STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH versus KOKKILIAGADA MEERAYYA AND ANR.

Citation: [1969] 2 S.C.R. 1004 · Decided: 28-11-1968 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: J.C. SHAH · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Cited by 1 judgment(s) · cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH 
v. 
KOKKILIAGADA MEERAYYA AND ANR. 
November 28, 1968 
[J. C. SHAH AND A. N. GROVER, JJ.] 
"Issue Estoppel"'-rule of-when applicable-whether inconsist.ent 
with s. 403 Cr. P.C.-Proceedings under s. 107 Cr. P.C. against certain 
persons including respondents-Evidence found insufficient to sustain inci-
dents alleged to make order of binding over-Respondents convicted 
under ss. 323 and 324 J.P.C. in relation to one of the inddents-whether 
conviction valid. 
Proceedings were instituted under s. 107 Cr. P.C. against four per-
sons including the two respondents and an order was made against· them 
under s. 112 Cr. P .C. stating that they were indulging in various acts of 
violence involving breach ot peace and requiring them 
to show cause 
A 
B 
c 
why. each of them should not execute a bond for keeping the peace. This 
order referred to four incidents, the first of which was that on June 22, 
1964, eleven persons including the two respondents had indulged in cer-
D 
lain acts of violence as 'a result df which a case under ss. 148, 323 and 
325 I.P.C. had been registered. 
After holding an inquiry, the Magis-
trate was of the view that the evidence Jed in support of the first inci-
dent was not reliable and the first incident was not proved against any 
of the eleven persons. 
Subsequently the respondents were 
convicted at a trial of offences 
under ss. 323 and 324 l.P.C. committed in the first incident in the order 
under s. 112 Cr. P.C. The Court of Session in appeal confirmed the 
conviction but the High Court, in revision, set it aside holding that on 
the principle of "issue estoppel" 
approved 
by this Court in" Manipur 
Administration v. Thockchom Bira Singh, [1964] 7 S.C.R. 123, since in 
the proceedings under s. 107 Cr. P.C. the incident which was made the 
subject matter of the complaint against the 
respondents 
in the Trial 
Court was one df the incidents relied upon and was held not proved, it 
was not open to the State to prosecute the respondents in respect of the 
same incident. 
In appeal to this. Court with special leave, it was contended that the 
rule of "issue estoppel"
1 had no application 
in the present 
case, since 
there was no "previous trial" of the respondents for any offence alleged 
E 
F 
to arise out of the incident in respect of which they were 
tried; and 
furthermore, that the rule of issue estoppel 
was 
inconsistent with the 
G 
statutory provisions contained in s. 403 Cr. P.C. 
and could not be re-
sorted to in criminal trials. 
HELD : (i) The High Court was in error in holding that the respon-
dents could not be tried and convicted of offences under ss. 324 and 323 
I.P.C. because in the earlier proceeding under s. 107 Cr. P.C., evidence 
j. 
with regarcl to the incident out of which the offences arose which were 
the subject-matter of the present appeal was taken, and was regarded as 
H 
insufficient to sustain the order. The rejection of e,;dence given in the 
earlier proceeding to sustain an order for binding over the respondents 
to keep the peace did not preclude the trial of the respondents in respect 
A. P. STATE V. MEBRAYYA (Shah, J.) 
1005 
A 
of the specific incident which together with the other incidents was 
sought to be made the basis of the order of binding over the respondents. 
B 
The rule of "issue estoppel" prevents reJitigation of the issue which 
has been determined in a criminal trial between the State and the accus-
ed. ff in respect of an offence arising out a transaction a trial bas taken 
place and the accused bas been acquitted, another trial in respect of the 
offence alleged to arise out of that transaction or of a related transaction 
which requires the Court to arrive at a conclusion inconsistent with the 
conclusion reached at the earlier trial is prohibited by the rule of issue 
estoppel. 
In the present case there was no trial of the respondents for 
an offence in the earlier proceeding and there was no order of convic-
tion or acquittal. [1011 D-F, HJ 
" 
(ii) Section 403 Cr. P.C. enacts the rule of autre fois acquit 
and 
• 
I --
autre fois convict applicable to criminal trials. 
The rule is that so long 
C . as an order of acquittal or conviction at a trial held by a court of com-
petent jurisdiction of a person charged with committing an offence stands, 
that person cannot again be tried on the same facts for the offence for 
which he was tried or for any other offence arising therefrom. 
But the 
rule of "issue estop
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.