J.N. Takru, J. - (1.) THESE are two connected revisions. Cr. Rev. No. 2004 of 1964 is by Sarnam Singh and Cr. Rev. No. 2005 of 1964 is by Debi. Both the revisions are directed against the Applicants' conviction and sentence of two years' RI each Under Section 25 -A of the Arms Act.
(2.) ACCORDING to the prosecution the Applicants along with a number of miscreants were arrested in the grove of Bhagwati Prasad in village Sargawan at about 11 p.m. on 15 -12 -1963 and on their search being taken a country made pistol and four live -cartridges were recovered from the possession of Sarnam Singh and a country made pistol and five live -cartridges were recovered from the possession of Devi, for which they were unable to produce a licence. All the arrested miscreants were prosecuted Under Sections 399 and 402 IPC and the Applicants were also separately prosecuted Under Section 25 -A of the Arms Act. The Applicants denied the prosecution case and stated that they were falsely implicated due to enmity. The prosecution examined Ram Kishan, Radhey, Rumal Singh, SHO and K.P. Singh SI to prove its case. Both the courts accepted the testimony of these witnesses and recorded the conviction of the Applicants. Hence these revisions. On behalf of the Applicants their learned Counsel, Sri G. Bhatt contended (I) that as in the Sections 399/402 IPC case, of which the present trials are the offshoots, the learned Sessions Judge had recorded a categorical finding that the prosecution had failed to prove by clear and cogent evidence that the accused of that case - -including the present Applicants were the persons who were arrested from the grove on the night in question and they were therefore acquitted Under Sections 399/402 IPC, the Applicants could not be convicted for the possession of the unlicenced firearms and cartridges which were allegedly recovered' from there in the same incident. On behalf of the State, it was however contended that as in the present trials two witnesses were examined who were not examined in the trial Under Sections 399/402 IPC the decision in that case could have no bearing on the fate of these cases. After hearing the learned Counsel I am, however, of the opinion that the contention of the learned Counsel for the Applicants has to be preferred, since not only is it in accord with common sense but it also has the advantage of resolving an anomalous position which has crept in these cases. In my opinion it would be highly detrimental to the administration of justice and would shake the confidence of the public in the same if a categorical finding recorded in favour of the Applicants on a point in an earlier case is allowed to be set at naught on the same point in a subsequent case. If this were allowed there would be two contradictory findings in regard to the same matter, which cannot but have a very detrimental effect on the administration of justice. As held in Diwan Singh v. State, 1965 AWR 113 : ACrR 117: 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 same evidence and if one of them is acquitted for whatever may be 'the reason and the other is convicted then it would create an anomalous position in law and is likely to shake the confidence of the people in' the administration of justice. Justice is not only to be done but also seen to be done. Therefore I am clearly of opinion that, as has been held in the case of Pritam Singh v. State of Punjab : AIR 1956 SC 415 the principle of stare decisis will apply in the present case and the Applicants' conviction cannot be sustained. The rule of law enunciated above applies mutatis mutandis to the present case. No doubt in the trials giving rise to the aforesaid revisions, two witnesses who were not examined in the earlier trial were examined, but that would make no difference and the rule of law laid down above would still apply, as the trials giving rise to these applications took place after the trial Under Sections 399/402 IPC had taken place, it is obvious that those witnesses were produced to repair the mischief which their non -production had caused to the earlier case. Besides on merits also their identification of the Applicants when they were the sole accused in their respective cases, can hardly be expected to inspire confidence. Thus on this ground also I am satisfied that the prosecution cannot be held to have satisfactorily established the arrest of the Applicants from the grove of Bhagwati Prasad and the recovery of the various firearms and cartridges from their possession on the night of 15 -12 -1963. The result therefore is that the conviction and sentence of the Applicants cannot be sustained and their revision applications are allowed/Both the Applicants were granted/bail for the pendency of their revisions. They need not surrender and their/bail bonds are hereby discharged.;