Prior acquittal does not bar conviction where the later case arises from a separate transaction and distinct facts.

A prior acquittal in a companion case did not bar the present conviction because the two matters arose from separate transactions involving different victims and distinct facts. Section 403 of the Code of Criminal Procedure applies only where the later proceeding is for the same offence or on the same facts; it does not prevent conviction in an independent case or allow evidentiary findings from the earlier trial to be imported into the later one. A complaint of denial of fair hearing was also rejected because the objection had not been pressed at the relevant stage and could not be raised later.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the appellants were denied a fair hearing because no opportunity was given to reply; (ii) whether the earlier acquittal in the companion case barred the present conviction or could be relied upon to undermine the prosecution case.

Issue (i): Whether the appellants were denied a fair hearing because no opportunity was given to reply.

Analysis: The grievance was mentioned only in the petition for certificate and special leave, but it was not pressed before the Judge who delivered the impugned judgment. A party who claims denial of hearing must raise the objection immediately so that it may be corrected at the time. Since no such grievance was pursued before the High Court at the relevant stage, the point could not be entertained.

Conclusion: The contention of denial of fair hearing was rejected.

Issue (ii): Whether the earlier acquittal in the companion case barred the present conviction or could be relied upon to undermine the prosecution case.

Analysis: The earlier acquittal related to a different assault, a different victim, and distinct facts. Section 403 of the Code of Criminal Procedure bars a second trial only for the same offence or on the same facts where a different charge could have been made or a conviction could have followed under Sections 236 or 237. The two incidents were separate transactions, occurring at different stages and for different common objects. The prior judgment was admissible only to show that an acquittal had occurred, not to import the reasoning or appreciation of evidence from that case into the present one. As the statutory bar did not apply, the earlier acquittal could not defeat the present conviction.

Conclusion: The prior acquittal did not operate as a bar and could not be used to displace the conviction.

Final Conclusion: The appeal failed, and the conviction and sentences were left undisturbed.

Ratio Decidendi: Section 403 of the Code of Criminal Procedure applies only where the later proceeding is for the same offence or on the same facts; a prior acquittal in a distinct and independent transaction does not create a bar and cannot be used to import evidentiary findings from that case into the later one.

---