Previous judgments relevant to bar a second suit or trial
Section 34 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 deals with previous judgments relevant to bar a second suit or trial. The existence of any judgment, order or decree which by law prevents any Court from taking cognizance of a suit or holding a trial, is a relevant fact when the question is whether such Court ought to take cognizance of such suit or to hold such trial. The Act came into force on 01 Jul 2024.
The existence of any judgment, order or decree which by law prevents any Court from taking cognizance of a suit or holding a trial, is a relevant fact when the question is whether such Court ought to take cognizance of such suit or to hold such trial.
Section 34, The Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 (Act 47 of 2023).
Replaces a provision of the Indian Evidence Act
IEA 40 Previous judgments relevant to bar a second suit or trial Text carried over almost unchanged 100%
Measured by comparing the text of the two provisions, not taken from an official correspondence table — there is no machine-readable one. See both texts side by side before relying on it.
Both regimes are live. The repealed enactment still governs what happened while it was in force. We never redirect one to the other.
Cross-references
Extracted from the operative text of the enactments themselves. Every destination below exists in our corpus.
Related judgements & precedents
These are some judgments that construed this section, and hold precedence value. They hold authority on how to read, interpret and use this section.
-
Vishnu Dutt Sharma vs Daya Sapra
Decided under Indian Evidence Act 40, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
The principle of res judicata and the concept of abuse of process of law do not operate to bar continuation of a civil suit merely because the accused has been acquitted in a related criminal proceeding arising from the same transaction. A judgment in a criminal proceeding, even if it results in acquittal, does not have binding effect on a parallel civil suit as the standards of proof, burden of proof, causes of action, and legal issues are fundamentally different between criminal and civil proceedings. The applicability of reverse burden provisions and statutory presumptions in criminal law must be strictly interpreted and applied with due regard to the presumption of innocence and constitutional rights of the accused, whereas in civil proceedings no such strict compliance is required. A creditor has the right to pursue both criminal and civil remedies concurrently, and the continuation of such proceedings is neither barred by law nor constitutes an abuse of process, provided the civil suit was not barred at the time of its filing.
On this section: Provides relevance of previous judgments that bar a second suit or trial. The court held that a criminal judgment is relevant only if it legally prevents the court from taking cognizance, which is not the case here.
-
Guru Granth Saheb Sthan Meerghat Vanaras vs Ved Prakash
Decided under Indian Evidence Act 40, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
No hard and fast rule can be laid down requiring a civil suit to be automatically stayed during the pendency of a related criminal proceeding. The possibility of conflicting decisions in civil and criminal courts is not a relevant consideration for staying proceedings. Whether civil proceedings should be stayed during pending criminal proceedings depends on case-specific factors, particularly whether there is likelihood of embarrassment to the accused. Once a civil defendant has filed their written statement and issues have been framed, proceeding with the civil trial does not prejudice their criminal defence, and therefore stay is not justified. The law does not make the decision of one court binding on the other except in limited circumstances specified in Sections 40-43 of the Indian Evidence Act.
On this section: Comprehensively analyzed to determine relevancy and effect of judgments passed by civil and criminal courts when both courts deal with the same subject matter; Section 41 concerns conclusive proof regarding probate, matrimonial, admiralty, or insolvency jurisdiction; Section 42 addresses relevancy of other judgments of public nature; Section 40 and 43 address conditions when courts can take cognizance
The holding above is the ratio decidendi as extracted from the judgment by eCourts India, reproduced unaltered — it is a rendering of the court's reasoning, not a substitute for its words. Read the order itself before relying on it.
Questions about Section 34
What have the courts held on Section 34 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam?
Vishnu Dutt Sharma vs Daya Sapra (05 May 2009) is the leading judgment on this section among those set out below, though it was decided under IEA 40, which this section replaced -- the court never mentioned this Act: Provides relevance of previous judgments that bar a second suit or trial. The court held that a criminal judgment is relevant only if it legally prevents the court from taking cognizance, which is not the case here. Another 1 judgment on this section is set out below, all of them from the Supreme Court. They run from 2009 to 2013.
How do I find court cases under Section 34 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam?
In judgments and charge sheets this section is written several ways, and each form finds a different set of orders. These search the full text of every order eCourtsIndia holds, best matches first: BSA 34, section 34 BSA, section 34 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam. People searching for it also type bsa troop 34. Each opens the full list of orders on eCourtsIndia, where it can be narrowed by court, year and outcome. 2 reported judgments on this section are set out on this page, beginning with Vishnu Dutt Sharma vs Daya Sapra (05 May 2009).
What should I read with Section 34 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, and has it changed?
2 other provisions in this corpus refer back to it. It carries forward IEA 40 (Previous judgments relevant to bar a second suit or trial), so the judgments decided under that provision are the case law on this one.
When did Section 34 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam come into force?
Section 34 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, cited as BSA 34, came into force on 01 Jul 2024, having been enacted on 25 Dec 2023. It is in force as at the date shown on this page.
Other sections of this Act
- 26. Cases in which statement of relevant fact by person who is dead or cannot be found, etc., is relevant1128 words
- 12. Facts showing existence of state of mind, or of body or bodily feeling1076 words
- 95. Exclusion of evidence of oral agreement815 words
- 2. Definitions794 words
- 6. Motive, preparation and previous or subsequent conduct773 words
- 63. Admissibility of electronic records764 words
Source and method. Compiled from the enactments of Parliament and of the State legislatures as published on India Code, and republished together with commentary and other original matter under section 52(1)(q)(ii) of the Copyright Act, 1957. Structured, cross-referenced and maintained by eCourtsIndia. Text as in force on 15 Oct 2026. This page is not a substitute for legal advice.