- (1.) HEARD Mr. Vivek Kumar Singh for the petitioners and the learned AGA for the State and perused the record.
(2.) THIS petition has been filed under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (in short 'the Code') for quashing the proceedings of the session trial no. 1058A of 2000, State vs. Akash Kumar Sharma and others, pending in the court of Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.3, Meerut. Mr. Vivek Kumar Singh submitted that initially the charge sheet was filed against co-accused Raju @ Raj Kumar and Smt. Daulat. The matter reached the court of session on committal, which was registered as S.T. No. 1058/2000, State vs. Raju @ Raj Kumar and another but the learned Additional Sessions Judge, on the basis of relevant evidence, summoned also the petitioners as accused under section 319 of the Code vide his order dated 4.2.2004. The petitioners moved application No. 17170 of 2005 in this Court under section 482 of the Code, in which an interim order dated 25.11.2005 staying the proceedings of the trial against the petitioners was passed. Consequently, the trial of co-accused Raju @ Raj Kumar and Smt. Daulat took place separately and they were acquitted on 29.3.2007 by the Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.15, Meerut. When the said two accused were acquitted, the trial against the petitioners was lying stayed, therefore, their case could not be decided and remained pending. Hon'ble Ravindra Singh, J. dismissed the petitioners' petition no.17170/2005 on 19.8.2010 and vacated the stay order, consequently the trial proceeded also against the petitioners. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that in view of the judgment rendered in S.T. No. 1058/2000, whereby co-accused Raju @ Raj Kumar and Smt. Daulat have been acquitted, the trial of the petitioners would be nothing except a futile exercise, therefore, the proceedings of the sessions trial no. 1058-A/2000 may be quashed. It was next submitted that when co-accused persons have been acquitted, the petitioners are entitled to the benefit of that judgment on the principle of stare decissis.
(3.) IN my opinion, the present petition does not appear to be maintainable in view of the fact that the first petition filed on behalf of the petitioners has already been dismissed by this Court on merits. At the time of dismissal of the first petition, the acquittal judgment was available, therefore, the petitioners could very will press the aforesaid ground (ground of acquittal of co-accused) while pressing the first petition but they did not do so, therefore, they can not be permitted to file a fresh petition for quashing the proceedings of the session trial no. 1058A of 2000. In order to appreciate the question of relevancy of a judgment of acquittal in the subsequent trial against another accused of the same incident, it seems to be just and expedient to examine the relevant provisions contained in the Evidence Act. Sections 40, 41, 42, 43 and 44 of the Evidence Act provides for relevancy of judgment of Courts of justice. Section 40 provides the circumstances in which a previous judgment, order or decree may be relevant to bar a subsequent suit or trial. Section 41 deals with the relevancy of certain judgments in probate, matrimonial, admiralty or insolvency jurisdiction. Section 42 deals with the relevancy and effect of judgments, orders or decrees, other than those mentioned in section 41 in so far as they relate to matters of a public nature. Section 43 provides that judgments, orders or decrees, other than those mentioned in sections 40, 41 and 42, are irrelevant, unless the existence of such judgment, order or decree, is a fact in issue, or is relevant under some other provisions of the Evidence Act. Section 44 deals with, fraud or collusion in obtaining judgment, or incompetency of the Court which delivered it. Therefore, a previous judgment, order or decree which is final, can be relied upon in any way as provided in sections 40 to 44 of the Evidence Act in a criminal case as well as in civil suits and not otherwise.;