P. C. PATHAK, J, J. ( 1 ) THIS reference made by 3rd Additional Judge to the Court of Sessions Judge, Satna. ( 2 ) SESSIONS Trial No. 128/88 (State v, Sunderlal Narang) is pending before him. Learned Additional Sessions Judge framed charge under section 302, I. P. C. against accused Sunderlal Narang on 25. 1. 1990. This order was challenged on 1. 2. 1990 before this Court by the said accused in Criminal Revision No. 81/90. After hearing learned counsel Shri S. C. Dutt on behalf of accused and the Government Advocate, a Single Bench presided over by Shri S. M. Lal, J. dimissed the revision by order dated 2. 3. 1990. ( 3 ) AGAIN, on 12. 4. 1990, the same accused challenged the same order dated 25. 1. 1990 of learned Additional Sessions Judge by filing another criminal revision No. 214/90. This revision too was finally argued on 18. 4. 1990 by Shri S. C. Dutt for the accused and Government Advocate for the State. Learned Single Judge Shri S. A wasthy J. allowed the revision by his order dated 18. 6. 1990, quashed the charge under Sections. 302 and remanded the case back with the directions to the trial Court to frame suitable charge on perusal of material on record afresh. ( 4 ) ON receipt of the copies of the two conflicting orders, the learned Additional Sessions Judge has made the reference seeking guidance from this court as to which of the two order should be followed by him. ( 5 ) THE principle of res-judicata is also applicable to criminal proceeding. See Bhagatram v. State of Rajasthan where an issue of fact has been tried by a competent court on a former occasion and a finding has been reached in favour of an accused, such a finding would constitute an estoppel or res-judicata-against the prosecution. see Lalta and others v. State of Uttar Pradesh ( 6 ) APPLYING the aforesaid principle, the conclusion is in escapable that the earlier verdict pronounced by Shri B. M. Lal J. is binding and conclusive in all subsequent proceedings between the parties to the adjudication. The order framing charge having been confirmed by dismissal of the revision, the accused was bound to accept the correctness of the said verdict and was precluded from taking any steps to challenge it in the second revision. The order framing charge having been confirmed by dismissal of the revision, the accused was bound to accept the correctness of the said verdict and was precluded from taking any steps to challenge it in the second revision. Therefore the trial court shall proceed as if the charge under section 302, I. P. C framed by him against accused Sunderlal Narang on 25. 1. 1990 is intact. The order is subsequent revision by Shri Awasthy J. is nonest. ( 7 ) BEFORE parting with the reference, we would like to mention that the memo of revision in the second case is verbatim copy of memo of first revision except the date and counsel signing the memo. The accused obtained certified copy of the order for filing revision vide copying application No. 334/90. He filed first revisions with its photocopy while the second revision was filed with the said certified copy. Both the revision were argued by Shri S. C. Datt: While arguing the second revision, he did not inform the Court of the dismissal of the first revision. Prima facie, this amounts to contempt of court. Interest of justice, therefore, demands that notices be issued to Sunderlal Narang, Shri S. C. Datt, Advocate, and the following advocate who signed the memo of appearance and filed second revision namely Sarvashri Sharad Verma, Ku. Chanchai Sharma, Y. K. Gupta and R. S. Shukla Advocates to show cause why proceedings for contempt of Court be not initiated against them. ( 8 ) REGISTER a separate case alongwith copy of this Order and records of Cri. Revision No. 81 of 90 and Cri. Revision No. 214 of 1990. .