We now deal with the case of the other appellants. It is not in dispute that the Companies filed the writ petitions on 10. Indeed, the Companies could have filed the writ petitions even subsequent to the decision rendered in the case of Eastern Coalfield Ltd. The appellant’s petition under Section 125 CrPC would be maintainable before the Family Court as long as the appellant does not remarry. The gist of the testimony of the witnesses examined by the prosecution, inter alia, was as under:- i) PW-3 Dr.
Jasbir Singh who was one of the doctors conducting the post- mortem on the body of Jassi, stated about her injuries and the cause of death and that kirpan Ext. 85 lacs and one month’s basic wages, which have been allowed as profit bonus, come to about 3 lacs. The attempt on part of Mr. CIT  INSC 241; [AIR 1965 SC 1375 :  INSC 241; (1965) 1 SCR 909 : (1965) 56 ITR 198] and Punjab Distilling Industries Ltd.
This Court has time and again explained the principle of issue estoppel in a criminal trial observing that 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.
2010 (within one month from the date Protection of Life and Liberty Lawyer in Chandigarh the decision of this Court in Central Coalfields Ltd. After completion of investigation charge-sheet was filed against eleven persons while Surjeet Singh, maternal uncle and Malkiat Kaur, mother of Jassi were declared proclaimed offenders. The rule regarding issue estoppel relates to admissibility of evidence in subsequent proceedings which is designed to up-set a finding of fact recorded on the previous occasion and mandates that the finding so rendered on earlier occasion must operate as issue estoppel in subsequent proceedings.
[AIR 1965 SC 1862 :  INSC 27; (1965) 3 SCR 1 : (1965) 57 ITR 1 : 35 Com Cas 541] The percentage therefore is already sufficiently high and if profit bonus is allowed at the rate of two months’ basic wages it will come to about 6 lacs and 1046 would be more or less equal to the entire available surplus. 2010 when this Court dismissed the SLP filed by Central Coalfield Ltd. We have already worked out above the available surplus Protection of Life and Liberty Lawyer in Chandigarh profits, from which profit bonus can be given, The amount of available surplus comes to 6.
The prosecution in support of its case examined 45 witnesses and produced number of documents on record while 42 witnesses were examined in defence. They alleged that they were under a duty to perform worship according to certain rites in Shree Dayaneshwar Sansthan and that they were also under an obligation to perform other incidental duties enumerated by them Regular Bail Lawyer in Chandigarh their plaints. Shaw Wallace not for carrying on that business, but as some ‘Sort of solatium for its compulsory cessation, the answer seemed fairly plain.
It was alleged that the marriage of Jassi with PW 15 Sukhwinder Singh, who was simply a three wheeler driver, was not to the liking of the mother and the maternal uncle of Jassi. It was the case of the prosecution that the accused had hatched the conspiracy to commit the murder of Jassi and had caused injuries to PW-15 Sukhwinder Singh and thus committed the offences with which they were charged. The facts of the present case are closely similar to those which obtained in the Commissioner of Incometax v.
The law on the point was succinctly stated by this Court in Sangeetaben Mahendrabhai Patel v. Tulsi is just the opposite. 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. Imran Khan, a two-Judge Bench, placing reliance on Danial Latifi (supra), has ruled that:- “21. First and foremost the offences are different and distinct.
The submission advanced by Shri Tulsi that the subsequent judgment will operate as issue estoppel is not correct. The amount of maintenance to be awarded under Section 125 CrPC cannot be restricted for the iddat period only. He seeks to rely on the finding at a subsequent stage to up-set a finding of fact recorded on a previous occasion. P-12 recovered pursuant to disclosure statement could have caused those injuries. Slightly recently, in Shabana Bano v.
(b) Subject to the foregoing provisions, only the actual occupants of the hutment shall be held eligible and the so called structure-owner other than the actual occupant, if any, even if his name is shown in the electoral roll for the structure, shall have no right whatsoever to the reconstructed tenement against that structure. 2011) because it is in this case, this Court rendered a reasoned judgment finally repelling all the objections of Coal Companies on merits and upheld the right of the writ petitioners to claim refund of excess amount which they had paid to CCL and other coal fields pursuant to the Scheme As taken note of supra, in our opinion having regard to the background facts of this case, the right to file writ petition to claim refund of excess amount arose after the issue was decided by this Court firstly on 19.
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 earlier criminal trial. It makes it impermissible to lead any such evidence at a subsequent stage or occasion. in limine and upheld the reasoned order of the Patna High Court on this very issue.