9911796707
TMI Blog1968 (10) TMI 109X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l complaint came to be heard by a Magistrate Second Class who by his judgment dated May 31, 1956 acquitted Lalta and the other persons complained against. The Criminal case against Swami Nath proceeded on the charges framed under Sections 342 and 384, Indian Penal Code. In the Civil Suit which was filed by Lalta, the defendant Swami Nath moved an application for a report being called from the Superintendent, Security Press, Nasik regarding the year of the revenue stamps affixed on the pronote and the receipt. The matter was accordingly referred to the Superintendent, Security Press, Nasik and the report received was that the stamps in question had been printed on December 21, 1953 and were issued for the first time on January 16, 1954 to the Treasury. Subsequent to the receipt of the report Lalta did not put in appearance and the suit was dismissed for default on June 1, 1956. The Civil Judge was moved for filing a complaint against the appellants for committing forgery. The Civil Judge Gonda actually filed a complaint on November 9, 1956 against Lalta for offences under Sections 193, 194, 209, 465, 467 and 471, Indian Penal Code and against Tribeni and Ram Bharosey for an offence ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the charge under Section 19(f), Arms Act for possession of a revolver. There was a subsequent prosecution of the appellant for an offence under Section 302, Indian Penal Code and the possession of the revolver was a fact in issue in the later case which had to be established by the prosecution It was held that the finding in the former trial on the issue of possession of revolver will constitute an estoppel against the prosecution, pot as a bar to the trial and conviction of the appellant for a different offence but as precluding the reception of evidence to disturb the finding of fact. 5. Section 403, Criminal Procedure Code embodies in statutory form the accepted English rule of autrefois acquit. The section reads as follows : 403. (1) A person who has once been tried by a Court of competent jurisdiction for an offence and convicted or acquitted of such offence shall, while such conviction or acquittal remains in force, not be liable to be tried again for the same offence, nor on the same facts for any other offence for which a different charge from the one made against him might have been made under Section 236, or for which he might have been convicted under Section ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ecluding 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), Criminal Procedure Code. The distinction between the principle of autrefois acquit and the rule as to issue-estoppel; in other words, the objection to the reception of evidence to prove an identical fact which has been the subject-matter of an earlier finding between the same parties is clearly brought out in the following passage from the judgment of Wright, J. in The Queen v. Ollis, [1900] 2 Q.B. 758. : The real question is whether this relevant evidence of the false pretence on July 5 or 6 ought to have been excluded on the ground that it was part of the evidence given for the prosecution at the former trial, at which the prisoner was charged with having obtained money from Ramsey on that false pretence, and was acquitted of that charge. 8. Speaking of this type of estoppel, Dixon, J. stated in The King v. Wilkes : Whilst there is not a great deal of authority upon the subject, it appears to me that there is nothing wrong in the view that there is an issue estoppel, if it appear ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nce of one or other of the other two elements. It is nothing to point that the verdict may have been the result of a mis-direction of the judge and that owing to the misdirection the jury may have found the verdict without understanding or intending what as a matter of law is its necessary meaning or its legal consequences. The law which gives effect to issue estoppels is not concerned with the correctness or incorrectness of the finding which amounts to an estoppel, still less with the processes of reasoning by which the finding was reached in fact; it does not matter that the finding may be thought to be due to the jury having been put upon the wrong track by some direction of the presiding judge or to the jury having got on the wrong track unaided. It is enough that an issue or issues have been distinctly raised and found.- Once that is done, then, so long as the finding stands, if there 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. 10. It is therefore clear that Section 403, Criminal Procedure Code does not preclude the applicability of this rule of issue-estoppel. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
