2002 Supreme(SC) 917

2002(6) Supreme 313
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
(From Kerala High Court)
M.B. Shah, Bisheshwar Prasad Singh and H.K. Sema, JJ.
K.G. Premshanker -Appellant
versus
Inspector of Police & Anr. -Respondents
Criminal Appeal No. 935 of 2002
(Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 2187 of 1998)
Decided on 12-9-2002
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Appellant : S.K. Dholakia, Sr. Advocate, M.P. Vinod, Wills Mathews, M.S. Prachi Bajpai, M.K. Michael, Advocates.
For the Respondent : Altaf Ahmed, ASG, P. Parmeswaran, T.A. Khan, K.N. Khan, Balgopal, A.P. Mukundan, C.N. Sreekumar, Advocates.

VERY IMPORTANT POINT
The observations made by Apex Court in V.M. Shah s case (1975(5) SCC 767) that "the finding recorded by the criminal court stands suspended by the finding recorded by the Civil Court and thereby finding of the civil court gets precedence over the finding recorded by the criminal court" is not correct enunciation of law. The correct view is that no hard and fast rule can be laid down.

Headnote:(i) Evidence Act, 1872-Sections 40 to 43-To what extent judgment given in the previous proceedings are relevant-Whether it would be against the law of evidence if it is held that as soon as the judgment and decree is passed in a civil suit the criminal proceedings are required to be dropped if the suit is decided against the plaintiff who is the complainant in the criminal proceedings? (Yes)-Result-Observations in V.M. Shah to contrary set aside-AIR 1995(5) SCC 767 overruled : AIR 1994 SC relied on.

       Held : In our view, the submission of learned Addl. Solicitor General requires to be accepted. (Para 16)

       Held thereafter : In the facts of the present case, Section 42 would have some bearing and the judgment and decree passed in civil Court would be relevant if it relates to matter of public nature relevant to the enquiry but such judgment and decree is not a conclusive proof of that which it states. (Para 22)

       Held after receiving case law : What emerges from the aforesaid discussion is-(1) the previous judgment which is final can be relied upon as provided under Sections 40 to 43 of the Evidence Act; (2) in civil suits between the same parties, principle of res-judicata may apply; (3) in a criminal case, Section 300 Cr. P.C. makes provision that once a person is convicted or acquitted, he may not be tried again for the same offence if the conditions mentioned therein are satisfied; (4) if the criminal case and the civil proceedings are for the same cause, judgment of the civil Court would be relevant if conditions of any of the Sections 40 to 43 are satisfied, but it cannot be said that the same would be conclusive except as provided in Section 41. Section 41 provides which judgment would be conclusive proof of what is stated therein. (Para 30)

       Held also : Further, the judgment, order or decree passed in a previous civil proceeding, if relevant, as provided under Sections 40 and 42 or other provisions of the Evidence Act then in each case, Court has to decide to what extent it is binding or conclusive with regard to the matter(s) decided therein. Take for illustration, in a case of alleged trespass by A on B s property, B filed a suit for declaration of its title and to recover possession from A and suit is decreed. Thereafter, in a criminal prosecution by B against A for trespass, judgment passed between the parties in civil proceedings would be relevant and Court may hold that it conclusively establishes the title as well as possession of B over the property. In such case, A may be convicted for trespass. The illustration to Section 42 which is quoted above makes the position clear. Hence, in each and every case, first question which would require consideration is -- whether judgment, order or decree is relevant?, if relevant - its effect. It may be relevant for a limited purpose, such as, motive or as a fact in issue. This would depend upon facts of each case. (Para 31)

       (ii) Indian Penal Code, 1860-Sections 324, 341, 342, 357, 219 and 166-Offences punishable under-Criminal prosecution pending-Civil suits for damages are also pending at trial stage-Whether the finding recorded by the Criminal Court stands suspended by finding recorded by the Civil Court? (No)-Appeal dismissed.

       Held : The appellant raised additional contention, before the High Court, that the de facto complainant - Madhavan had filed a suit for the damages for the alleged acts, before the Sub Court, Tellicherry against the appellant and other accused and the trial court has dismissed the suit against which he had preferred the appeal before the High Court. It was, therefore, contended that as the suit was dismissed, the decision rendered by the Civil Court will prevail and therefore the criminal prosecution pending against the appellant and others is required to be dropped. The court rejected the said contention. Hence, this appeal. (Para 6)

       In the present case, the decision rendered by the Constitution Bench in M.S. Sheriff s case (supra) would be binding, wherein it has been specifically held that no hard and fast rule can be laid down and that possibility of conflicting decision in civil and criminal Courts is not a relevant consideration. The law envisages "such an eventuality when it expressly refrains from making the decision of one Court binding on the other, or even relevant, except for limited purpose such as sentence or damages." Hence, the observation made by this Court in V.M. Shah s case (Supra) that the finding recorded by the criminal Court stands superseded by the finding recorded by the civil Court is not correct enunciation of law. Further, the general observations made in Karam Chand s case are in context of the facts of the case stated above. The Court was not required to consider the earlier decision of the Constitution Bench in M.S. Sheriff s case as well as Sections 40 to 43 of the Evidence Act. In the present case, after remand by the High Court, civil proceedings as well as criminal proceedings are required to be decided on the evidence, which may be brought on record by the parties. In the result, the appeal is dismissed. (Paras 32 to 35)