https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=294327 Co-accused's acquittal in a separate trial does not, by itself, justify quashing proceedings against an absconding accused under the High Court's inherent jurisdiction. The later prosecution must be decided on the legally admissible evidence in that case, and extraordinary interference is justified only in rare situations where the prosecution's entire substratum is demonstrably gone. Issue estoppel applies only to a specific fact finally decided between the same parties, so a judgment in a co-accused's case is not inter partes for the absconding accused and cannot bar the later trial. The prosecution may therefore proceed on its own evidence. en-us Fri, 23 Dec 2005 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 06 Apr 2021 18:11:43 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=294327 Co-accused's acquittal in a separate trial does not, by itself, justify quashing proceedings against an absconding accused under the High Court's inherent jurisdiction. The later prosecution must be decided on the legally admissible evidence in that case, and extraordinary interference is justified only in rare situations where the prosecution's entire substratum is demonstrably gone. Issue estoppel applies only to a specific fact finally decided between the same parties, so a judgment in a co-accused's case is not inter partes for the absconding accused and cannot bar the later trial. The prosecution may therefore proceed on its own evidence. Case-Laws Indian Laws Fri, 23 Dec 2005 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=294327