FAIZANUDDIN, J. ( 1 ) THIS is a petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as the Code) for setting aside the ex parte order dated 30-1-1991 passed by a Division Bench of this Court in Criminal Revision No. 539 of 1990 (State of Madhya Pradesh v. Ramadhar Shukla and 4 others ). ( 2 ) THE facts giving rise to this petition are that these 4 applicants along with 10 other co-accused are facing trial under Ss. 147, 148, 149, 324 and 302,/114 of the Indian Penal Code before the Third Additional Sessions Judge, Satna in Sessions Trial No. 129 of 1988 arising out of Crime No. 38/88. After the challan was filed before the learned Sessions Judge, he by order dated 15-12-1989 discharged the 4 applicants as well as one co-accused Rajkumar son of Ramadhar, as, in the opinion of the learned Sessions Judge, no offence was found to have been made out against them. The complainant Vidhyadhar Shukla challenged the order of discharge of the applicants dated 15-12-1989 in Criminal Revision No. 6 of 1990 which came up for hearing before learned single Judge of this Court (Awasthy, J. since retired) who by his order dated 9-4-1990 allowed the revision against the co-accused Rajkumar and dismissed the same against 4 applicants herein. The learned single Judge by his order dated 9-4-1990, a copy whereof has been filed as Annexure A-1, directed the Additional Sessions Judge to frame the charge against co-accused Rajkumar after perusal of the material available against him keeping in mind the observations made in the order. The State of Madhya Pradesh was also arrayed as a party to the said revision before this Court being respondent No. 1. ( 3 ) AFTER the Criminal Revision No. 6/90 was disposed of by the learned single Judge of this Court as aforesaid, the State of Madhya Pradesh also appears to have filed a Criminal Revision No. 539 of 1990 before this Court against the same order of discharge dated 15-12-1989 passed by the learned Sessions Judge. This Criminal Revision No. 539 of 1990 filed by the State of Madhya Pradesh was heard by a Division Bench of this Court consisting of the then Mr. Justice Pathak and Chawla JJ. This Criminal Revision No. 539 of 1990 filed by the State of Madhya Pradesh was heard by a Division Bench of this Court consisting of the then Mr. Justice Pathak and Chawla JJ. , which was disposed of by order dated 30-1-1991 allowing the revision by setting aside the order dated 15-12-1989 whereby the applicants were discharged, directing the Additional Sessions Judge to make further enquiry in the case and proceed according to law. ( 4 ) THE contention of the learned Counsel for the applicants is that though they were non-applicants in Criminal Revision No. 539 of 1990 filed by the State before this Court, yet the said revision was finally heard and disposed of by the Division Bench without the applicants being served and heard in the matter. The second contention of the learned Counsel for the applicants is that once the Criminal Revision No. 6 of 1990 against the order dated 13-12-1989 discharging the applicants was finally heard and disposed of by the competent Court in which the State of Madhya Pradesh was also a party, it was not open either to the state of Madhya Pradesh to prefer the second revision against the same order by suppressing the earlier order, nor it was open to the Division Bench to reopen the question which had become final between the parties, and decide afresh. ( 5 ) WE have perused the record of Criminal Revision No. 539 of 1990 preferred by the State of Madhya Pradesh after the Criminal Revision No. 6/90 was already disposed of on 9-4-1990. A perusal of the order sheet of Criminal Revision No. 539 of 1990 goes to show that notice to the non-applicants (Four applicants herein and one Rajkumar Shukla) was directed to be issued on 3-12-1990. The record shows that notice was served only on Smt. Chandrawati. However, Shri R. P. Agarwal, Advocate, filed memo on behalf of applicant No. 1 Ramadhar, applicant No. 2 Smt. Chandrawati and one Rajkumar Shukla, who were non-applicants in that revision, while applicants Nos. 3 and 4 Shukla and Ramakant were neither served nor represented by any counsel. That Criminal Revision No. 539 of 1990 was listed on 28-1-1991 when Shri A. S. Jha learned Government Advocate appeared for the applicant-State and none appeared for any of the non-applicants (applicants herein ). 3 and 4 Shukla and Ramakant were neither served nor represented by any counsel. That Criminal Revision No. 539 of 1990 was listed on 28-1-1991 when Shri A. S. Jha learned Government Advocate appeared for the applicant-State and none appeared for any of the non-applicants (applicants herein ). The case was again adjourned to 29-1-1991 when no one appeared for the applicants herein. It was again adjourned for 30/01/1991 but no one appeared on that date also. The arguments were heard and the order was pronounced the same day setting aside the order of discharge and directing the trial Judge to make further enquiry in the case as aforesaid. ( 6 ) LEARNED Counsel for the applicants contended that firstly the applicants Nos. 3 and 4 Shankhu and Ramakant were not served with any notice of the revision nor they were represented by any counsel. Secondly though the counsel had filed his memo, on behalf of the applicants Nos. 1 and 2 Ramadhar and Smt. Chandrawati but the name of the counsel did not appear in the cause list on any of the dates, that is, either on 28-1-1991 or on 20-1-1991 or on 30-1-1991, yet the final arguments were heard and the revision was disposed of. He submitted that the said ex parte order dated 30/01/1991 passed by the Division Bench in Criminal Revision No. 539 of 1990 is liable to be set aside, for the aforesaid reasons. In our opinion the submission appears to be well founded and, therefore, must be accepted. Admittedly the applicants Nos. 3 and 4 were not served at all which is borne out from the record as stated above. Though the applicants Nos. 1 and 2 were represented by counsel but they were also not heard as their counsel's name did not appear in the cause-list. The order dated 30/01/1991 passed in Criminal Revision No. 539 of 1990 deserves to be set aside. ( 7 ) EVEN otherwise it was not open to the State of Madhya Pradesh to file another revision against the same order of discharge dated 15-12-1989 which was the subject matter in Criminal Revision No. 6 of 1990 in which the State of Madhya Pradesh was also a party and was disposed of on merits as the rule of issue-estoppel would be fully attracted to the present case. It is settled law that the effect of a verdict passed by a competent Court on a lawful and after a lawful trial, the same question and issue cannot be tried again for the same offence and the verdict already given by the competent Court of Law would be binding and conclusive in all subsequent proceedings between the parties to the adjudication. The point in controversy is fully covered by the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Pritam Singh v. State of Punjab, AIR 1956 SC 415 : 1956 Cri LJ 805. In that case, the appellant was charged under Section 19 (f) of the Arms Act for possession of a revolver but was acquitted by the competent Court. There was a subsequent prosecution of the appellant for an offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and the possession of the revolver was a fact in issue in the latter case also. It was held that the finding in the former trial on the issue of possession of the revolver will constitute an issue of estoppel not as a bar to the trial in a conviction of the appellant for a different offence but as precluding reception of evidence to disturb the finding of fact about the possession of revolver. The Supreme Court took the view that the effect of a verdict of acquittal pronounced by a competent Court on a lawful charge and after a lawful trial is not completely stated by saying that the person acquitted cannot be tried again for the same offences. To that it must be added that the verdict is binding and conclusive in all subsequent proceedings between the parties to the adjudication. ( 8 ) AGAIN in the case of Lalta v. The State of U. P. , AIR 1970 SC 1381 : 1970 Cri LJ 1270, their Lordships quoted with approval the decision in the case of Pritam Singh v. State of Punjab (supra ). ( 8 ) AGAIN in the case of Lalta v. The State of U. P. , AIR 1970 SC 1381 : 1970 Cri LJ 1270, their Lordships quoted with approval the decision in the case of Pritam Singh v. State of Punjab (supra ). After discussing some decisions of Queens Bench, and that of Australian High Court, their Lordships took the view that there must be a prior proceeding determined against the crown necessarily involving an issue which again arises in subsequent proceeding by the crown against the same prisoner, in which even there would be nothing wrong in the view that there is an issue-estoppel, if it appears by record of itself or as explained by proper evidence, that the same point was determined in favour of a prisoner in a previous trial which was brought in issue by second criminal trial against the prisoner. If such a state of affair arises, there is no reason why the ordinary rules of issue estoppel should not apply, which is concerned with the judicial establishment of a proposition of law or fact between the parties. It has been also observed that the law which gives effect to issue-estoppels is not concerned with the correctness or incorrectness of the finding which amounts to an estoppel. It is enough that an issue or issues have been distinctly raised and found and once that is done, then, so long as the finding stands, if them be any subsequent litigation between the same parties, no allegations legally inconsistent with the finding may be made by one of them against the other. Almost the same view was reiterated in a subsequent decision in Bhagat Ram v. State of Rajasthan, AIR 1972 SC 1502 : 1972 Cri LJ 909. On the aforesaid reasons, it was not open to the State of Madhya Pradesh to agitate the same order by filing a subsequent Criminal Revision, because of the bar, based on the rule of issue estoppel. ( 9 ) FOR the reasons stated above, the order dated 30-1-1991 passed in Criminal Revision No. 539 of 1990 is set aside. Order accordingly. .