minal Appeal No 207 of 1967
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated April 17 1967 of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Criminal Revision Petition No 735 of 1965
P Ram Reddy and A VV Nair for the appellant
GS Rama Rao for the respondents
The judgment of the Court was delivered by Shah J
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 IP 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 IP Code
In appeal to the Court of Session 1006 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
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 Bandar 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 Rs 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 June 22 1964 11 persons including the two respondents had beaten Seetharamayya and Veeraraghavayya with crow bars and sticks and a case in Crime No 2064 under sections 148 323 and 325 IP
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
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 section 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 1007 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 Singh1 so long as the finding that the respondents were not concerned in the incident was not set aside by appropriate proceeding no prosecution on any allegation legally inconsistent with that finding could be commenced against the respondents
Counsel for the State contended that the rule of issue estoppel is inconsistent with the statutory provisions contained in section 403 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and cannot be resorted to in criminal trials and that in any event the rule of issue estoppel had no application since there was no previous trial of the respondents for any offence alleged to arise out of the incident in respect of which they were tried
It was urged that it was not the law even recognised by the Australian Courts where the rule of issue estoppel had its origin that evidence on which a criminal proceeding was held cannot be utilised in any subsequent proceeding between the same parties
The first contention raised by counsel for the State cannot be entertained in view of a large body of authority in this Court
If the matter were res integra the argument that the Courts cannot travel outside the terms of the Code of Criminal Procedure  and extend the rule of autre fois acquit incorporated in section 403 of the Code of Criminal Procedure may have required serious consideration
The following important rules emerge from the terms of section 403 of the Codeof Criminal Procedure 1 An order of conviction or acquittal in respect of any offence constituted by any act against or in favour of a person does not prohibit a trial for any other offence constituted by the same act which he may have committed if the Court trying the first offence was incompetent to try that other offence
2 If in the course of a transaction several offences are committed for which separate charges could have been made but if a person is tried in respect of some of those charges and not all and is acquitted or convicted he may be tried for any distinct offence for which at the former trial a separate charge may have been but was not made
3 If a person is convicted of any offence constituted by any act and that act together with the consequences which re suited therefrom constitute a different offence he may again be tried for that different offence arising out of the consequences if 1  L 6 Sup C1169 13 1008 the consequences had not happened or were not known to the Court to have happened at me time when he was convicted
4 A person who has once been tried by a court of competent jurisdiction for an offence and has been either convicted or acquitted shall not be tried for the same offence or for any other offence arising out of the same facts for which a different charge from the one made against him might have been made or for which he might have been convicted under the Code of Criminal Procedure
Section 403 of the Code of Criminal Procedure enacts the rule of autre fois acquit and autre fois convict applicable to criminal trials
The rule is that so long as an order of acquittal or conviction at a trial held by a Court of competent jurisdiction of a person charged with committing an offence stands that person cannot again be tried on the same facts for the offence for which he was tried or for any other offence arising therefore
But the rule of issue estoppel in criminal trials evolved by the High Court of Australia and approved by the Judicial Committee has been applied to criminal trials in India apart from the terms of section 403 of the Code of Criminal Procedure
Lord MacDermott in Sambasivam vs Public Prosecutor Federation of Malaya1 observed at p 479 The effect of a verdict of acquittal pronounced by a competent court on a lawful charge and after a lawful trial is not completely stated by saying that the person acquitted cannot be tried again for the same offence
To that it must be added that the verdict is binding and conclusive in all subsequent proceedings between the parties to the adjudication
The maxim Res judicata pro veritate accipitur is no less applicable to criminal than to civil proceedings
Here the appellant having been acquitted at the first trial on the charge of having ammunition in his possession the prosecution was bound to accept the correctness of that verdict and was precluded from taking any step to challenge it at the second trial
And the appellant was no less entitled to rely on his acquittal in so far as it might be relevant in his defence
That it was not conclusive of his innocence on the fire arm charge is plain but it undoubtedly reduced in some degree the weight of the case against him for at the first trial the facts proved in support of one charge were clearly relevant to the other having regard to the circumstances in which the ammunition and revolver were found and the fact that they fitted each other 1009 In Sambasivam s case1 the appellant was tried for the offence of being in possession of ammunition in violation of Reg
41b of the Emergency Criminal Trials Regulations 1948
He was acquitted of the charge
Later he was tried for the offence of carrying a fire arm contrary to Reg
41a of the Emergency Regulations and was convicted by the Supreme Court of the Federation of Malaya
An appeal was carried to the Judicial Committee and the legality of the conviction was challenged on the grounds inter alia that so long as the order of acquittal in respect of the carrying of ammunition stood the facts proved in support of that charge were in the circumstances of the case clearly relevant to the second charge and the appellant was entitled to rely upon the acquittal in so far as it was relevant to his defence
The plea so raised was accepted by the Judicial Committee
Pritam Singh vs The State of Punjaba this Court held that where a person has been tried under section 19f of the Arms Act and is acquitted because the prosecution has failed to establish the possession of a revolver by the accused as alleged in a subsequent trial of the offence of murder where the possession of the revolver was a fact in issue which had to be established the prosecution could not ignore the finding at the previous trial
In several later judgments of this Court the principle of issue estoppel has received approval Manipur Administration vs Thokchom Bira Singha
Banwari Godara vs The State
of Rajasthan4
Lalta  Ors
vs The State of UP5 It was also accepted in The Assistant Collector of Customs and another vs LR Malwani and anotherx
It is too late now to make a departure from the rule accepted by this Court
In the American Courts also the rule of issue estoppel has received approval Sealfron vs United States7
It is true that in Connelly vs Director of Public Prosecutions8 decided by the House of Lords there was some difference of opinion amongst the Law Lords as to the applicability of the rule to criminal trials in the English Courts
Our Criminal jurisprudence is largely rounded upon the basic rules of English Law though the procedure is somewhat different
Trials by jury have been practically abolished and the cases are being tried by Judges
Several charges arising out of the same transaction can be tried under the Code of Criminal Procedure together at one trial and specific issues are always raised and determined 1 2 L AIR 1956 SC 415
3  4 Cr A No 141 of 1960 decided on Feb 7 1961
5 Cr A No 185 of 1966 decided on Oct 25 1968
6 Cr
15  35 of 1967 decided on Oct 16 1968
7 1948 332 US Rep 575
8 LR 1010 by the Courts
Under the English system of administration criminal jaw trials for serious offences are held with the aid of the jury and it is frequently impossible to determine with certitude the specific issues on which the verdict of the jury is founded
In criminal trials under the Code of Criminal procedure there is no uncertainty in the determination of issues decided
Difficulties envisaged in Connelly s case1 in the application of the rule of issue estoppel do not therefore arise under our system
But it is necessary to notice the true basis of the rule
Dixon 1 in The King vs Wilkes2 observed at pp
518 519   it appears to me that there is nothing wrong in the view that there is an issue estoppel if it appears by record of itself or as explained by proper evidence that the same point was determined in favour of a prisoner in a previous criminal trial which is brought issue on a second criminal trial of the same prisoner
There must be a prior proceeding determined against the Crown necessarily involving an issue which again arises in a subsequent proceeding by the Crown against the same prisoner
The allegation of the Crown in the subsequent proceeding must itself be inconsistent with the acquittal of the prisoner in the previous proceeding
But if such a condition affairs arises I see no reason why the ordinary rules of issue estoppel should not apply
Such rules are not to be confused with those of res judicata which in criminal proceedings are expressed in the pleas of autre fois acquit and autre fois convict
They are pleas which are concerned with the judicial determination of an alleged criminal liability and in the case of conviction with the substitution of a new liability
Issue estoppel is concerned with the judicial establishment of a proposition of law or fact between parties
It depends upon well known doctrines which control the relitigation of issues which are settled by prior litigation 
 The rule does not predicate that evidence given at one trial against the accused cannot again be given in the trial of the accused for a distinct offence
As Lord Morris of Borty Y Gest observed in Connelly s case1 at p 1325   there is no rule or principle to the effect that evidence which has first been used in support of a charge which is not proved may not be used to support a subsequent and different charge 1 2 77 CLR 511
1011 Can it be said in the present case that there has been a trial of the accused on an issue in a prior litigation and an attempt is made to relitigate the same It may be recalled that the respondents were not tried at any criminal trial in the previous case
The earlier proceeding was for binding over the respondents and 94 others to keep the peace on the case that it was apprehended that they were likely to commit breach of peace or disturb public tranquillity
The primary issue which the Court was called upon to determine was whether there was any apprehension of the breach of peace or disturbance of public tranquillity which necessitated the passing of the order requiring the respondents and others to give security
It is true that in support of that order the Station House Officer in his report had relied upon four incidents one of which specifically set out the details which formed the subject matter of  the trial from which the present appeal arises
But there was no trial of the respondents for an offence in the earlier proceeding and there was no order of conviction or acquittal
The rule of issue estoppel cannot in our judgment be extended so as to prevent evidence which was given in the previous proceeding and which was held not sufficient to sustain the other for being used in support of a charge of an offence which the State seeks to make out
The rule of issue estoppel prevents relitigation of the issue which has been determined in a criminal trial between the State and the accused
If in respect of an offence arising out of a transaction a trial has been taken place and the accused has been acquitted another trial in respect of the offence alleged to arise out of that transaction or of a related transaction which requires the Court to arrive at a conclusion inconsistent with the conclusion reached at the earlier trial is prohibited by the rule of issue estoppel
In the present case there was no trial and no acquittal
The rejection of evidence given in the earlier proceeding to sustain an order for binding over the respondents to keep the peace does not preclude the trial of the respondents in respect of the specific incident which together with the other incident was sought to be made the basis of the order of binding over the respondents
This Court in LR Malwani s case1 declined to apply the rule of issue estoppel to a case arising under the Sea Customs Act in which there was an inquiry held by the Collector of Customs and a criminal prosecution was then filed
In our judgment the High Court was in error in holding that the respondents could not be tried and convicted of offences under section 324 and 323 IP Code because in the earlier proceeding under section 107 of the Code of Criminal Procedure evidence with regard to the incident out of which offences which are the subject matter of the present appeal was taken and was regarded as insufficient to sustain the order
1 Cr As
15  35 of 1967 decided on Oct 16 1968 1012 The appeal is allowed and the order passed by the High Court is set aside
As however the sentences passed by the learned Trial Magistrate and confirmed by the Court of Session were of short duration and the respondents have been released on bail we do not think that they should be called upon to undergo the remaining sentences
We reduce the sentences of imprisonment to the period already undergone
The appeal is allowed and the order of the Session Court is restored subject to the modification in the sentence of imprisonment
RKPS Appeal allowed


Summary:
Proceedings were instituted under section 107 Cr
PC against four persons including the two respondents and an order was made against them under section 112 Cr
PC stating that they were indulging in various acts of violence involving breach of peace and requiring them to show cause why each of them should not execute a bond for keeping the peace
This order referred to four incidents the first of which was that on June 22 1964 eleven persons including the two respondents had indulged in certain acts of violence as a result of which a case under sections 148 323 and 325 IPC had been registered
After holding an inquiry the Magistrate was of the view that the evidence led in support of the first incident was not reliable and the first incident was not proved against any of the eleven persons
Subsequently the respondents were convicted at a trial of offences under sections 323 and 324 IPC committed in the first incident in the order under section 112 Cr
The Court of Session in appeal confirmed the conviction but the High Court in revision set it aside holding that on the principle of issue estoppel approved by this Court in Manipur Administration vs Thockchom Bira Singh   since in the proceedings under section 107 Cr
PC the incident which was made the subject matter of the complaint against the respondents in the Trial Court was one of the incidents relied upon and was held not proved it was not open to the State to prosecute the respondents in respect of the same incident
In appeal to this Court with special leave it was contended that the rule of issue estoppel had no application in the present
case since there was no previous trial of the respondents for any offence alleged to arise out of the incident in respect of which they were tried and furthermore that the rule of issue estoppel was inconsistent with the statutory provisions contained in section 403 Cr
PC and could not be resorted to in criminal trials
HELD i The High Court was in error in holding that the respondents could not be tried and convicted of offences under sections 324 and 323 IPC because in the earlier proceeding under section 107 Cr PC evidence with regard to the incident out of which the offences arose which were the subject matter of the present appeal was taken and was regarded as insufficient to sustain the order
The rejection of evidence given in the earlier proceeding to sustain an order for binding over the respondents to keep the peace did not preclude the trial of the respondents in respect 1005 of the specific incident which together with the other incidents was sought to be made the basis of the order of binding over the respondents
The rule of issue estoppel prevents relitigation of the issue which has been determined in a criminal trial between the State and the accused
If in respect of an offence arising out a transaction a trial has taken place and the accused has been acquitted another trial in respect of the offence alleged to arise out of that transaction or of a related transaction which requires the Court to arrive at a conclusion inconsistent with the conclusion reached at the earlier trial is prohibited by the rule of issue estoppel
In the present case there was no trial of the respondents for an offence in the earlier proceeding and there was no order of conviction or acquittal
1011 D F H ii Section 403 Cr
PC enacts the rule of autre fois acquit and autre fois convict applicable to criminal trials
The rule is that so long as an order of acquittal or conviction at a trial held by a court of competent jurisdiction of a person charged with committing an offence stands that person cannot again be tried on the same facts for the offence for which he was tried or for any other offence arising therefrom
But the rule of issue estoppel in criminal trials evolved by the High Court of Australia and approved by the Judicial Committee has been applied to criminal trials in India apart from the terms of section 403
1008 C Manipur Administration vs Thokchom Bira Singh   Sambasivam vs Public Prosecutor Federation of Malaya  Pritam Singh vs The State of Punjab AIR 1956 SC 415 Banwari Godara vs The State of RaJasthan Cr A No 141 of 1960 decided on Feb 7 1961 Lalta  Ors
vs The State of UP Cr A No 185 of 1966 decided on Oct 25 1968 The assistant Collector of Customs and another vs
LR Malwani and another Cr As
15  35 of 1967 decided on Oct 16 1968 Sealfron vs United States 1948 332 US Rep 575 and The King vs Wilkes   referred to
Connelly vs Director of Public Prosecutions  distinguished