Law: Criminal Procedure Code, 1898

Section: Ss. 369, 435, 439 & 361-A-

   Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), Ss. 369, 435, 439 & 361-A-Expression "judgment" in S. 369-Includes decisions and orders passed in criminal matter on merits of case-Party approach ing High Court under S. 561-A-Cannot be permitted to agitate same matter again under S. 439 and vice versa-Person doing so by suppressing information about previous application and thus obtaining conflicting order in subsequent application--Guilty of contempt of Court.   The expression "judgment" as used in section 369 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1898, obviously includes decisions and orders passed in criminal matters on the merits of the case. If. therefore, a party has agitated a manner by means of an application under section 561-A of the Code and the application is dismissed by the High Court, after considering the merits of the case, then a second application by the same party in respect of the same matter cannot be entertained under section 439 of the Code notwithstanding the difference of language employed in the two sections while defining the scope of the powers enjoyed by the High Court under these sections, the reason being that : (a) such a procedure is likely to lead to confusion, multiplicity of litigation and conflicting judgments, and (b) it will amount to an application to review or alter a judgment of the High Court against the express provisions of section 369 of the Code. The same considerations would apply if -the earlier application was made under section 439 and the subsequent one under section 561-A of the Code.   Bikaru v. Emperor. A I R 1948 Oudh 17 ; Assistant Government Advocate v. Upendra Nath Mukerji A I R 1931 Pat. 81 and Edward Few v. Emperor A I R 1939 Lah. 244 held not relevant.   Although there is no statutory provision expressly laying down that a petitioner shall set forth truly all the facts relating to any previous application which he may have moved in the High Court regarding the same matter, the absence of such a provision does not relieve the petitioner or his counsel of responsibility to state all the relevant facts correctly. Where a person whose application under section 561-A of…