Further investigation and separate conspiracy prosecution are permissible when new facts reveal a wider criminal design.

A later prosecution is not barred where fresh material reveals a distinct or wider conspiracy than the one already under consideration in an earlier case. Identity of some facts or property does not make two conspiracies the same in substance if the later case involves additional persons, a different object, and different offences. The police may also continue further investigation after an earlier charge-sheet and after cognizance has been taken when new facts emerge, and may submit a further report based on that material. The Magistrate remains in control of the next procedural step, and the absence of mala fides or abuse supports the validity of the course adopted.

---

---

Issues: Whether the later Delhi investigation and prosecution were barred because they related to the same conspiracy already the subject of proceedings before the Ambala Court; and whether the police could, after filing an earlier charge-sheet and after cognizance had been taken, continue further investigation and submit a fresh report when new facts emerged.

Issue (i): Whether the later Delhi investigation and prosecution were barred because they related to the same conspiracy already the subject of proceedings before the Ambala Court.

Analysis: The earlier case was confined to the conspiracy between the original accused to obtain custody of the pillars by cheating and misappropriation. The later Delhi case arose when the stolen pillars were traced abroad and new material showed a wider conspiracy involving additional persons, a different object, and different offences. The identity of some property and some common facts did not make the two conspiracies the same in substance.

Conclusion: The two conspiracies were not identical, and the Delhi prosecution was not barred on that ground.

Issue (ii): Whether the police could, after filing an earlier charge-sheet and after cognizance had been taken, continue further investigation and submit a fresh report when new facts emerged.

Analysis: The statutory scheme recognised the police power and duty to investigate cognizable offences, and nothing in the old Code barred further investigation after an earlier report or even after cognizance had been taken. Fresh material could justify additional investigation and a further report, while the Magistrate retained control over the next procedural step. The Court also found no mala fides or abuse in the course adopted, though formal notice to the earlier court would ordinarily have been preferable.

Conclusion: Further investigation and the later report were permissible, and the Delhi Court was not acting without jurisdiction.

Final Conclusion: The challenge to the Delhi proceedings failed because the second case was based on a larger conspiracy revealed by later facts, and the police were competent to investigate further and place the new material before the court.

Ratio Decidendi: A later investigation is not barred merely because an earlier police report and cognizance already exist, and a second prosecution is maintainable where fresh facts disclose a distinct or wider conspiracy rather than the same offence in substance.

---