S.S.Kulshrestha, J. - (1.) Heard the learned Counsel for the applicants and the learned A.G.A. and also perused the materials on record. This application under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (in short 'the Code') has been brought for quashing the proceedings of Crl. Case No. 17/2003, State v. Harish Kumar and others , under sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 120-B, IPC, pending in the Court of Special Judge, Ante-Corruption Act, Bareilly. It has been contended by the accused applicants that they have falsely been implicated in this case. As the matter with regard to the alleged sale-deed the Complaint Case No. 1092/92 was also brought by Sri Mool Chand against Sri Harish Kumar and others for the offence under section 419 of the Code in the Court of Judicial Magistrate-III, Bareilly. In that com plaint case Shri Harish Kumar alone faced the trial and that was finally disposed of by that Court on 5th November, 1992, further proceedings for the same cause would be barred against the accused applicant and it is also said that so far as the co-accused Sri Surendra Babu Saxena and Sri Saran Singh are concerned they could not be prosecuted. Further, the main accused Sri Harish Kumar was also found to be innocent and acquitted by the Trial Court. It is said that Sri Surendra Babu Saxena identified Sri Harish Kumar and Katib Saran Singh was the scriber of the sale-deed and when the principal accused has already been acquitted and so no useful purpose would be served for prolonging the proceedings against the accused applicants. On the salient points raised by the learned Counsel for the accused applicants a brief resume of the facts may be made. Report was lodged at the police station against the accused applicants with the allegations that on 29th January, 1990 a sale-deed was allegedly executed on behalf of Sri Mool Chand in favour of Sri Shiv Dayal, Sri Harish Kumar, Sri Dharmpal and Sri Tejpal all sons of Sri Ram Dhun with regard to the agricultural land situated at village Kunwa Tanda Dhimn, Bareilly. The said sale-deed was registered in book No. 1, part 59, pages 19-24 and Sl. No. 7872. The sale-deed was executed by the imposter Sri Harish Kumar representing himself to be Sri Mool Chand and he was also falsely identified by Sri Surendra Babu Saxena. It shall also be necessary to mention at this stage that with the same allegations separate complaint case was also brought by Sri Mool Chand before the learned Magistrate. In that case as would appear from the judgment itself that Sri Harish Kumar alone was tried. Sri Mool Chand did not substantiate the allegations made therein that complaint against the accused Sri Harish Kumar. No independent witness was examined by him. The statement of Sri Mool Chand was found to be inadequate by the Trial Magistrate. So much so Sri Mool Chand also stated that he had already entered into compromise with Sri Harish Kumar. On such compromise Sri Harish Kumar was acquitted. However, at this stage mention has been made by the learned AGA that sometime be give so that factual aspects may be verified, there are sufficient materials, on record and so no useful purpose would be served to keep the proceedings pending at this stage. In this regard it may also be mentioned that so far as the proceedings against Sri Harish Kumar are concerned, they are barred by section 300 of the Code and so he cannot be tried for the same offences twice as is also enshrined in Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
(2.) So far as the position of the accused applicant namely Sri Surendra Babu Saxena and Saran Singh are concerned, since the main accused Sri Harish Kumar who got the sale-deed executed by misrepresenting himself to be Sri Mool Chand has already been acquitted and Sri Surendra Babu Saxena, who had simply identified the sale deed and Sri Saran Singh was the scriber, and so in their case the principle of stare decisis may well be applicable. In that regard reliance was placed in the case of Diwan Singh v. State, 1965 (2) ACC 118 wherein it was held as under: "If two persons are prosecuted though separately, under the same charge for offences having been committed in the same transaction and on the basis of the same evidence, and if one of them is acquitted for whatever may be the reason and the other is convicted, then it will create an anomalous position in law and is likely to shake the confidence of the people in the administration of justice".
(3.) This view was reiterated in the case of Gulab Khan v. State of U.P. , Lucknow Bench of this Court. The principle of stare decisions will apply in the present case and conviction cannot be procured.;