https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=301131 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. en-us Tue, 03 Feb 2009 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 14 Mar 2022 13:09:07 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=301131 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. Case-Laws Indian Laws Tue, 03 Feb 2009 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=301131