JUDGMENT D. S. Mathur, J. - This order shall govern criminal miscellaneous cases Nos. 851, 892 and 893 of 1964 by Smt. Shanti Devi and two others for quashing three criminal cases pending against them. 2. The material facts of the case are that during a raid organised by the excise authorities the house of Ramdas was searched in his absence and many articles are alleged to have been recovered. The prosecution case was that Smt. Shanti Devi and Smt. Ganeshi Bai, wife and mother, respectively, of Ramdas, were present. Four distinct cases were started against the applicants, one under Section 19 (f) of the Arms Act for being in possession of an unlicensed revolver and cartridges, other two with regard to the recovery of liquor and the fourth with regard to the recovery of opium. These articles are said to have been found in three different rooms of the house. 3. The criminal case under Section 19 (f) of the Arms Act was taken up first and resulted in acquittal. The trial Magistrate recorded the finding that the two women accused were not present at the time of the raid and the witnesses to the raid had not given their search to each other. The learned Magistrate also regarded the statement of Sri D.N. Tandon, Magistrate, who was present at the time of the raid, to be of a half hearted nature. 4. It was after the order of acquittal was passed in the Arms Act case that the other three cases were taken up, and thereafter the applicants have moved this Court under Section 561-A, Cr. P.C., for quashing the three criminal cases. 5. Whether the present is a fit case for exercise of the inherent jurisdiction shall depend upon whether in view of the acquittal in the Arms Act case there is no possibility of conviction in the present cases. If all the three criminal cases shall eventually result in acquittal and the applicants cannot be convicted of any offence, the continuance of the proceedings shall cause unnecessary harassment to them and shall amount to an abuse of the process of the Court. In other -words, if there is no possibility of conviction, it shall be desirable to quash the proceedings based on the three cases. 6. In other -words, if there is no possibility of conviction, it shall be desirable to quash the proceedings based on the three cases. 6. The important point for consideration therefore is to what extent the State is bound by the decision in the Arms Act case. It is not in dispute that that judgment has become final, the State having not preferred any appeal against the order of acquittal. 7. It is now a settled rule that the principle of res judicata is applicable to criminal cases also. As the acquittal in the Arms Act case was the result of not accepting the evidence of recovery, all those findings shall be binding on the State. To put it differently, it shall not be open to the State to challenge the findings that Smt. Shanti Devi and Smt. Ganeshi Bai were not present at the time of the raid and that the raiding party had not taken the ordinary precaution to ensure that anyone was in a position to plant the articles in the house being raided. 8. Once the State is bound by these findings it cannot reagitate them in the present criminal cases and the evidence of recovery of the other articles cannot be accepted and cannot be made the basis of conviction. 9. In view of the fact that the applicants shall be acquitted in all the three criminal cases, all the three proceedings deserve to be quashed. 10. All the three applications under Section 561-A, Cr.P.C. are hereby allowed and the three criminal cases pending against the applicants are quashed.