BHAGAT RAM versus STATE OF RAJASIBAN

Citation: [1972] 3 S.C.R. 303 · Decided: 31-01-1972 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: J.M. SHELAT · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Cited by 3 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
BHAGAT RAM 
v. 
STATE OF RAJASIBAN 
January 31, 1972 
[J. M. SHELAT AND H. R. KHANNA, JJ.] 
303 
Crin1irwl Law-Practice and Procedure-Two accused charged with 
o11ences for conspiracy and other ofjences_..:..Acquitted by trial coutt-
Appelll heard by two Judges-Acquittal of one accused and the <Hher of 
ofiences of conspiracy etc. upheld-Difference of opinion with respect to 
offence under s. 161 I.P.C.-Reference to third Judge-Jurisdiction of 
ihird !11d.fle to reopen entire matter. 
An Inspector of Police was charged with 
offences under ss. I 20B, 
161, '.!18, 347 and 389 I.P.C. and also under s. 5(1)(a) read withs. 5(2) 
of the Prevention of Corruption Act. Another accused was charged along 
wiib him for offences under ss. I20B and J 65A, I.P.C. The trial dmrt 
acquitted both the accused. Jn appe:il to the High Court a Bench of two 
judges confirmed the acquittal of tho second accused and the acquittal 
of the Inspector with respect to offences under ss. 120B, 218, 349 and 
:\89, J.P.C., but with respec,t to offences under s. 161, l.P.C. ands. 5(1) (a) 
of the Prevention of Corruption Act, the two Judges differed and the 
matter was referred to a third Judge. 
The third Judge held that the 
Jnspcctor ~s guilty of the offences under s. 161 and also under ss. 120B, 
218 and 347 J.P.C. 
In appeal to this Court by the Inspector and by the State against the 
acquittal of the second accused, 
HELD : ( J) As regards the second accused there was nothing to 
justify an interference with his acquitta1. [310 HJ 
(2) It was not permissible for the third Judge to reopen the molter 
and convict the Inspector for offences under ss. 120B, 347 and 389 l.P.C., 
bec'/iuse it was not a case where the entire matter had been left open for 
the opinion of the third Judge. 
The difference of opinion between the 
two Judges was only with l'espec~ to the offences under s. 161 I.P.C. and 
s. 5(1) (a) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and the third Judge could 
only go into that aspect of the matter . .[309 B-D] 
The Division Bench had upheld the ocquittal of the Inspector of 
Police f0r offences under ss. 120B, 347 and 389 and the State appeal in 
that respect had been dismissed by the Division Bench. 
That order. 
unless set aside in appeal to this Court, was binding and conclusive in all 
suboequent proceedings between the parties. The principle of res judicata 
is also appltcable to ctiminal proceedings and it is not pennissible in the 
subsequent stage of the same proceedings or in some other subsequent 
proceedings to convict a person for an offence in respect of which an 
crder fo'r his acquittal bas already been reoorded. [309 F-HJ 
Pritam Singh v. State of Punjab, 1956 S.C. A.l.R. 415, followed. 
Further when the second accused was acquitted of the charge under 
' I 20B I.P.C. the ba~is of the charge against the Inspector for conspimcy 
7-L!S7S1p. Cl/72 
304 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1972] 3 S.C.R. 
between him and the second accused disappeared. 
It was not the ca.se 
A 
of the prosecution that he had conspired with some other person whose 
identity had not been e•l'ablished. [310 E-F] 
In view of the acquittal of the second accused it is also not pclaiblo 
to maintain the conviction of the Inspector under s. 161 I.P.C. sinoe it 
was not the r.rosecution case that he had made any demand directly for 
payment ot 1llegal gratification. 
On the contrary, the prosecution case 
was that the Inspector had attempted to obtain such gratification through 
B 
iustrumentality of the second accused. (311 B-C) 
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeals Nos. 
36 of 1969 and 202 of 1970. 
Appeal from the judgment and order dated January 17, 1969 
of the Rajasthan High Court in D.B. Criminal Appeal No. 376 
C 
of 1965. 
A, S. R. Chari and Sobhagmal Jain, for the appellant (in Cr. 
A. No. 36 of 1969), 
K. B. Mehta, for the respondent (in Cr. A. No. 36 of 1969) 
(in Cr. A. No. 202 of 1970). 
I> 
S. C. Gupta, Ramesh Chand, S. Bhandare and P. H. Parekh, 
for the respondent (in Cr. A. No. 202 of 1970). 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
Khanna, J. This 
judgment would dispose of criminal 
E 
appeal No. 36 of 1969 Bhagat Ram v. State of Rajasthan and 
criminal appeal No. 262 of 1970 State of Rajasthan v. Ram. 
Swaroop. 
Both the appeals have been filed on certificate granted 
by the Rajasthan High Court. 
Bhagat Ram during the year 1962 was posted as circle ins· 
F 
pector of police at Ganganagar. 
Ancestral
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.