LALTA AND ORS. versus STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH

Citation: [1969] 2 S.C.R. 526 · Decided: 25-10-1968 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: J.C. SHAH · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

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

Judgment (excerpt)

LALTA AND ORS. 
v. 
STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH 
October 25, 1968 
(J. C. SHAH, V. RAMASWAMI AND A. N. GROVER, JJ.] 
Code of Criminal Procedure 
(5 of 1898), s. 403-Rule of issue-
estoppel-Applicahility. 
B 
The first appellant filed a suit on a promissory note. 
Prior to the 
institution of the suit, the executant of the promissory note had filed a 
complaint against the appellants alleging that they had forcibly taken his 
C 
thumb impressions on a number of blank forms of promissory notes. 
The Magistrate 
·acquitted the appellants. Thereafter. 
the suit on the 
promis·sory note was dismissed on the ground that the promissory note 
was a forgery because, the stamps affixed were of a date later than that 
of the, promissory note. 
The Court then filed a complaint against the 
appellants for the offence of forgery. 
The appellants were convicted for 
.,._ 
~ 
"' 
' 
I ... _ 
. "" 
forgery and abetment of forgery. 
._., 
• 
D 
In appeal to this Court, 
HELD : In the earlier criminal case, the allegation that the exe-
cutant's thumb impressions on blank forms were obtained by force, was 
found to be false. 
That finding was final and could not be reopened 
because of the rule as to issue-estoppel. Therefore, the sub-stratum of 
the present case failed and the appellants could not be convicted for the 
offence of forgery and its abetment. [532 D-F] 
E 
The rule of issue-estoppel is not covered by s. 403, Criminal Procedure 
Code, which deals with the principle of autrefois acquit : but that section 
does not preclude the applicability of the rule. The rule is in accordance 
with sound principle and was applied in two decisions· of 
this Court, 
namely, Pritam Singh v. State of Punjab1 A.LR. 
1956 S.C. 415 
and 
Manipur Administration v. Thockechom Bira Singh, [1964] 7 S.C.R. 123. 
There is no reason for castin.g any doubt on its soundness or for taking 
a different view. [532 B-D] 
· 
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No. 
185 of 1966. 
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated 
June 3, 1966 of the Allahabad High Court, Lucknow Bench in 
Criminal Revision Applications No. 410 ~nd 413 of 1964. 
R. K. Garg, S. C. Agarwala, S. Chakravarti and S. S. Shukla, 
for the appellants. 
O. P. Rana and Ravindra Bana, for the respondent. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
Ramaswami, J. This appeal is brought, by special leave, from 
the judgment of the Allahabad High Court dated June 3, 1966 
F 
G 
H 
' ' t 
·~ 
... 
• 
• 
' 
• 
, 
-
" 
·-
• 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
LALTA v. u. P. STATE (Ramaswami, J.) 
527 
dismissing the Criminal Revision Applications Nos. 410 and 413 
of 1964. 
The appellant, Lalta filed a money suit no. 54 of 1955 in 
the Court of Civil Judge, Gonda against Swami Nath on the 
basis of a pronote and receipt dated July l, 1952 on the _allega-
tion that Swami Nath had taken a loan of Rs. 250 from hllil and 
executed a promisory note and a receipt in lieu thereof. Swami 
Nath filed a written statement in that suit denying to have taken 
any loan or to have executed any pronote and receipt in favour 
of Lalta. 
It appears that prior to the institution of this suit 
Swami Nath had filed a complaint on January 24, 1955 against 
Lalta and others alleging that they had forcibly taken his thumb 
impressions on a number of blank forms of pronotes and receipts. 
The case arising out of the Criminal complaint came to be heard 
by a Magistrate Second Class who by his judgment dated May 
31, 1956 acquitted Lalta and the other persons complained 
against. The Criminal case against Swami Nath proceeded on the 
charges framed under ss. 342 and 384, Indian Penal Code. In 
the Civil Suit which was filed by Lalla, the defendant Swami Nath 
moved an application for a report being called from the Superin-
tendent, Security Press, Nasik regarding the year of the revenue 
stamps affixed on the pronote and the receipt. The matter was 
accordingly referred to the Superintendent, Security Press, Nasik 
and the report received was that the stamps in question had been 
printed on December 21, 1953 and were issued for the first time 
on January 16, 1954 to the Treasury. Subsequent to the receipt 
of the report Lalta did not put in appearance and the suit was 
dismissed for default on June 1, 1956. 
The Civil Judge was 
moved for filing a complaint against the appellants for committing 
forgery. 
The Civil Judge Gonda actually filed a complaint on 
November 9, 1956 against Lalta for offences under ss. 193, 

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