https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=298360 The court directed respondents 1 to 3 to register a crime against the fourth respondent based on the petitioner's allegations of theft, despite the fourth respondent's conviction in Abu Dhabi. The judgment emphasized that the bar against double jeopardy does not apply as the alleged offence in India is different from the one the fourth respondent was convicted for abroad. The court clarified that Indian authorities can proceed with prosecution for distinct offences arising from the same facts, even after a foreign conviction, as long as the offences are different under separate legal jurisdictions. en-us Wed, 04 Sep 2002 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 28 Oct 2021 15:05:15 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=298360 The court directed respondents 1 to 3 to register a crime against the fourth respondent based on the petitioner's allegations of theft, despite the fourth respondent's conviction in Abu Dhabi. The judgment emphasized that the bar against double jeopardy does not apply as the alleged offence in India is different from the one the fourth respondent was convicted for abroad. The court clarified that Indian authorities can proceed with prosecution for distinct offences arising from the same facts, even after a foreign conviction, as long as the offences are different under separate legal jurisdictions. Case-Laws Indian Laws Wed, 04 Sep 2002 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=298360