MANIPUR ADMINISTRATION versus THOKCHOM, BIRA SINGH

Citation: [1964] 7 S.C.R. 123 · Decided: 11-03-1964 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: P.B. GAJENDRAGADKAR · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 4 judgment(s) · cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

7 S.U.R 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
123 
MANIPUR ADMINISTRATION 
v. 
THOKCHOM, BIRA SINGH 
IP. B. GAJENDRAGADKAR, C.J., K. N. WANCHOO, K. c. DAS 
GUPTA, J. C. SHAH AND N. RAJAGOPALA AYYANGAR, JJ.] 
Criminal Trial-Accused acquitted in previous trial-On 
same facts a subsequent !rial initiated-Subsequent court 
whether debarred from receiving the same evidence on the 
principle of issue-estoppe!-<.::ode of Criminal Procedure 1898, 
(Act 5 of 1898) s. 403. 
In the present case, the trial coµrt held the respondent 
guilty ~1' the o'fences under ss. 333, 3123 and 440 all read with 
s. 149, Indian Penal Code. It was alleged by the prosecution 
that the respondent Bira Singh was a member of the unlaw-
ful assembly which was formed between 3 and 5 p.m. on 25th 
April 1960, in contravention of the promulgation of the order 
under s. 144 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. As a member 
of the mob he was alleged to have pelted stoll€s at police offi-
cers. The respondent pleaded in his defence that the present 
trial was barred by s. 403, Criminal Procedure Code by reason 
of the acquittal of the accused under s. 188, Indian Penal Code 
·on July 30, 1960. The Trial court did not accept his defence 
and convicted him. On appeal, the Judicial Commissioner 
accepted the defence of the. respondent and acquitted him on 
the bas's of the decision of this court in Pritam Singh v. Stat~ 
of Punjab. 
· 
Before the trial of the present case, a complaint was filed 
against the .respondent on May 12, 1960 und€r s. 188 I.P.C. In 
that complaint the District Magistrate alleged that the res-
pendent had disobeyed the order passed under s. 144 by form-
ing himself alongwith other persons into an unlawful assembly 
between the hours of 3 and 5 p.m. on April 25, 1960. In that 
case the trial court convicted him of the offence charged and 
sentenced him to rigorous imprisonment for 6 months. 
On 
appeal the Sessions Judge by his judgment dated July 30, 
1960 acquitted the respondent, on the ground that the prose-
cution had failed to establish that the respondent was present 
at the place and at the time where the occurrence took place. 
This acquittal was confirmed by the Judicial Commissioner. 
Held-Sub-ss. (1) to (3} of s. 403 of the Code of Criminal 
Procedure deal with the trial of an accused for an offence and 
his conviction therefor. The question raised for decision in 
Pritam Singh's case however was different and was whether 
where an issue of fact has been tried by a competent court 
on a former occasion and a finding has been reached in favour 
of an accused, such a finding would constitute an estoppel or 
res judicata against the prosecution not as a bar to the tI1ial 
and conviction of the accused for a different or distinct offence 
but as precluding the reception of evidence to disturb that 
findi'lg of fact when the accused is tried subsequently even 
for· a different offence which might be permitted by the terms 
oI s. 403(2). 
It would not be correct to say that the principle under-
lying in Sambasivan's case was dissented from in R. v. Con-
nelly. Besides. it should be pointed out that the principle 
1964 
Marek 11 
1964 
Manipur .Adminia· 
tration 
v. 
Thokcham, Bira 
Si1111h 
Ayyangar, J. 
124 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1964] 
underlying the decision in Pritam Singh's case d'd come up 
for consideration before this Court on several occasions, but it 
was never dissented from though in some of them it was dis-
tinguished on facts. 
Pritam Singh v. State of Punjab, A.LR. 1956, S.C. 415, 
R. v. Connelly, (1963) 3 All E.R. 510 and Sambasivam v .. Pub!ic 
Prosecutor, Federation of Malaya, 1950 A.C. 458, relied on. 
Gurcharan Singh v. State of Punjab, A.LR., 1963 S. C. 340, 
referred to. 
State of Bombay v. S. L. Apte, [1961] 3 S.C.R. 107, Banwari 
Godara v. The State of Rajasthan, Cr. A. No. 141 of l!M'O dated 
February 7, 1961, Mohinder Singh v. State of Punjab, A.LR. 1965 
S.C. 79, Kharkan v. The State of Uttar Pradesh, A.LR. 1965 
S.C. 83, Yusofalli mulla v. The King. 76 I.A. 158, referred to. 
(ii) The rule of issue-estoppel does not prevent tile trial 
of an offence as does autre fois acquit but only precludes evi-
dence being led to prove a. fact in issue as regards which evi-
dence had already been led and a specific finding recorded at 
an earlier criminal trial before a court of competent jurisdic-
tion. 
The rule of issue-estoppel is 
not the same as the plea 
of double jeopardy or autre fois acquit is also clear from the 
sta

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