( 1 ) THIS petition under section 482 Cr. P. C. has been filed for quashing the proceedings of criminal case no. 1485 of 1981 pending before the C. J. M. , Aligarh. ( 2 ) A criminal complaint was filed by the Sales Tax Department, aligarh through Sri K. D. Joshi, Sales Tax Officer against the applicant Jagdish, Basudeo and some others on 22. 5. 81 in the Court of C. J. M. Aligarh. The case set up in the complaint is as follows. The officers of the Sales Tax Department conducted a survey of the business premises of firm M/s Ram Charan Kasera, Kanwariganj on 7. 9. 79. The survey commenced at about 12 a. m. and continued till 6 p. m. and some incriminating documents were seized which were kept in a leather bag and the same was handed over to Sri Kishan peon of the department. While the officers of the Sales Tax department were busy in the survey work, the accused called more than 100 persons to his shop. When the officers of the department were proceeding to leave the business premises of the firm, the accused along with their companions forcibly snatched the leather bag from Sri Kishan peon. They also made an attempt to forcibly snatch the bags which were being carried by Sri Indra Deo Ram and sri K. N. Singh, Sales Tax Officers. In the scuffle which ensued a diary of Sri K. N. Singh was torned. The accused also forcibly obtained signature of Sri I. D. Ram on a letter which was written by them. They also assaulted Devendra Kumar Sharma, an employee of the department and prevented the officers from leaving the place by surrounding the Jeep of the department. However they could manage to come out on account of timely arrival of police patrol vehicle. A f. I. R. of the incident was lodged by Sri I. D. Ram at P. S. Kotwali on the same day, on the basis of which a case was registered as crime no. 578 of 1979 under section 395 I. P. C. On 14. 10. 79 the accused along with some police personnel came to the house of Sri Kishan and took him along with them in a car. They obtained his signature on an affidavit after giving him threat of life. 578 of 1979 under section 395 I. P. C. On 14. 10. 79 the accused along with some police personnel came to the house of Sri Kishan and took him along with them in a car. They obtained his signature on an affidavit after giving him threat of life. It was thus alleged that the accused had committed offence under sections 395,353,332,384,426 I. P. C. ( 3 ) SRI M. K. Gupta, learned counsel for the applicant, has submitted that the prosecution of the applicant on the basis of the complaint instituted by Sales Tax Department is violative of Article 20 (2) of the Constitution and is also barred by the principles of issue estoppel. In order to appreciate the contention raised by the learned counsel for the applicant, it is necessary to mention certain facts. As mentioned in the complaint, F. I. R. of the incident was lodged on 7. 9. 79 against Jagdish, Basudeo and others under section 395 I. P. C. at P. S. Kotwali which was registered as crime no. 578 of 1979. The police after investigation submitted final report dt. 18. 10. 80. The final report was accepted by the C. J. M. Aligarh on 21. 10. 80. Subsequently a protest petition was filed on behalf of the Sales Tax department through Sri K. D. Joshi, Sales Tax Officer on 17. 2. 81 wherein a prayer was made that the order accepting the final report be reconsidered and the accused be summond. This application was rejected by the learned C. J. M. on 12. 3. 81. The Sales Tax Department preferred a revision against the aforesaid order which was dismissed at the admission stage by the learned Sessions Judge on 19. 5. 81. The complaint giving rise to the present petition was thereafter filed on 22. 5. 81. ( 4 ) ARTICLE 20 (2) of the Constitution provides that no person shall be prosecuted and punished for the same offence more than once. The bar created by the clause (2) of Article 20 would apply only where the accused has been both prosecuted and punished for the same offence previously. The facts mentioned above would show that the police after investigation submitted final report which was accepted by the learned C. J. M. and the accused were not even summoned to face trial. The bar created by the clause (2) of Article 20 would apply only where the accused has been both prosecuted and punished for the same offence previously. The facts mentioned above would show that the police after investigation submitted final report which was accepted by the learned C. J. M. and the accused were not even summoned to face trial. Therefore the contention raised on the basis of clause (2) of Article 20 has no substance as the stage for prosecution of the applicant had not even arisen on account of acceptance of the final report. ( 5 ) REGARDING the second contention that the trial of the applicant is barred by the principles of issue estoppel it may be noticed that neither there has been any previous trial of the applicant nor any finding has been recorded in his favour at any earlier stage. The principles of issue estoppel was explained in the following words by the Supreme Court in Manipur Administration Versus Bira Singh air 1965 SC 87 : "the rule of issue estoppel in a criminal trial is that 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, not as a bar to the trial and conviction of the accused for a different or distinct offence but as precluding the reception of evidence to disturb that finding of fact when the accused is tried subsequently even for a different offence which might be permitted by the terms of section 403 (2 ). " ( 6 ) SIMILAR view was taken in Piara Singh Versus State of Punjab air 1969 SC 961 and Pritam Singh Versus State of Punjab AIR 1956 SC 415 . In the present case, the accused applicant has not been tried on any former occasion and as such no finding has been recorded in his favour. In absence of a finding having been recorded in favour of the accused, the question of precluding the reception of evidence to disturb the aforesaid finding of fact in the present trial does not arise at all. Therefore the trial of the applicant on the basis of the complaint instituted against him is not at all barred on the principle of issue estoppel. Therefore the trial of the applicant on the basis of the complaint instituted against him is not at all barred on the principle of issue estoppel. ( 7 ) THERE is another aspect of the case which deserves notice. The police submitted final report dt. 18. 10. 80 in favour of the accused and the said report was accepted by the learned C. J. M. on 21. 10. 80. It is obvious that the final report was accepted without issuing any notice to the first informant namely Sri I. D. Ram, Sales Tax Officer, aligarh. This fact has been specifically stated in para 11 of the protest petition and is also born out from the sequence of events namely that the final report was accepted within three days of its submission by the police. In Bhagwant Singh Versus Police commissioner AIR 1985 SC 1285 it has been held that in a case where the magistrate to whom a report is forwarded under sub-section (2) of section 173 Cr. P. C. decides not to take cognizance of the offence and to drop the proceedings or takes the view that there is no sufficient ground for proceeding against some of the persons mentioned in the F. I. R. he must give notice to the informant and provide him an opportunity to be heard at the time of consideration of the report. In view of this authoritative pronouncement by the apex Court, the order accepting the final report passed by the C. J. M. on 21. 10. 80 was clearly illegal. After the officers of the Sales Tax department came to know about the acceptance of the final report, a protest petition was filed along with some affidavits of the eye witnesses on 17. 2. 81 praying that the order accepting the final report be reconsidered and the accused be summoned. This application was rejected by the learned C. J. M. on 12. 3. 81. The order passed by him is being reproduced below: "sri K. D. Joshi have moved this application to reconsider the order accepting the final report in this case and summon the accused. I have heard the counsel for the applicant and the P. O. The F. R. was accepted by me on 21. 10. 3. 81. The order passed by him is being reproduced below: "sri K. D. Joshi have moved this application to reconsider the order accepting the final report in this case and summon the accused. I have heard the counsel for the applicant and the P. O. The F. R. was accepted by me on 21. 10. 80 after perusing the case diary and my order runs as follows: police janch ke nateja ko sahi mante huve F. R. swikar ki jaati hai. i do not think it just and proper to revise the order only on the basis of affidavit filed. The applicant may resort to another course open to him under the law to proceed against the accused. The application is rejected" ( 8 ) THE observation made in the last part of the order to the effect that the applicant (complainant) may resort to another course open to him under the law clearly postulates that a complaint could be filed against the accused. The law is well settled that even if a final report is submitted and the same is accepted, it is open to the first informant to file a complaint for prosecution of the accused. In view of the discussion made above, there is no merit in this petition which is hereby dismissed. Stay order is vacated. .