Maqbool Hussain vs The State Of Bombay.Jagjit Singhv.The ... on 17 April, 1953
(paras 14 and 15)
Maqbool Hussain v. State of Bombay AIR 1953 SC
325: 1953 Cri LJ 1432, S.A. Venkataraman v. Union
of India ARI 1954 SC 375: 1954 Cri. LJ 993,
followed
The issue estoppel rule is but a facet or
doctrine of autrefois acquit. Where an issue of fact
has been tried by a competent court on an earlier
occasion and a finding has been recorded in favour
of the 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 acceptance/reception of evidence to disturb the
finding of fact when the accused is tried
subsequently for a different offence. This rule is
distinct from the doctrine of double jeopardy as it
does not prevent the trial of any offence but only
precludes the evidence being led to prove a fact in
issue as regards which evidence has already been
led and a specific finding has been recorded at an
Crl.M.C.No. 277 of 2012
7
earlier criminal trial. Thus, the rule relates only to
the admissibility of evidence which is designed to
upset a finding of fact recorded by a competent
court in a previous trial on a factual issue. What is
necessary is to analyse the ingredients of the two
offences and not the allegations made in the two
complaints. (paras 15 and 22 t 24)
Doctrine of double jeopardy is enshrined in
Section 300 Cr.P.C and Section 26 of the General
Clauses Act. Both the provisions employ the
expression "same offence". There may be cases of
misappropriation, cheating, defamation etc. which
may give rise to prosecution on criminal side and
also for action in cvil court/other forum for recovery
of money by way of damages, etc. Therefore, it is
not always necessary that in every such case the
provisions of Article 20(2) of the Constitution may
be attracted. In order to attract the provisions of
Artilce 20(2) of the Constitution i.e., doctrine of
autrefois acquit or Section 300 Cr.P.C. or Section
71 IPC or Section 26 of the General Clauses Act,
the ingredients of the offences in the earlier case as
well as in the latter case must be the same and not
different. The test to ascertain whether the two
offences are the same is not identity of the
allegations but the identity of the ingredients of the
offence. Motive for committing the offence cannot
be termed as the ingredients of offences to
determine the issue. The plea of autrefois acquit is
not proved unless it is shown that the judgment of
acquittal in the previous charge necessarily involves
an acquittal of the latter charge. (Paras 14, 15 and
30 to 33).