https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=173691 Double jeopardy under Article 20(2) applies only where the second prosecution is for the same offence, assessed by identity of statutory ingredients rather than overlap of facts. A conspiracy is a distinct offence from the substantive fraud it facilitates, so the later prosecution for diverting Empire funds was not barred by the earlier Jupiter conviction. Criminal conspiracy may be proved by direct or circumstantial evidence, and once a prima facie foundation exists, Section 10 of the Indian Evidence Act makes co-conspirators' acts, statements and writings relevant against each other. On the evidence of coordinated participation in the scheme, the convictions were upheld, with reduced sentences for two appellants. en-us Mon, 18 Mar 1963 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 05 Feb 2016 12:52:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=173691 Double jeopardy under Article 20(2) applies only where the second prosecution is for the same offence, assessed by identity of statutory ingredients rather than overlap of facts. A conspiracy is a distinct offence from the substantive fraud it facilitates, so the later prosecution for diverting Empire funds was not barred by the earlier Jupiter conviction. Criminal conspiracy may be proved by direct or circumstantial evidence, and once a prima facie foundation exists, Section 10 of the Indian Evidence Act makes co-conspirators' acts, statements and writings relevant against each other. On the evidence of coordinated participation in the scheme, the convictions were upheld, with reduced sentences for two appellants. Case-Laws Indian Laws Mon, 18 Mar 1963 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=173691