LexStreak
Read free →
Supreme Court of India· 22 September 2026

Does the principle of issue estoppel bar an accused from re-agitating a ground of challenge considered and rejected in an earlier round of the same proceedings?

ANTONETTO J D’SOUZA v. ALDILA BRAGANZA AND OTHERS
2026 INSC 1032 · CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.4092 OF 2026
Coram: Justice Ujjal Bhuyan · Justice Atul S. Chandurkar
🔖 Save this judgment🔔 Follow s.227 Code of Criminal Procedure…📬 Get today's judgments
View the original judgment PDFFree to read. To download it — or the LexStreak typeset copy with the headnote and Points of Law — create an account; downloads are part of the Pro plan.
Answer

The principle of issue estoppel bars an accused from re-agitating a ground of challenge considered and rejected in an earlier round of the same proceedings.

Yes. The principle of issue estoppel bars an accused from re-agitating, in a subsequent proceeding within the same case, a ground of challenge already considered and rejected in an earlier round. The accused's fresh writ petition raising the same ground was accordingly not maintainable. (¶15)

Headnote

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s.227 — Discharge — Framing of charge — Forgery — Issue estoppel — Issue estoppel — Same proceedings — Ground already decided — Held: The principle of issue estoppel bars an accused from re-agitating a ground of challenge considered and rejected in an earlier round of the same proceedings. The accused's fresh writ petition raising the same ground was not maintainable. (¶15) Forgery — Absence of original document — Not a ground for discharge — Held further: Absence of the original document alleged to be forged is not by itself a ground to quash a forgery prosecution; it is a matter to be considered at trial, and the prosecution may rely on circumstantial evidence. (¶16, 17, 19) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s.227 — Framing of charge — Grave suspicion sufficient — Held further: At the stage of framing charge under section 227 of the Code, grave suspicion against the accused is sufficient to sustain a trial. The High Court's order discharging the accused was set aside and the Criminal Appeal was allowed. (¶20, 21)

Headnote

You've used your free headnotes this month

The answer above and the Court's own paragraphs stay free. LexStreak's full headnote on this judgment needs an account — a free one opens it again.

Create my free account
In the Court's own words
Paragraph 15Yet another reason for this Court to interfere is on account of the bar to re-consider an issue that was decided earlier in the same proceedings on the principle of ‘issue estoppel’. The Division Bench in the earlier round having considered the ground of absence of the original plan being submitted along with the chargesheet and thereafter having declined to set aside the order framing charge, it was not open for the accused in a subsequent writ petition to again canvass the very same contention that had been canvassed in the earlier writ petition. The principle of ‘issue estoppel’ would apply as a ground of challenge raised earlier but was unsuccessful was sought to be re-agitated before the same Court by the same party. To elaborate this aspect, we may refer to the decision of the three Judge Bench in Piara Singh Vs. State of Punjab[^4], wherein it is held as under:
Acts & Sections
s.227 Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973s.468 Indian Penal Codes.471 Indian Penal Codes.420 Indian Penal Code

One judgment a day. That's the whole habit.

Read the full text of ANTONETTO J D’SOUZA v. ALDILA BRAGANZA AND OTHERS — and get the Supreme Court's output as a five-minute daily read, with plain-language headnotes and the questions each judgment settles.

Create my free account

Free forever plan · 30 seconds · data stays in India

Open the full judgment →

Also decided in this judgment
Is absence of the original document alleged to be forged by itself a ground to quash a forgery prosecution?Is grave suspicion against the accused, at the stage of framing charge under section 227 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, sufficient to sustain a trial?
Plain-language answer prepared by the LexStreak Editorial Desk — verify against the judgment. Source: Supreme Court of India. Corrections