GOPAL PRASAD SINHA versus STATE OF BIHAR

Citation: [1971] 2 S.C.R. 619 · Decided: 16-10-1970 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.M. SIKRI · Disposal: Case Partly allowed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
GOPAL PRASAD SINHA 
v. 
STATE OF BIHAR 
Octobel' 16, 1970 
[S. M. SIKRI AND I. D. DUA, JJ.] 
61~ 
Crimi;:al Procedure Code (Act 5 of 1898), s, 403-/.1.>11N"Stoppe/-
When applicable. 
The appellant was tried under .s. 409, J.P.C., for havin~ committee! 
crimin.al breach of trust during the period between January 31, 1960 and 
November 30, 1960 while acting as a cashier. 
He was put up for trial 
in a previous case under s. 409, I.P.C., for having committed criminal 
breach of trust during the period December 8, 1960 to August 17, 1961 
and in that case he was acquitted because it was held that he was not 
in charge of the cash. 
On the question, whether on the principle of 
issue-estoppel he should be acquitted, because, if he was not a cashier 
from December 8, 1960 to August 17, 1961 he could not be held to be 
a cuhier from January 31, 1960 to November 30, 1960. 
HELD : The basic principle underlying the rule of issue-estoppcl is 
tb,t the same iS&ue of fact and law must have been determined in tho 
previous proceeding, that is, the latter finding must necessarily be in con-
tradiction of the previous determination. 
In the present case, however, 
the accused was never· appointed as a cashier, but was a temporary senior 
acoounts clerk who was alleged to be doing the work of a cashier. A 
person may be acting as a cashier at one period and may not be acting 
as a cashier at another. 
Iii such circumstances, when the periods are 
different, there can be no such contradiction. 
Therefore, the rule of 
issue-estoppel does not apply to the facts of the case. [621 H; 622 A-Cl 
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : . Criminal Appeal No. 
212 ofJ967. 
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated 
Auguat 3, 1967 ol the Patna High Court in Criminal Appeal No. 
389 of 1965 with Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No. 1048 
of 1969 from the judgment am.d order dated July 14, 1969, oC the 
Patna High Court in Criminal Misc. No. 411 of 1969. from the 
G 
julfamont and order dated July 14, 1969, of the Patna Hip Court 
in Criminal Misc. No. 411 of 1969. 
S. N. Prasad, for the appellant. 
B. P. Iha, for the respondent. 
H 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered_ by 
SUiri, 1. This appeal by special leave raises the question of 
the applicability of the rule of issue·estoppel. 
The 
appellant, 
620 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(1971] 2 S.C.R. 
Gopal Prasad Sinha, was fried on (! charge under s. 409, I.P .C., 
for having committed criminal breach of trust of Rs .. 27,800/-
during the period between January 31, 1960 and November 30, 
1960, while acting as a cashier of the Public Works Department, 
East Division, Gaya. The Assistant Sessions Judge framed three 
points for determination : 
"1. If the accused Gopal Prasad Sinha was 
a 
Public servant and was working as cashier in the office 
of the Executive Engineer, P.W.D., Gaya East Division, 
during the period between 31-1-60 to 30-11-60 ?" 
2. Whether charge amount namely 
Rs. 27,800/-
was entrusted to the accus.ed or he had dominion over 
it in his capacity as a public servant ? 
3. Whether the accused committed criminal breach 
of trust in respect of this charge amount ?" 
The learned Assistant Sessions Judge, after going through 
the oral and documentary evidence, answered the fir$! point in 
the ·affirmative and held that the accused was handling the cash 
in the office during the aforesaid period as a cashier. 
On point No. 2 the learned Assistant Sessions Judge, after 
considering the oral and documentary evidence, held : 
"It is proved that the accused was in charge of one 
key of one of the locks of the door of the iron chest 
of the office of the Executive Engineer P.W.D., Gaya 
East Division. 
It is also proved that the accused was 
dealing with the cash of the Division and he was re-
ceiving and disbursing money of the Division. I accord-
ingly hold that the charge money was entrusted to 1he 
accused and the accused had dominion over the charge 
amount of Rs. 27,800/- while acting 
as cashier 
of 
P.W.D., Gaya East Division." 
On point No. 3· he held that "the accused made entries in 
the cash book showing remittance of the charge amount to sub-
divisions Nos. 2 and 3 but the same were not actually remit.led 
by the accused nor they were received in suh-division Nos. 2 and 
3." 
The point of issue-estoppel was raised before him, the point 
being that the accused was put up on ·-trial in a previous case 
under s. 409, I.P.C., for having committed cri

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.