Relevancy of a Civil Case Judgment in Criminal Cases; Does Civil Court Judgment Bind Criminal Court?

Saji Koduvath, advocate Kottayam

PART I

Abstract

•➧ 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

Judgment of a Court is relevant if only conditions u/s 40 to 43 are satisfied

The position of law is laid down in K.G. Premshanker v. Inspector of Police, (2002) 8 SCC 87: AIR 2002 SC 3372, as under:

  • “30. 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.”

Case to be determined on Evidence, not on Previous Judgment

Referring the above portion, in Seth Ramdayal Jat v. Laxmi Prasad, (2009) 11 SCC 545, it is observed as under:

  • “16. If a primacy is given to a criminal proceeding, indisputably, the civil suit must be determined on its own keeping in view the evidence which has been brought on record before it and not in terms of the evidence brought in the criminal proceeding.

Court has to Decide – To what extent previous Judgment is Binding

K.G. Premshanker v. Inspector of Police continued as under:

  • “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.”

Sans Sec. 41 – 43, No Legal Principle – Findings of Civil Court Bind  Cril. Court

Standard of proof is different in civil and criminal cases.

In Avitel Post Studioz Limited v. HSBC PI Holdings (Mauritius) Limited, 2021-4 SCC 713, the principles in K.G. Premshanker v. Inspector of Police, (2002) 8 SCC 87: AIR 2002 SC 3372, is followed and held –

  • “18. Thus, in view of the above, the law on the issue stands crystallised to the effect that the findings of fact recorded by the civil court do not have any bearing so far as the criminal case is concerned and vice versa. Standard of proof is different in civil and criminal cases. In civil cases it is preponderance of probabilities while in criminal cases it is proof beyond reasonable doubt. There is neither any statutory nor any legal principle that findings recorded by the court either in civil or criminal proceedings shall be binding between the same parties while dealing with the same subject-matter and both the cases have to be decided on the basis of the evidence adduced therein. However, there may be cases where the provisions of Sections 41 to 43 of the Evidence Act, 1872, dealing with the relevance of previous judgments in subsequent cases may be taken into consideration.

It is further pointed out in Avitel Post Studioz Limited v. HSBC PI Holdings (Mauritius) Limited, 2021-4 SCC 713 –

  • “Moreover, the judgment, order or decree passed in previous civil proceedings, if relevant, as provided under Sections 40 and 42 or other provisions of the Evidence Act then in each case the court has to decide to what extent it is binding or conclusive with regard to the matters decided therein. In each and every case the first question which would require consideration is, whether the judgment, order or decree is relevant; if relevant, its effect. This would depend upon the facts of each case.”

Not Correct – Civil Decisions Bind Criminal Courts, and Converse – Not True

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 overruled in KG Premshanker v. Inspector of Police (2002) 8 SCC 87.

Overruling Karam Chand Ganga Prasad. v. Union of India, 1970-3 SCC 694, it is held in KG Premshanker v. Inspector of Police (2002) 8 SCC 87as under:

  • “33. Hence, the observation made by this Court in V.M. Shah case 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 case (Karam Chand Ganga Prasad v. Union of India, (1970-3 SCC 694) 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 case (M.S. Sheriff v. State of Madras, AIR 1954 SC 397) as well as Sections 40 to 43 of the Evidence Act.”

While referring KG Premshanker v. Inspector of Police (2002) 8 SCC 87, it is held in Syed Askari Hadi Ali Augustine Imam v. State (Delhi Admn.), 2009- 5 SCC 528 as under:

  • “It is, however, significant to notice that the decision of this Court in M/s Karam Chand Ganga Prasad v. Union of India (1970) 3 SCC 694, wherein it was categorically held that the decisions of the civil courts will be binding on the criminal courts but the converse is not true, was overruled, stating:
    • “33. Hence, the observation made by this Court in V.M. Shah case 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 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 case (M.S. Sheriff v. State of Madras, AIR 1954 SC 397) as well as Sections 40 to 43 of the Evidence Act.”
  • 11. Axiomatically, if judgment of a civil court is not binding on a criminal court, a judgment of a criminal court will certainly not be binding on a civil court. We have noticed hereinbefore that Section 43 of the Evidence Act categorically states that 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 the Act. No other provision of the Evidence Act or for that matter any other statute has been brought to our notice.”

A judgment in rem (Section 43) is conclusive in criminal and civil proceedings

In Syed Askari Hadi Ali Augustine Imam v. State (Delhi Admn.), 2009- 5 SCC 528, it is held as under:

  • “Rendition of a final judgment which would be binding on the whole world being conclusive in nature shall take a long time. As and when a judgment is rendered in one proceeding subject to the admissibility thereof keeping in view Section 43 of the Evidence Act may be produced in another proceeding. It is, however, beyond any cavil that a judgment rendered by a probate court is a judgment in rem. It is binding on all courts and authorities. Being a judgment in rem it will have effect over other judgments. A judgment in rem indisputably is conclusive in a criminal as well as in a civil proceeding.” (Surinder Kumar v. Gian Chand, AIR 1957 SC 875, is relied on)

Civil or Criminal proceedings be stayed – Depends upon each case

In M.S. Sheriff v. State of Madras, AIR 1954 SC 397, the Constitution Bench considered whether a civil suit or a criminal case should be stayed in the event both are pending; and it was opined that the criminal matter should be given precedence.

 In P. Swaroopa Rani v. M. Hari Narayana @ Hari Babu, AIR 2008 SC 1884, it was held as under:

  • “13. It is, however, well-settled that in a given case, civil proceedings and criminal proceedings can proceed simultaneously. Whether civil proceedings or criminal proceedings shall be stayed depends upon the fact and circumstances of each case.” (Quoted in: Syed Askari Hadi Ali Augustine Imam v. State (Delhi Admn.), 2009- 5 SCC 528)

No Statutory Provision nor any Legal Principle – Findings in one treated as Final

Standards of proof required in the two proceedings are entirely different

In Iqbal Singh Marwah v. Meenakshi Marwah, 2005-4 SCC 370, (relying inter alia on M.S. Sheriff v. State of Madras, AIR 1954 SC 397) it was held as under:

  • “32. Coming to the last contention that an effort should be made to avoid conflict of findings between the civil and criminal courts, it is necessary to point out that the standards of proof required in the two proceedings are entirely different. Civil cases are decided on the basis of preponderance of evidence while in a criminal case the entire burden lies on the prosecution and proof beyond reasonable doubt has to be given. There is neither any statutory provision nor any legal principle that the findings recorded in one proceeding may be treated as final or binding in the other, as both the cases have to be decided on the basis of the evidence adduced therein.”

Sections 41 – 43, Evidence Act

Section 40, Evidence Act reads as under:

  • “40. Previous judgments relevant to bar a second suit or trial. The existence of any judgment, order or decree which by law prevents any Courts from taking cognizance of a suit or holding a trial is a relevant fact when the question is whether such Court ought to take cognizance of such suit or to hold such trial.”

Section 41 reads thus:

  • “41. Relevancy of certain judgments in probate, etc., jurisdiction. A final judgment, order or decree of a competent Court, in the exercise of probate, matrimonial, admiralty or insolvency jurisdiction which confers upon or takes away from any person any legal character, or which declares any person to be entitled to any such character, or to be entitled to any specific thing, not as against any specified person but absolutely, is relevant when the existence of any such legal character, or the title of any such person to any such thing, is relevant.

Section 42 reads:

  • “42. Relevancy and effect of judgments, orders or decrees, other than those mentioned in section 41. Judgments, orders or decrees other than those mentioned in section 41, are relevant if they relate to matters of a public nature relevant to the enquiry, but such judgments, orders or decrees are not conclusive proof of that which they state.”
  • Illustration:
  • A sues B for trespass on his land. B alleges the existence of a public right of way over the land, which A denies.
  • The existence of a decree in favour of the defendant, in a suit by A against C for a trespass on the same land in which C alleged the existence of the same right of way, is relevant, but it is not conclusive proof that the right of way exists.

Section 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.
  • Illustrations
  • .(a) A and B separately sue C for a libel which reflects upon each of them. C in each case says, that the matter alleged to be libellous is true, and the circumstances are such that it is probably true in each case, or in neither. A obtains a decree against C for damages on the ground that C failed to make out his justification. The fact is irrelevant as between B and C.
  • (b) A prosecutes B for adultery with C, A’s wife. B denies that C is A’s wife, but the court convicts B of adultery. Afterwards, C is prosecuted for bigamy in marrying B during A’s lifetime. C says that she never was A’s wife. The judgment against B is irrelevant as against C.
  • (c) A prosecutes B for stealing a cow from him, B, is convicted. A afterwards sues C for the cow, which B had sold to him before his conviction. As between A and C, the judgment against B is irrelevant.
  • (d) A has obtained a decree for the possession of land against B, C, B’s son, murders A in consequence. The existence of the judgment is relevant, as showing motive for a crime. 1[(e) A is charged with theft and with having been previously convicted of theft. The previous conviction is relevant as a fact in issue.
  • (f) A is tried for the murder of B. The fact that B prosecuted A for libel and that A was convicted and sentenced is relevant under section 8 as showing the motive for the fact in issue because the existence of the earlier Judgment in the civil case showed that ‘motive’ under Section 8 from the latter crime; in (e), relevancy is accepted because it is a ‘fact in issue’ in the latter case; in (f) relevancy is accepted because the earlier judgment is evidence of motive under Section 8 in the latter case.

PART II

What are “Relevant Under Some Other Provisions of this Act” in Sec. 43

Following provisions are pointed out frequently, in this regard –

  • Sec. 8 (which refers to motive, preparation and previous or subsequent conduct);
  • Sec. 11 (which says when facts not otherwise relevant become relevant);
  • Sec. 13 (when existence of right or custom is in question then any transaction or particular instances where the right or custom is claimed, recognized etc. become relevant),
  • Sec. 54 Explanation (2), when a previous conviction is relevant as evidence of bad character), etc.

Disputes of Title, be adjudicated in Civil Procedure

In Smt. Janak Vohra v. DDA, 103-2003-DLT 789, it was held that in case of disputed questions of title, and mutation being asked for, it is appropriate that the disputes of title be adjudicated in appropriate civil procedure and no direction be issued to mutate the property in the name of a party. (Referred to in Syed Askari Hadi Ali Augustine Imam v. State (Delhi Admn.), 2009- 5 SCC 528)

Land Acquisition judgments, not inter partes, Relevant under S. 11 and 13

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.

Order directed rectification of Trust Deed Relevant under Sec. 11

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.

Also Read: No Criminal Case on a Dispute Essentially Civil in Nature.

Prem Raj v.  Poonamma Menon (SC), April 3, 2024 – An Odd Decision on ‘Civil Court Judgment does not Bind Criminal Court’

Judgment not inter partes admissible to find what lands involved

In State of Bihar v. Radha Krishna Singh, 1983-3 SCC 118, our Apex Court approved the view of the Calcutta High Court 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)

Criminal proceeding will have precedence over the Civil proceeding

In Syed Askari Hadi Ali Augustine Imam v. State (Delhi Admn.), 2009- 5 SCC 528, it is held as under:

  • “10. It is, however, now well settled that ordinarily a criminal proceeding will have primacy over the civil proceeding. Precedence to a criminal proceeding is given having regard to the fact that disposal of a civil proceeding ordinarily takes a long time and in the interest of justice the former should be disposed of as expeditiously as possible.” (relied on: M.S. Sheriff v. State of Madras, AIR 1954 SC 397.)

How to Subscribe ‘IndianLawLiveFree’? Click here – “How to Subscribe Free“

Read in this Cluster  (Click on the topic):

Book No, 1 – Civil Procedure Code

Power of attorney

Title, ownership and Possession

Adverse Possession

Principles and Procedure

Admission, Relevancy and Proof

Land Laws/ Transfer of Property Act

Evidence Act – General

Sec. 65B

Law on Documents

Interpretation

Contract Act

Law on Damages

Easement

Stamp Act & Registration

Will

Arbitration

Divorce

Negotiable Instruments Act

Book No. 2: A Handbook on Constitutional Issues

Religious issues

Book No. 3: Common Law of CLUBS and SOCIETIES in India

Book No. 4: Common Law of TRUSTS in India

Published by sajikoduvath

Leave a Comment