.....then fall under any one of the two explanations under clause (iv) of rule 14(b) and make him ineligible for the current selection or for all future selection depending on whether the acquittal is honourable or otherwise. -- t.n. district police act, 1859. section 10 & tamil nadu special police subordinate service rules, rule 14(b), clause (iv) explanation (1); rule 14(b),ci.(iv) explanation (1) providing that a person acquitted or discharged on benefit of doubt shall be treated as person involved in criminal case - validity being questioned - held, the impugned rule 14(b) ci.(iv) explanation (1) has been issued in exercise of the power conferred upon the government under the tamil nadu district police act, the criminal city police act and the proviso to article 309 of the constitution., the rule is not assailed on the ground of lack of competence. it is challenged only on the ground that it is violative of articles 14 and 16 of the constitution. but it is well settled that if a rule passes the twin tests of (i) being founded on an intelligible differentia, and (ii) such differentia having a nexus with the object sought to be achieved, it cannot be said to be violative of articles 14 and 16 of the constitution. the impugned rule creates a classification of persons, who were not involved in criminal cases and persons, who were involved in criminal cases. the object of creating such a classification is to ensure that only those persons, whose character and antecedents were beyond and shadow of doubt alone, are permitted entry into the police service of the state. the rule is only a reflection of the intention of the government to maintain purity of administration. the rule merely provides a check post or a filter point, to ensure that only those, who had a clean record of personal life, are admitted into the system. that the existing system, has already come under heavy dose of criticism, cannot be swept under the carpet. therefore, as an employer, the.....orderk.n. mudaliyar, j.1. thommeni nadar and 24 others were b party before the learned trial magistrate and pandy and 21 others were a party. they were convicted of an offence under section 160 of the indian penal code.2. the principal argument of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that the ingredient of section 159 of the indian penal code, namely, 'public place' has not been proved by the prosecution in the light of the contents of ex. d-3 relied on by the b party. the learned additional district judge has elaborately discussed the entire evidence adduced on the question, whether the pathway was a public pathway or not, and arrived at the finding that the a party (who were plaintiffs in the civil suit) could have no right in the pathway as an easement of necessity; nor could they have any right over the said portion even on the basis of user of the pathway by them, on some occasions. the learned judge further found that the portion in question was a private pathway and not a public pathway.3. the criminal court is not charged with the task of evaluating the comparative claims of the parties as to the public user of the site in question. its finding must be distinct and clear that the scene of occurrence is a public place. the findings of the learned additional district judge embodied in ex. d-3 would at least create a doubt that the scene of offence was a public place. in this view, i am constrained to hold that the ingredient of 'public place' has not been made out. i, therefore, give the benefit of doubt to the petitioners in cr.p.c. nos. 274 of 1972 and 165 of 1973 and acquit all the petitioners of the offence punishable under section 160 of the indian penal code.4. the fines, if paid, shall be refunded to the petitioners.