Law of estoppel in criminal liability The rule of law of estoppel in the criminal cases is that, if at a point of time a issue

of fact has been tried by a competent court at a former occasion and has been decided in favour of the accused, this creates a form of estoppel of res-judicata against the prosecution, that the prosecution cannot in the same case with same offence and offender file a suite in a different court with same level of the previous one and conduct a trial once again. There is no bar on the prosecution for a trial and conviction of the accused for a different offence in the same court. Raunaq vs State of Uttar Pradesh : 1 On the night of 18/19, April, 1979 at about 3 A.M. one gun with two live cartridges was stolen from the house of one Govind Singh. The said gun was recovered by the police of Moradabad from the possession of the revisionist which lead to the trail of him under section 399/402 of Indian penal Code, by the court of magistrate at Moradabad. The prosecution examined Govind Singh about the ownership and possession of the gun and the cartridges. V.V.Singh and Yad Ram the other two witnesses in the case were also examined by the prosecution about the recovery of the weapon from the possession of the revisionist on 15/5/1979 at about 11:00 P.M. Revisionist denied about the claims of the prosecution about his arrest & took the defense that he was going to the house of his brother in law and when he was at bus station of Chaudhripur he was then arrested and booked in a false case by the police. The defense witness said that the revisionist was going in a marriage party and there he was arrested by the police. This fact he came to know from kallu, resident of chaudhripur. The magisterial court convicted the revisionist under section 411 of IPC and sentenced him 1 year rigorous imprisonment. Revisionist then appealed in the session court but the session judge upheld the conviction of the revisionist. Then the revision petition was filed at the high court of Allahabad, Uttar Pradesh against order of the learned session judge of Moradabad. The main question that arose in front of the Honble high court was that the revisionist in before was booked under section 399/402 of Indian penal code and section 25 of Arms Act, along with
1

1987 CriLJ 445 or

MANU/UP/0287/1985

istiyaq and others in reference to the recovery of gun. Istiyaq the co accused was convicted by the lower court but afterwards be was acquitted by this High Court the court examined the evidence of the two witnesses V.V. Singh & Yad Ram (same witness in this case also) in reference to the recovery of weapon and held that recovery was false. As the acquittal of istiyaq is falling under the same transaction with reference to the conviction of the revisionist. The question of law estoppel arose over here in front of the court as the same person cannot be booked under same offence twice and cannot be trail twice by the courts. If such things happen in the system of justice the trust of the public would be lifted from the judiciary as if a person is found guilty by one court in one trial and convicted with punishment and the other court in same case did trial another time and found the offender to be innocent. This contradiction in the system of law would do unjust with the public. The justice would not be delivered properly like this. Therefore in this case the court held that the acquittal of istiyaq by this court is under the same transaction with the conviction of the revisionist and this creates the estoppel against the prosecution. Therefore the conviction and the sentence of the revisionist is set aside and he is acquitted from the charges under section 411 of IPC.