Double jeopardy does not bar Indian investigation after a foreign conviction for a different offence under Indian law.

Section 300 CrPC bars a second prosecution only where there has been a previous trial for the same offence by a court of competent jurisdiction, and Article 20(2) requires identity of the offence for double jeopardy protection. A foreign conviction under foreign law does not, by itself, prevent registration or investigation in India for offences under Indian law arising from the same facts. Section 300(6) preserves the operation of Section 188, so Indian proceedings may continue where the complaint discloses a cognizable offence under Indian law.

---

---

Issues: Whether a prior conviction and sentence in a foreign country bars registration and investigation of a crime in India on the basis of a complaint alleging offences under Indian law.

Analysis: The bar under Section 300 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 applies only where there has been a previous trial for the same offence by a court of competent jurisdiction, and sub-section (6) preserves the operation of Section 188. Article 20(2) of the Constitution of India also requires identity of the offence for the protection against double jeopardy. A prosecution in India for conduct amounting to an offence under Indian law is distinct from prosecution abroad under the foreign law, even if both arise from the same facts.

Conclusion: The prior foreign conviction did not preclude registration of crime and investigation in India if the complaint disclosed a cognizable offence under Indian law.

Ratio Decidendi: The protection against double jeopardy is attracted only when the later proceedings are for the same offence; a foreign conviction under foreign law does not bar Indian proceedings for a separate offence under Indian law arising out of the same facts.

---