Judgment L.P.N.SHAHDEO, J. 1. This is an application for quashing the criminal prosecution of the petitioners, including the order, dated 9-5-1986, whereby cognizance of the offence under Secs. 13-C and 16(1)(e) of the Bihar Entertainment Tax Act and under Sec. 420/34 of the Indian Penal Code was taken against the petitioners, which is pending in the court of Smt. S. Tigga, Judicial Magistrate, Jameshedpur, in the following circumstances. 2. It appears that opposite-party No. 2 had filed a complaint in the court, alleging that petitioner Nos. 1 to 5 are partners of Payal Cinema and petitioner No. 6 is the ex-Manager. The said Payal Cinema, was granted permission by the Deputy Commissioner to hold cinema shows and screening of the film had started from 16-11-1984, in terms of the notification issued, and exemption from realising entertainment tax for one year from the date of commencement of screening, was allowed to the petitioners. It was alleged that on 13-1-1985 and 9-2-1985 Inspection was conducted in the Payal Cinema for realising entry fee and entertainment tax and it was found that these partners of the Payal Cinema were realising the entertainment tax although they were not entitled to realise entertainment tax from the customers under the exemption granted for one year and thus after realising the entertainment tax they had misappropriated about 15 lacs and thus had made themselves liable for punishment under Secs. 13-C (I) and 16(1)(e) of the Bihar Entertainment Tax Act. It has been allenged that by suppressing the fact, they had realised entertainment tax from the cinema-goers and that they had deceived them fraudulently and dishonestly and had forced them to pay entertainment tax for which they were not liable to pay. On the basis of the complaint, cognizance was taken against the petitioners who are said to be the Directors of the Payal Cinema (P.) (Ltd.) located in Mango Notified Area, Committee in the district of Singhbhum, which is being challenged in this application. 3. The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners Mr. On the basis of the complaint, cognizance was taken against the petitioners who are said to be the Directors of the Payal Cinema (P.) (Ltd.) located in Mango Notified Area, Committee in the district of Singhbhum, which is being challenged in this application. 3. The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners Mr. P.D. Agrawal has submitted that the petitioners had not realised any entertainment tax and they had realised only that much amount which were fixed by the Deputy Commissioner approved by the Sale Tax authorities and it was also pointed out that the petitioners had preferred appeal against the order of the Sales Tax Officer and the appellate authority had allowed the appeal on the same point and the Department had preferred a revision before the Commercial Tax Tribunal, Bihar, Patna and the revision preferred by the Department was dismissed. On the basis of these facts, it was submitted that once the revision has been dismissed, on the same set of facts the criminal prosecution of the petitioners is entirely invalid. 4. The cardinal point for investigation and determination is as to whether the petitioners had realised entertainment tax in spite of the exemption granted to them for one year or, as claimed by the petitioners, they had not realised any entertainment tax. 5. In this connection Annexure-3 is an intimation for screening of the file issued by the office of the Deputy Commissioner, Singh hum, which indicates that the Payal Cinema was permitted for screening 3 regular cinema shows and the rate of admission to the cinema is also noted in that order of the Deputy Commissioner which indicated the Charges for Box Rs. 6.25 ; D.C. Rs. 5.72 ; Balcony Rs. 4.77 ; Special Rs. 3.73 and 2nd class Rs. 2.57. It appears that the Deputy Commissioner, Commercial Taxes also approved the same rate for admission in respect of those classes, which is Annexure-4. The petitioners were charging the same rate. Therefore, on the basis of these two documents, it cannot be said that the petitioners had charged any thing more as entertainment tax, which is alleged in the complaint petition. It should be noted in this connection that in the column tax inclusive of surcharge in both the cases is blank. The petitioners were charging the same rate. Therefore, on the basis of these two documents, it cannot be said that the petitioners had charged any thing more as entertainment tax, which is alleged in the complaint petition. It should be noted in this connection that in the column tax inclusive of surcharge in both the cases is blank. This shows that the rate prescribed by the office of the Deputy Commissioner and the office of the Deputy Commissioner, Commercial Taxes, Jamshedpur, was the same which the petitioners used to charge. That admission rate does not include entertainment tax. The column meant fop it is blank. Therefore, the whole allegation that the petitioners were charging entertainment tax, although exemption was granted to them from realising from the cinema-goers, appears to be wholly erroneous and not supported by the admitted facts available on record and undisputed by the other side. 6. Annexure 6 is the letter addressed to the petitioners which showed on the basis of some allegation that they were charging entertainment tax and in the last column it was indicated that some thing was done against the petitioners by Natraj Cinema and as such a copy of that petition was forwarded to them. Annexure-7 indicated that petitioners were compelled by the Deputy Commissioner to bifurcate the charges made by them which they have done through Annexure-8 under threat of closure of cinema. This shows that notional bifurcation was done and actually they were charging the same rate as indicated in the order issued from the office of the Deputy Commissioner and Deputy Commissioner, Commercial Taxes. Annexure-9 is the reply to the Deputy Commissioner in connection with those letters. 7. It appears that the Deputy Commissioner, Commercial Taxes had imposed a penalty of 17 lacs of rupees by his order dated 11-5-1985. It appears that thereafter, the petitioners preferred appeal and the appellate court judgment is Annexure-10 in which the appeal was allowed by judgment dated 18-2-1986 and it was found that the petitioners had not charged any entertainment tax from the customers or cinema goers. It appears that the Department was not satisfied and the Commercial Taxes had preferred a revision before the Commercial Tax Tribunal, Patna, and that revision was dismissed and the Department could not succeed. It appears that the Department was not satisfied and the Commercial Taxes had preferred a revision before the Commercial Tax Tribunal, Patna, and that revision was dismissed and the Department could not succeed. Therefore, there are judicial findings of the appellate court as well as of the Tribunal that the petitioners had not charged any entertainment tax. It is a settled principle of law that once the Tribunal or a court comes to a judicial finding, that has to be accepted and if the same is accepted, no case is made out against the petitioners that they had misappropriated the entertainment tax which they had realised, la view of the finding of the appellate court approved by the Tribunal there can be no criminal prosecution in respect of the same sets of fact for which the petitioners were found not guilty. In this view of the matter also, the criminal prosecution of the petitioners is wholly unconnected not maintainable and illegal. 8. It is the settled principle of law, as in cases of Essential Commodities Act, Income-Tax Act as also other provisions, that once the Tribunal or the competent authority comes to a finding, that has to be accepted in criminal court and criminal prosecution cannot proceed if the accused had succeeded either in appeal or before the Tribunal or before the Special authority. Id a case under the provision of Essential Commodities Act or in a case of confiscation proceeding if the Deputy Commissioner or Collector comes to a finding that the petitioner has not committed any offence and seized goods are released, the criminal court on same set of fact, is bound to acquit the accused and cannot come to a different conclusion. Once such competent authority comes to such finding, the criminal prosecution of the petitioners has to be quashed. Similar is the view in the cases of Income-Tax Act cases. An assessee who was found to have contravened certain conditions of the Income-Tax Act or in not filing Return within time and the appellate court comes to the conclusion that he had not committed any offence, that assesses cannot be prosecuted for the criminal liability in view of that finding. Similar is the position here. An assessee who was found to have contravened certain conditions of the Income-Tax Act or in not filing Return within time and the appellate court comes to the conclusion that he had not committed any offence, that assesses cannot be prosecuted for the criminal liability in view of that finding. Similar is the position here. The petitioners were prosecuted by the Sales-Tax Department, Patna, in appellate court and in the revisional court for misappropriation of entertainment tax but both the competent authorities had come to the conclusion that they had not misappropriated any amount. Therefore, the criminal prosecution of the petitioners in this back ground for same sets of fact and similar nature of allegation, cannot be allowed to continue here and must be quashed in view of same parity of reasonings. 9. In the result, for the reasons stated above, this application is allowed. The criminal prosecution of the petitioners including the impugned order of taking cognizance against them are quashed.