1968 (10) TMI 109 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Applicability of the principle of autrefois acquit under Section 403 of the Criminal Procedure Code.
2. Applicability of the rule of issue-estoppel in criminal proceedings.
3. Validity of the convictions under Sections 467, 471, and 193 of the Indian Penal Code based on prior acquittal.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Applicability of the principle of autrefois acquit under Section 403 of the Criminal Procedure Code:

The judgment discusses Section 403 of the Criminal Procedure Code, which embodies the English rule of autrefois acquit. The section states that a person who has been tried and acquitted or convicted by a competent court cannot be tried again for the same offence or for any other offence based on the same facts. However, the section allows for subsequent trials for distinct offences or offences constituted by different acts. The court noted that the appellants could not plead the bar enacted in Section 403(1), but their prosecution would be permitted under Sub-section (2) of Section 403.

2. Applicability of the rule of issue-estoppel in criminal proceedings:

The court examined whether a finding of fact reached in a former trial could constitute an estoppel against the prosecution in a subsequent trial. The principle of issue-estoppel precludes the reception of evidence to disturb a finding of fact that has been conclusively determined in a prior proceeding. The court referenced the case of Pritam Singh v. The State of Punjab, where it was held that a verdict of acquittal binds and is conclusive in all subsequent proceedings between the parties. The court also cited the High Court of Australia's decision in Marz v. The Queen, which supported the application of issue-estoppel even if the prior verdict was the result of a misdirection or misunderstanding by the jury.

3. Validity of the convictions under Sections 467, 471, and 193 of the Indian Penal Code based on prior acquittal:

The court held that the rule of issue-estoppel applied to the present case. Since the Second Class Magistrate had acquitted the appellants of the charges related to obtaining thumb impressions by force, this finding was final and could not be reopened. Consequently, the substratum of the prosecution's case for forgery under Sections 467 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code failed. The court concluded that the charges of forgery could not be established against any of the appellants, and their convictions and sentences were quashed.

Conclusion:

The appeal was allowed, and the judgment of the Allahabad High Court dated June 3, 1966, was set aside. The convictions and sentences of the appellants were quashed, and if the appellants were still in jail, they were to be set at liberty forthwith.