G.S. Chahal, J. - (1.) Inder Singh, petitioner was tried by the Special Judge, Rohtak for offence under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 on the allegations that he, as a depot holder had received 471 quintals of rice in May, 1983, for distribution to ration card holders. The rice was not distributed to the ration card holders and false entries in the sale register in contravention of the Haryana Prevention of Hoarding and Maintenance of Quality Order, 1977 were made. The Special Judge acquitted the petitioner of that offence and recorded a finding that the prosecution had failed to establish beyond doubt that the petitioner had made incorrect entries showing the sale a' the rice without having actually sold the same. He also found that impropriety had been ' committed in maintaining the records and may quote the relevant portion in the I impugned judgment. "The accused did commit impropriety in maintaining the records and in becoming a bit lax by allowing the issue of the rice to the family members, friends, acquaintances and others of the ration card holders and obtaining their thumb impressions instead of insisting on issuing the rice only to the person in whose name the ration card was issued and then obtaining his signatures/thumb impressions, but this impropriety and laxity on his part does not warrant the finding that he did not correctly account for the rice in question or made wrong entries in the account books showing the sale of the rice". He further recorded that so far as the offences under Section 467 and 471 of the Man Penal Code are concerned, the prosecution shall be at liberty to submit a report the Court of competent jurisdiction.
(2.) The petitioner was then sent up to the Court of Additional Chief judicial Magistrate, Rohtak, in Criminal Case No. 120/1 of 1985 to stand trial for offences sections 467 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code on the same allegations. The learned additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rohtak, framed charges against the petitioner vide order dated 20th December, 1985. this order is the subject matter of attack in the not proceedings and/he petitioner prays for acceptance of the revision and quashing the charges.
(3.) After going through he report under section 173 of the Criminal procedure Code, the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the it has been made on the same facts as in the other case which has not been accepted. Learned Special Judge has already held in that case that there was only impropriety maintaining the record, but he had duly accounted for the rice. A finality to the facts thus been attained. There is force in the contention of the counsel that no evidence be led in respect to the facts which have become final. He is supported by the rations made in Manipur Administration, Manipur v. Thokchom Bira Singh, 1965 Supreme Court 87, which are as under : "The rule in issue of estoppel in a criminal trial is that 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 trial and conviction of the accused for a different or distinct offence, but as precluding the reception of evidence to disturb that finding of fact when the accused is tried subsequently even for a different offence which might be permitted by the terms of section 403 (2). The rule is not the same as the plea of double jeopardy or autrefois acquit. The rule does not introduce any variation in the Code of Criminal Procedure either in investigation, enquiry or trial. It also does not prevent the trial of any offence as does autrefois acquit but only precludes evidence being led to prove a fact in issue as regards which evidence has already been led and a specific finding recorded at an earlier criminal trial before a court of competent evidence jurisdiction, the rule thus relates only to the admissibility of evidence which is designed to upset a finding of fact recorded by a competent court at a previous trial". In Amritlal Ratilal Mehta and another v. State of Gujarat, 1980 Crl. L J. 214, were tried for offences under section 420/34 of Indian Penal Code as well as their lordships held that "the question whether an earlier finding which had attaint finality is binding in the subsequent proceedings in the case would depend on the question: as to what the allegations were, what-facts were required to be proved and what finding ' were arrived. On the facts of the case the finding of fact to the effect that the gate-pass: were made inadvertently and negligently and not wilfully or with intent to defraud whim led to the acquittal of the accused on the charge under section 477-A must, that acquittal having become final, operate for the benefit of the accused and lead to their acquittal on the charge under section 420 also. The finding that the gate-passes were made inadvertent and negligently, was destructive of the charges under both section 420 and section 477-A. The accused were, therefore, entitled to acquittal on the first charge under Section 420/3. IPC also. In Sarabjit Singh v. State of Punjab, 1990 (1) C.L.R. 397 Sarabjit Singh, Inspector was tried and acquitted of the offence under Section 5(1) (d) of the Prevents of Corruption Act, 1947. He had been tried on the allegations that he had accepted brief from one Dharam Singh in order to help him in the occurrence in which he had fired shots from his licensed gun. In respect to the same occurrence, allegations were made to Assistant Sub Inspector had got recorded a false entry in the Daily diary Register. C these facts, it was held that in view of the provisions under section 300 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Code, Sarabjit Singh could not be tried a second time.;