JUDGMENT 1. Shamserennessa instituted a suit against Kanullah, the Petitioner before us, in the Court of the Munsif of Patuakhali, for recovery of a sum of money due on a registered bond executed by Kanullah. Kanullah denied the execution of the bond. The Munsif, however, came to the conclusion that the bond was genuine, decreed the suit and directed under sec. 476 of the Code of Criminal Procedure that Kanullah should be tried of an offence under sec. 193, I. P. C., for giving false evidence in respect to the execution of the bond. Kanullah appealed from the decision of the Munsif and the Subordinate Judge of Backergunge held, on appeal, that the bond was not genuine and that Kanullah had not executed it. The evidence of Kanullah given before the Munsif was not, therefore, false and the result of the judgment of the Subordinate Judge must be taken to be that the order for the prosecution of the Petitioner under sec. 476, C. Cr. P., was not maintainable as the basis of that order had gone. In the meantime and before the decision of the Subordinate Judge was pronounced, proceedings in the Criminal Court had been taken but when the Subordinate Judge pronounced his judgment, which was on the 7th December 1906, the case was still pending in the Court of the Sub-divisional Magistrate. We are informed that a copy of the judgment of the Subordinate Judge was filed in the proceeding before the Sub-divisional Magistrate but the Sub-divisional Magistrate gave no weight to it and on the 28th March 1907, convicted the accused under sec. 193, I. P. C., and sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for six months. On appeal from the conviction and sentence passed by the Sub-divisional Magistrate, the learned Sessions Judge of Bakergunge held that the conviction was right and that the sentence was a proper one. The judgments of both the Sub-divisional Magistrate and the Sessions Judge were passed mainly, if not wholly, on a comparison of the thumb impressions. 2. On an application by the accused, the Petitioner before us, we issued a rule to show cause why the conviction and sentence should not be set aside. We are of opinion, after hearing the learned vakil for the Petitioner and the Deputy Legal Remembrancer for the Crown, that the conviction and sentence should be set aside. 2. On an application by the accused, the Petitioner before us, we issued a rule to show cause why the conviction and sentence should not be set aside. We are of opinion, after hearing the learned vakil for the Petitioner and the Deputy Legal Remembrancer for the Crown, that the conviction and sentence should be set aside. It would be disastrous to the administration of justice in this country if a final judgment of a Civil Court could be practically set aside by a judgment of a Criminal Court. The judgment between the parties as regards the genuineness of the bond would be res judicata in all subsequent proceedings between the parties. If the Civil Court held that the bond was not genuine, the Criminal Court ought to have withheld its hand and ought not to have proceeded with the case. It might be that the accused should have, as soon as the judgment of the Subordinate Judge was pronounced, come to this Court and asked for revocation of the order under sec. 476, C. Cr. P.; but that would not affect our jurisdiction in setting aside the order passed by the Criminal Court in a proceeding based on an order under sec. 476, C. Cr. P., which ought to have been set aside as soon as the judgment of the Subordinate Judge was known. We, therefore, direct that both on the merits of the case as well as on the ground that the proceedings in the Criminal Court ought not to have been allowed to proceed, the conviction and sentence should be set aside.