SHISHUPAL SINGH Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision petition is directed against the judgment of the learned Sessions Judge, Jhunjhunu dated 5th February, 1974, whereby the accused-petitioner was convicted for the offence under Sec. 162, IPC and sentenced to three months' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 500/-, and in default of payment of fine to a further rigorous imprisonment for one and a half month.

(2.) THE brief facts giving rise to this revision petition are that the accused-petitioner Shishupal Singh is a practising advocate. A case under Sec. 3/7 of the Essential Commodities Act was instituted against 22 persons in the Court of SDM, Jhunjhunu. THE learned SDM acquitted four persons, but convicted 18 persons to one month's rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 500/- each, except accused-appellant Mahipal who was fined only Rs 500/- on 25th October, 1967. THEse 18 accused-persons feeling aggrieved against the judgment of the learned SDM wanted to go in appeal before the learned Sessions Judge. THE accused-petitioner Shishupal Singh was engaged by these 18 persons to file an appeal before the learned Sessions Judge, Jhunjhunu. It is contended that Shishupal Singh received Rs. 2,000/- from the accused persons on the plea that he will spend Rs. 200/- for engaging a senior counsel Shri Girdhar Gopal Bhargava and that he would pay Rs. 100/- per case to the Sessions Judge to ensure that the accused-appellants are acquitted. Out of these 18 accused-appellants four accused engaged Shri Maheshwar Prasad Advocate to conduct their appeals before the learned Sessions Judge. It is alleged that the money was paid to the accused-petitioner by the accused persons during the pendency of the appeal before the learned Sessions Judge, Jhunjhunu. On 12th March, 1968, the appeal was accepted by the learned Sessions Judge, and the case was remanded for a fresh trial by the learned SDM. On 19th July, 1968, the learned SDM decided the case again and convicted the accused persons till the rising of the Court and also fined them Rs. 100/- each.

(3.) RELIANCE was also placed on Bhagat Ram vs. State of Rajasthan (3), wherein it was held as under: - "the order of the Division Bench unless set aside in appeal to this Court was binding and conclusive in all subsequent proceedings between the parties The principle of res judicata is also applicable to criminal proceedings and it is not permissible in the subsequent stage of the same proceedinss or in some other subsequent proceedings to convict a person for an offence in respect of which an order for his acquittal has already been recorded. The plea of autra fois acquit as a bar to prosecution embodied in section 403 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is based upon the above wholesome Principle. "