STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH Vs. KOKILIAGADA MEERAYYA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) K. Meerayya, K. Venkatanarayana - respondents in this appeal - and two others were charged before the Judicial Magistrate, IInd Class, Avanigadda, for offences under Sections 323 and 324, Indian Penal Code for voluntarily causing injuries to Seetharamayya and Veeraraghavayya on June 22, 1964. The Trial Magistrate convicted Meerayya and Venkatanarayana - the first under the offence under Section 324 and the second for the offence under Section 323, Indian Penal Code. In appeal to the Court of Session, Krishna Division, at Machilipatnam, the order was confirmed. The High Court, in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction, set aside the order of conviction and sentence. The State of Andhra Pradesh has appealed to this Court, with special leave.

(2.) The case raises a question of some importance in the administration of justice. The findings recorded by the Trial Magistrate and confirmed by the Sessions Judge were that the respondents had committed assault upon Seetharamayya and Veeraraghavayya and that they could in law be properly convicted. But it was urged that there was a bar against prosecution of the two accused Meerayya and Venkatanarayana because of the "principle of issue estoppel". The plea is raised on the ground that the Station House Officer, Kodur Police Station, had instituted proceedings in the Court of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Bandat, under Section 107, Code of Criminal Procedure, against 96 persons, amongst whom were the two respondents, and an order under Section 112, Code of Criminal Procedure was made stating that the persons named therein were indulging in acts of violence involving breach of public peace and tranquillity in the village of Salempalam and were endangering peace in the village, and that they had formed themselves into a party and were thereby disturbing the public peace and tranquillity by committing acts of violence, and on that account they were required to show cause why each person named should not execute a bond for keeping the peace for a period of one year in the sum of Rupees 1000/- with two sureties in a like amount each. In the order requiring the parties to show cause four incidents were referred to - the first of which is material. It was recited that on 22-6-1964, eleven persons including the two respondents had beaten Seetharamayya and Veeraraghavayya with crow bars and sticks, and a case in Crime No. 20/64 under Sections 148, 323 and 325, Indian Penal Code had been registered and was being investigated. The Sub-Divisional Magistrate held an inquiry and was of the view that since the evidence led in support of the first incident was not supported by reliable evidence, and there were inherent discrepancies in the testimony of the witnesses and the recitals in the complaint, the first incident was not proved against any of the eleven persons.

(3.) It was urged that the order of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate holding that the respondents were not concerned in the incident had become final and it was not open to the Judicial Magistrate, IInd Class, Avanigadda, to hold a trial against the respondents in respect of the same incident. The Trial Magistrate rejected the plea, and the Sessions Judge agreed with him. But in the view of the High Court since in the proceeding under S. 107 of the Code of Criminal Procedure the incident which was made the subject-matter of the complaint against the respondents in the Court of the Judicial Magistrate was one of the incidents relied upon and was held not proved, it was not open to the State to commence or continue a prosecution against the respondents in respect of the same incident. In so holding, the High Court held that on the principle of "issue estoppel" approved by this Court in Manipur Administration vs. Thokchom, Bira Singh, (1964) 7 SCR 123 , so long as the finding, that the respondents were not concerned in the incident, was not set aside by appropriate proceeding, no prosecution or any allegation legally inconsistent with that finding could be commenced against the respondents.