Short Note : Raghubir Singh was convicted under section 302 for the murder of Kaptan Singh by firing a shot at him and sentenced to imprisonment for life. Held : It was contended that the prosecution must fail became the accused Raghubir Singh was acquitted in another trial in which he was charged under section 25-A for the Arms Act for possession of a gun without licence. The judgment in the Criminal case under section 25-A of the Arms Act is Ex.D-5. A reading of the judgment shows that the charge in that case was in respect of possession of the guns that were seized from Pal Singh and Homsingh. The charge was not this the accused Raghubir Singh was in possession of some gun without licence on 7th June 1968. Similarly, the finding of the Additional District Magistrate in Ex.D-5 is not that the accused was not in possession of any gun on the said date, but only this that they were not in possession of the guns seized. The argument of the learned counsel for the accused, which is based on the doctrine of issue estoppel, that this Court cannot hold in this case that the accused Raghubir Singh fired a gun on 7th June 1968, cannot be accepted. It is settled that when an issue of fact has been tried by a competent Court on a former occasion and a finding of fact has been reached 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 for conviction of the accused for a different offence but as precluding the recaption of evidence to disturb that finding of fact when the accused is tried subsequently for a different offence. Now the finding of fact recorded by the Additional District Magistrate in the criminal case under section 25-A of the Arms Act is only this that the accused Raghubir Singh was not in possession of the gun Article C. The finding is not this that the accused Raghubir Singh was not in possession of any gun. It may not be open for this Court to hold in this case that the Raghubir Singh was in possessi6n of Article-C, because that will be inconsistent with the finding reached by the Additional District Magistrate in the earlier case. It may not be open for this Court to hold in this case that the Raghubir Singh was in possessi6n of Article-C, because that will be inconsistent with the finding reached by the Additional District Magistrate in the earlier case. But it is still open for this Court to held that although the accused was not in possession of Article-C, be was in possession of some other gun with which he fired at the deceased Kaptan Singh Indeed, it is this finding which this Court has earlier reached on appreciation of evidence and this finding, not being inconsistent with the finding given by the Additional District Magistrate in the case under the Arms Act, cannot be held to be barred by the doctrine of issue estoppel. In passing, this Court may point out that doctrine of issue estoppel has been recently considered by House of Lords in Director of Public Prosecutions v. Humphrys, (1976) 2 All.E.R. 497 and has been held that the doctrine of, issue estoppel has no application to criminal proceedings. It has been given a limited application in criminal proceedings by the decisions of the Supreme Court. Pritam Singh v. State of Punjab, AIR 1956 SC 415 , Mohinder Singh v. State of Punjab, AIR 1965 SC 79 , Manipur Administration v. Bira Singh, AIR 1965 SC 87 , Lalta v. State of U.P., AIR 1978 SC 1381, Bhoor Singh v. State of Punjab, AIR 1974 SC 1256 , relied on. Appeal dismissed.