Double jeopardy does not bar Indian prosecution where US and Indian drug offences are distinct and arise under separate jurisdictions.

Article 20(2) and Section 300 CrPC were applied to test whether Indian prosecution was barred by a prior US conviction. The Court treated the US and Indian charges as separate offences: the US case concerned conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute controlled substances, while the Indian case concerned importation, possession and export of hashish under the NDPS Act. It held that double jeopardy did not apply because the offences were distinct and arose under different legal frameworks and jurisdictions. The Court also noted that the NDPS Act extends to India and, in specified circumstances, to Indian citizens outside India, so Indian courts could proceed independently.

---

---

Issues: Whether the appellant's prosecution in India was barred by the constitutional and statutory protection against double jeopardy after his conviction in the United States for a related drug offence.

Analysis: The protection under Article 20(2) of the Constitution of India and Section 300 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 applies when a person has been prosecuted and punished for the same offence, or on the same facts for an offence that could have been charged in the earlier trial. The offence for which the appellant was convicted in the United States was conspiracy to possess a controlled substance with intent to distribute, while the Indian prosecution concerned importation of contraband into India, possession within India, and export from India for sale abroad. These were treated as distinct offences arising under different legal regimes, and the Indian provisions governing extra-territorial offences were held applicable to the latter conduct.

Conclusion: The bar of double jeopardy did not apply, and the Indian prosecution was maintainable.

Ratio Decidendi: Double jeopardy is attracted only when the later proceeding is for the same offence, or for an offence on the same facts that could have been tried in the earlier proceeding; where the foreign conviction and the domestic prosecution relate to distinct offences under different legal regimes, the constitutional and statutory bar does not operate.

---