingly, the circular relied on could not justify withholding the benefit merely because an appeal against acquittal remained pending, especially where the employee had already been found fit for the benefit earlier.

---

---

Issues: Whether an appeal against acquittal amounts to pendency of criminal proceedings so as to justify withholding the benefit of Second Higher Pay Scale under the sealed cover procedure.

Analysis: Section 2(i) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 defines judicial proceeding inclusively, and a criminal proceeding reaches its conclusion upon conviction or acquittal after investigation and trial. Once acquittal is recorded, the charges stand washed off and the presumption of innocence is reinforced. An appeal or revision against acquittal does not continue the trial and does not amount to pendency of judicial proceedings. The circular relied upon did not authorise denial of the benefit merely because an appeal against acquittal was pending, particularly where the employee had already been found fit for the benefit earlier.

Conclusion: The pending appeal against acquittal did not justify withholding the Second Higher Pay Scale, and the petitioner was entitled to the benefit from the due date.

---