Saji Koduvath, Advocate, Kottayam.
Abstract
| •➧ Sections 41 – 43, Evidence Act deal with the Relevancy of Previous Judgments. •➧ Judgment of a civil court is not binding on a criminal court. •➧ Judgment of a criminal court will also not be binding on a civil court. •➧ A judgment in rem is conclusive in a criminal as well as in a civil proceeding. •➧ It is appropriate that the disputes of title be adjudicated in appropriate civil procedure. •➧ The Supreme Court in M.S. Sheriff v. State of Madras, AIR 1954 SC 397, held that the decision of one court will Not be binding on the other, except for certain limited purposes; such as – awarding “sentence or damages”. That is, both courts should not award damages or compensation, simultaneously. •➧ In Prem Raj v. Poonamma Menon, April 2, 2024, adopted the stand – while imposing sentence or damages, “the Court in criminal jurisdiction would be bound by the civil Court having declared the cheque, the subject matter of dispute, to be only for the purposes of security”. |
PART I
The Law on this matter is evolved taking the following course.
1. M.S. Sheriff v. State of Madras, AIR 1954 SC 397
The Constitution Bench, in M.S. Sheriff v. State of Madras, AIR 1954 SC 397, held –
- (i) that the criminal matters should be given precedence in trial (for, the public interests demand that criminal justice should be swift and sure)
- (ii) that the civil/criminal court refrains from making the decision of one court binding on the other, or even relevant, except for certain limited purposes, such as sentence or damages.
- (iii) Civil or Criminal proceedings may be stayed – depends upon each case
It is held as under:
- “15. As between the civil and the criminal proceedings, we are of the opinion that the criminal matters should be given precedence. There is some difference of opinion in the High Courts of India on this point. No hard-and-fast rule can be laid down but we do not consider that the possibility of conflicting decisions in the civil and criminal courts is 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 certain limited purposes, such as sentence or damages. The only relevant consideration here is the likelihood of embarrassment.
- 16. Another factor which weighs with us is that a civil suit often drags on for years and it is undesirable that a criminal prosecution should wait till everybody concerned has forgotten all about the crime. The public interests demand that criminal justice should be swift and sure; that the guilty should be punished while the events are still fresh in the public mind and that the innocent should be absolved as early as is consistent with a fair and impartial trial. Another reason is that it is undesirable to let things slide till memories have grown too dim to trust.”
2. Karam Chand Ganga Prasad v. Union of India, 1970-3 SCC 694 (Overruled)
Our Apex Court observed in Karam Chand Ganga Prasad v. Union of India, 1970-3 SCC 694, that the decisions of the civil courts will be binding on the criminal courts but the converse is not true.
It is held as under:
- “…….It is a well-established principle of law that the decisions of the civil courts are binding on the criminal courts. The converse is not true.”
Note:
- This view is overruled in KG Premshanker v. Inspector of Police, 2002-8 SCC 87. In Vishnu Dutt Sharma v. Daya Sapra, 2009-13 SCC 729, it is observed as under:
- “26. It is, however, significant to notice a decision of this Court in Karam Chand Ganga Prasad v. Union of India (1970) 3 SCC 694, wherein it was categorically held that the decisions of the civil court will be binding on the criminal courts but the converse is not true, was overruled therein.”
3. The Land Acquisition Officer v. H. Narayana, 1976–4 SCC 9; AIR 1976 SC 2403
Sections 41 – 43, Evidence Act deal with the Relevancy of Previous Judgments.
Sec. 43 Evidence Act reads as under:
- “43. Judgments, etc., other than those mentioned in sections 40 to 42, when relevant. Judgments, orders or decrees, other than those mentioned in sections 40, 41 and 42, are irrelevant, unless the existence of such judgment, order or decree, is a fact in issue or is relevant under some other provisions of this Act.”
In The Land Acquisition Officer, City Improvement Trust Board v. H. Narayana, 1976 – 4 SCC 9; AIR 1976 SC 2403 our Apex Court approved the view that in land acquisition cases judgments, not inter partes, are relevant, under Sec. 11 and 13 Evidence Act, if such judgments relate to similarly situated properties and contain determinations of value on dates fairly proximate to the relevant date in a case.
4. State of Bihar v. Radha Krishna Singh, 1983-3 SCC 118
In State of Bihar v. Radha Krishna Singh, 1983-3 SCC 118, our Apex Court approved the view of the Calcutta High Court, that the judgments not inter partes were not admissible in evidence, as under:
- “129. In Gadadhar Chowdhury v. Sarat Chandra Chakravarty [AIR 1941 Cal 193 : (1940) 44 Cal WN 935 : 195 IC 412 : 72 Cal LJ 320] it was held that findings in judgments not inter partes are not admissible in evidence. In this connection a Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court observed as follows :
- ‘Though the recitals and findings in a judgment not inter partes are not admissible in evidence, such a judgment and decree are, in our opinion, admissible to prove the fact that a decree was made in a suit between certain parties and for finding out for what lands the suit had been decreed.’
- 130. This, in our opinion, is the correct legal position regarding the admissibility of judgments not inter partes.” (Quoted in: V. Kalyanaswamy v. L. Bakthavatsalam, 2020-9 SCALE. 367)
5. Commissioner of Income Tax, Kanpur v. Kamla Town Trust, 1996-7 SCC 349
In Commissioner of Income Tax, Kanpur v. Kamla Town Trust, 1996-7 SCC 349, it was held that the Order that directed rectification of Trust Deed would be relevant under Sec. 11 Evidence Act.
