9911796707
TMI Blog1964 (3) TMI 107X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ertain political parties and groups in Manipur in April, 1960 for establishing responsible Government in the Manipur area. The agitation took the form of picketing of Government offices and the residences of Government servants and blocking roads in order to paralyse the administration. After this form of agitation continued for some time, the District Magistrate of Manipur promulgated orders under s. 144, Criminal Procedure Code on the morning of April 25, 1960 banning public meetings and processions and these orders were proclaimed and communicated to the public through loudspeakers. Notwithstanding this order, crowds continued to collect and move on the streets shouting slogans. Bira Singh - the respondent - was said to have been leading this mob. A lathi charge by the police took place but it is stated that because of this the crowd moved a little away and began to pelt stones. The crowd was thereupon directed to disperse, its attention being drawn to the promulgation of the order under s. 144, Criminal Procedure Code and to the fact that the gathering in a public place in violation of the order made it an unlawful assembly; but this command was not heeded and the stone-throwin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ecution case that the respondent was present as the head of the mob on that occasion convicted him of the offence charged and sentenced him by his order dated July 8, 1960 to rigorous imprisonment for six months. Ten days thereafter on July 18, 1960 the charge sheet in the present cases was filed. 5. During the pendency of the prosecution from which the present appeal arises the respondent appealed to the learned Sessions judge against his conviction by the Magistrate on the charge under s. 188, Indian Penal Code. The learned Sessions Judge allowed the appeal holding that the prosecution had not established that the respondent was present at the place and at the time where the occurrence took place at which he was said by the prosecution to have been present or that he disobeyed the order under s. 144, Criminal Procedure Code. In the course of his judgment delivered on July 30, 1960 the learned Sessions Judge observed after referring to the delay in the filing of the complaint after the occurrence : This delay in the filing of the complaint and in the naming of the appellant.......throws considerable doubt on the presence of the appellant amount the agitators on 25-4-60.... ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 188, Indian Penal Code that he was not present at the scene of the occurrence on April 25, 1960 between the hours of 3 and 5 p.m. was final and conclusive and binding upon the prosecution and that no evidence could be led to establish a contrary state of affairs in the present proceedings. In so holding the learned Judicial Commissioner followed the decision of this Court in Pritam Singh v. State of Punjab 1956CriLJ805 and certain other decisions and held that the principle of res judicata applicable to criminal proceedings was not confined to cases falling within the bar of s. 403, Criminal Procedure Code but was of wider application. It is the correctness of this view of the law that calls for consideration in this appeal. 7. Before referring to the decision of this Court in Pritam Singh v. State of Punjab 1956CriLJ805 , it would be convenient to refer to and put aside one point for clearing the ground. Section 403, Criminal Procedure Code embodies in statutory form the accepted English rule of autre fois acquit. This section runs : 403 (1) A person who has been once tried by a Court of competent jurisdiction for an offence and convicted or acquitted of such offence s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion as well as s. 26 of the General Clauses Act to operate as a bar the second prosecution and the consequential punishment thereunder, must be for same offence i.e., an offence whose ingredients are the same. It has been pointed out in the same decision that the V Amendment of the American Constitution which provides that no person shall be subject, for the same offence, to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb, proceeds on the same principle. 10. It is common ground that the respondent cannot bring his case within the provisions of sub-s. (1) of s. 403 and it was also common ground that the trial of the respondent would be permitted by sub-s. (2). It should, however, be noticed that sub-ss. (1) to (3) of this section deal with the trial of an accused for an offence and his conviction therefore. The question raised for decision in Pritam Singh's case 1956CriLJ805, however was different and was whether where an issue of fact has been tried by a competent court on a former occasion and a finding has been reached in favour of an accused, such a finding would constitute an estoppel or res judicata against the prosecution not as a bar to the trial and conviction of t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... oceedings between the parties to the adjudication. 12. After pointing out that the prosecution witnesses were permitted to depose regarding the possession of ammunition by the appellant and that it was not possible to exclude the effect of this evidence on the prosecution case, their Lordships held that the appellant was seriously prejudiced by the reception of this evidence and therefore allowed the appeal and directed his acquittal. The point in regard to which the observations in Sambasivam's 1950] A.C. 458, case was applied by this Court related to the use of the recovery of a revolver from the accused to sustain his conviction of the offence of murder. Previous to the prosecution for an offence under s. 302, Indian Penal Code the appellant before this Court had been tried before the Additional Sessions Judge, Faridpur under s. 19(f) of the Indian Arms Act of an offence for possession of that revolver and had been acquitted. This Court speaking through Bhagwati, J. extracted the observations we have quoted from the judgment of Lord MacDermotta and pointed out that on the basis of this decision the evidence relating to the recovery of the revolver from the accused shou ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... exception was taken to its soundness and the decision proceeded on the basis of the facts not justifying the application of the principle, the conditions not being fulfilled. Learned Counsel is, therefore, not well-founded in his submission that the principle underlying Sambasivam's [1950] A.C. 458 case was dissented from in R. v. Connelly [1963] 3 All E.R. 510. Besides, it should be pointed out that the principle underlying the decision in Pritam Singh's case 1956CriLJ805 did come up for consideration before this Court on several occasions, but it was never dissented from though in some of them it was distinguished on facts. (See Banwari Godara v. The State of Rajasthan [G.A. No. 141 of 1960, d/February 7, 1961], Mohinder Singh v. State of Punjab 1965CriLJ112 and Kharkan v. The State of Uttar Pradesh [1964]4SCR673 . 15. These two decisions in R. v. Connelly [1963] 3 All E.R. 510 and Gurcharan Singh v. State of Punjab [1963]3SCR585 , being out of the way, we shall address ourselves to the question as to whether what is termed issue estoppel which has been held by this Court in Pritam Singh's 1956CriLJ805 case to be applicable to criminal proceedings is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... clear from the statement of the law by Lord MacDermott himself. The distinction between autre fois acquit and the objection to the reception of evidence to prove an identical fact which has been the subject of an earlier finding between the parties is brought out in the following passage from the judgment of Wright, J. in The Queen v. Ollis (1900) 2 Q.B. 758 : The real question is whether this relevant evidence of the false pretence on July 5 or 6 ought to have been excluded on the ground that it was part of the evidence given for the prosecution at the former trial, at which the prisoner was charged with having obtained money from Ramsey on that false pretense, and was acquitted of that charge. 19. The learned Judge then went on to point out that if the acquittal at the first trial was based on the negativing of this fact the evidence would be inadmissible but if that acquittal was based on other circumstances the evidence would be admissible. That is why he said : An objection in the nature of a plea of autre fois acquit cannot of course be maintained, because on either indictment the prisoner could not have been convicted of the offences, or any of them, which ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n is as much precluded by an estoppel by judgment in criminal proceedings as is a subject in civil proceedings........ The law which gives effect to issue-estoppels is not concerned with the correctness or incorrectness of the finding which amounts to an estoppel, still less with the process of reasoning by which the finding was reached in fact........ It is enough that an issue or issues have been distinctly raised or found. Once that is done, then, so long as the finding stands, if there be any subsequent litigation between the same parties, no allegations legally inconsistent with the finding may be made by one of them against the other. 22. It is, therefore clear that s. 403 of the Criminal Procedure Code does not preclude the applicability of this rule of issue-estoppel. The rule being one which is in accord with sound principle and supported by high authority and there being a decision of this Court which has accepted it as a proper one to be adopted, we do not see any reason for discarding it. We might also point out that even before the decision of this Court this rule was applied by some of the High Courts and by way of illustration we might refer to the de ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
