SONE LAI PASWAN Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD .

(2.) THE petitioner states that F.I.R. was instituted being Keoti PS. Case No. 62 of 1989 in respect of a dacoity under Sec. 395 I.PC. Later on 30.5.1989 a Petromax and umbrella were recovered from his house for which Keoti PS. Case No. 63/1989 was instituted against the petitioner under Sec. 414 I.PC. The recovered articles were not in the list of the earlier PS. Case being articles taken away in course of dacoity. However, the informant of the first case subsequently identified the said articles and, accordingly, the petitioner through supplementary charge -sheet was charge -sheeted in the first case solely on the basis of recovery. In the second case i.e. Keoti PS. Case No. 63 of 1989 he was charge -sheeted under Sec. 414 I.PC. for having in his possession stolen articles known to be stolen. The latter case was tried and after examination of six prosecution witnesses none of whom supported the prosecution, the petitioner was acquitted and thereby held that he had any stolen article knowing them to be stolen articles.

(3.) THE learned counsel for the petitioner relied on a decision in the case of Pritam Singh vs. State of Punjab reported in A.I. R. 1956 Supreme Court 415. Under similar circumstances a person was charged for causing death by use of firearm. He was separately charged with having the said firearm without licence. Thus, there were two trials against the petitioner of that case; one in respect of causing death by firearm and second for illegal possession of firearm. In the latter case he was tried and acquitted holding that he was not in illegal possession of firearm. When his trial for murder was taken up it was pleaded on his behalf that he could not be charged with murder by firearm because another court of competent jurisdiction had come to the finding otherwise. His plea was not accepted upto the High Court and then the matter reached the Apex Court. The Apex Court after examining the said judgment and evidence held that the principle of res judicata are equally applicable to criminal proceedings. It is a key to an issue estoppel whether the findings arrived at by a competent Court would bind all other Courts in all other subsequent proceedings and in that view of the matter the Apex Court allowed the appeal and set aside the conviction.