The main legal point established in the judgment is that while criminal proceedings should generally be given precedence over civil proceedings, in certain cases, adjourning the criminal proceedings to allow the civil suits to be tried first may be appropriate to avoid prejudice and ensure swift justice.

The question posed in this revision petition is whether the proceedings pending before a criminal court should be stayed or adjourned in view of the fact that substantially the identical issues based on the same facts as in the criminal case are involved in suits that were awaiting trial in civil courts.

2. The facts leading to this criminal revision petition are as follows :- C.C. No. 15 of 1972 on the file of the court of the Special Judge, Trichur, is a case in which the first accused is charged for offences punishable under Section 120B, 420 and 420 read with Section 511, I.P.C. and Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947, read with Section 109, I.P.C.; and the second accused, a retired Circle Inspector of Police, under Ss. 120B, 420 read with Sections 109 and 119, I.P.C. and Sections 5(2) and 5(3)(a) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947. The first accused had entered into a contract with the Superintendent of Police, Malappuram, to effect certain special repairs to the quarters of police officials at Tirur. On 21-5-1971 a bill for Rs. 5747/- was delivered to the first accused and he had cashed it from the Sub-Treasury, Tirur on 22-5-1971 : the second accused had certified that the works of the sanctioned estimate of Rs. 5747/- were executed by the first accused. According to the prosecution, the first accused had effected repairs costing only Rs. 356.82 and had cheated the Government to the tune of Rupees 5390.18. Another claim of Rs. 7756.50 was made by the first accused in respect of repairs to certain police station buildings and quarters and this amounts was sanctioned by the second accused with the necessary certificates. The second bill, however, was not cashed. In the case of the second bill, the version of the prosecution is that A-1 had actually executed works worth only Rs. 697.70 and that his attempt was to cheat the Government in collusion with the second accused to the extent of Rs. 7058.80. The F.I.R. in this case is dated 16-9-1971 and the charge sheet was filed on 13-9-1972. In the meanwhile, the 1st accused filed O.S. No. 2 of 1972 on the file of the Sub Court, Tirur, on 4-2-1972. Ext. P. 2 is the certified copy of the plaint therein wherein it is alleged that he had executed works of the value of Rs. 13,503.50 and claimed recovery of Rs. 7750.50, after adjusting Rs. 5747/- being the amount already drawn by him on 22-5-1971. The suit in effect is for a declaration that the first accused had actually executed in the first instance works of the value of Rupees 5747/- and subsequently works of the value of Rs. 7756.50. On 2-11-1972, the Government also filed a suit, O.S. No. 109 of 1972 on the file of the Munsiff's Court, Tirur, for recovery of a sum of Rs. 3282/- alleging that in the case of fractioned repairs, that amount has been drawn by the first accused in excess of the actual amount due to him. It was while matters stood like this that Crl.M.P. No. 6 of 1973 in C.C. No. 15 of 1972 was filed by the first accused in the court of the Special Judge, Trichur, praying that till the disposal of the suits, O.S. Nos. 2 and 109 of 1972, referred to above, the trial of the case C.C. 15 of 1972 may either be adjourned or stayed. The learned Special Judge, after having considered the contentions of the petitioner before him, held that no case was made out to adjourn or stay the trial of the case before him till the disposal of the civil suits, and therefore this order of dismissal that this revision has been filed by the first accused.

3. Sri K. Kunhiraman Menon, the learned counsel for the revision petitioner, contends that the Special Judge has not considered the issues involved in the case in their true perspective. In particular it is pointed out that the court below was wrong in taking the view that no prejudice would be caused to the revision petitioner if the civil cases and the criminal case were proceeded apace.

4. No decision of our High Court in which this question came up