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 ofresjudicata 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 c ivi I proceedings arc for the same cause, judgment of the civil court would be relevant if conditions of any of Sections 40 to 43 are satisfied, but it cannot be said th~t the same would be conclusive except as provided in Section 41. Section 41 provides which judgment would be conclusive proofof what is stated therein. 31. Fu11her, 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, the court has to decide to what extent it is binding or conclusive with regard to the matter(s) decided therein .... 32. In the present case, the decision rendered by the Constitution Bench in M.S. Sheriff case would be binding, wherein it has been specifically held that no hard-and-fast rule can be laid down and that possibi I ity of conflicting decision in civi I and criminal cou11s is not a relevant consideration. The law envisages 'such an eventuality when it expressly refrains fro1n n1aking the decision of one court binding on the other, or even relevant. except for I im ited purpose such as sentence or damages"'. 7. The exoneration in related adjudication proceedings and the effect thereof on criminal proceedings again came up for consideration before a three-Judge Bench of this Court in R11d/1esltyam Kejriw11/ v. State of West Bengal muf Ant>lfter'. In his dissenting opinion P. Sathasivam, J. (as the learned Chief Justice then was) concluded that there was nothing in Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 to indicate that a finding in adjudication is binding on a court in prosecution under Section 56 of Act or that the prosecution under Section 56 depended upon the result of the adjudication under the Act. C.K. Prasad J., speaking for the majority summed up as under:-
