Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

The applicant no.2 being an Indian national was working with the said Centrum Group since long time. It was delineated that the applicant no.2 was a Senior Management Executive having vast experience & knowledge in Money Exchange Industry including framing of policy & accounting procedure, marketing, planning, operations & management. The applicant no.2 represented himself as a core team member of Centrum Group to which the applicant no.1 was associated. In the guise of displaying good description and assurance, the applicants succeeded in instilling congenial atmosphere in the eyes of the complainant. The accused applicants won trust of the complainant with respect of the management and control of the company therefore, the accused applicants were entrusted the properties and assets of the complainant company and were having dominion over the accounts, records, finance of complainant and hence were in the position of trustees as well as shareholders. After some time it was found through audit report that the applicant no.1 in collusion with the applicant no.2 manipulated the accounts and deposited a sum of 11744752 (eleven million seven hundred forty four thousand seven hundred fifty two) Dhirams with complainant company as loan amount for interregnum period 31st March 2005 to 22nd April 2005 and started receiving interest at the rate of 9% per annum in her name. The applicant no.2 was signatory with the bank. A total sum of Rs. 4,98,66,219/- of which there was no agreement with the company. The applicant no.1 has withdrawn four cheques from the account of the corporation amounting to Rs.30,53,63,552/- in the form of interest which was never deposited in the company's account. The applicants have dishonestly and fraudulently for unlawful gain committed loss to the complainant company and misappropriated company's property and after playing fraud on the company of the complainant ,they left Dubai in very shrouding way in October/November 2010 without furnishing the accounts. The complainant, who had reposed his faith upon the accused applicants was swindled by their mischievous act as they misplaced the entire record of the company which were in their possession. The applicants have committed breach of trust and swindled huge amount by misusing their power of management and control. In such circumstances complaint was filed by the opposite party no.3 on 10.4.2012 before the Chief Judicial Magistrate under section 188 Cr.P.C. To take cognizance of offences committed by the applicants under section 420/406/408/409/497A read with sections 120B & 34 IPC & to issue process . In support of the complaint, the statement of Anees Aravindakshan (opposite party no.4) was recorded under section 200 Cr.P.C .

Learned counsel for the applicants raised serious objection that the cognizance taken by the Magistrate is palpably without jurisdiction on the ground that by virtue of proviso of section 188 Cr.P.C. no such offence shall be inquired into or tried in India except with the previous sanction of the Central Government. The complaint shows that no part of the alleged offence has taken place within the territory of India . As per allegations made in the complaint, entire offence was committed in Dubai . Section 188 Cr.P.C. clearly provides procedure in respect of an offence committed outside India . In view of proviso to section 188 Cr.P.C. complaint cannot be entertained without sanction of the Central Government for the initiation of the proceedings.

Per contra learned for the complainant has vehemently argued that the complainant was constrained to file a complaint in India against the applicants on account of misuse of trust reposed upon them as the applicants have illegally usurped the assets of the opposite party no.2 by causing wrongful loss to him. The applicant no.1 had persuaded the complainant for being appointed as consultant in the trade of buying and selling the foreign currencies in U.A.E. The audit report itself reveals that the applicant no.1 being hands in gloves with the applicant no.2 had shown the deposit of Rs. 15,26,81,776/- with the company of the opposite party no.2 as a loan against which the applicant no.1 received interest at the rate of 9% per annum in her name but the audit report shows that no amount was ever deposited by the applicants in the account of the complainant. There was no documentary proof of the alleged loan given by the applicant no.1 to the complainant. The applicants no.1 & 2 in connivance with each other withdrew the amount of interest for the alleged loan amount which was never deposited, thus they cheated the complainant's company and misappropriated hefty amount . The Power of Attorney holder, opposite party no.4 is having valid power of attorney and as such he is competent to file complaint even otherwise no permission is required for any person to set criminal law in motion. So far as the objection with regard to taking cognizance under section 188 Cr.P.C. is concerned , at the stage of taking cognizance . Section 188 Cr.P.C. provides that an Indian citizen who commits an offence at any place outside India or on the high seas may be dealt with in respect of such offence as if it has been committed in India . Where offence is committed outside India, sanction of the Central government at pre-enquiry stage is not required .Where offence is committed outside India, case can be registered/investigated in India . It is not necessary that the sanction of the Central Government may be obtained before taking cognizance. There are a gamut of decisions to this effect specially Om Hemarajan (Supra) is identical with the facts of the case wherein it has been held that sanction under section 188 Cr.P.C. is not a condition precedent to take cognizance of the offence which was committed outside the territory of India . The objection of the applicant against filing of the complaint is subject matter of trial. Section 188 Cr.P.C. does not require that the victim shall state in the complaint as to which place the accused may be found. The gravity of the offence can only be judged by the trial court after evaluating the evidence. The act of the applicants constitutes an offence under the law in force in India therefore, the applicants can very well be prosecuted in India. Even if the applicants have been tried by the court at Dubai ,the Court in India cannot be precluded from prosecuting the applicants within the territory in India. The cognizance has been taken long back and the applicants are not appearing before the court below ,therefore, non-bailable warrants have been issued against them. The applicants are free to raise objection at the appropriate stage.

I have considered the aforesaid submission of the learned counsel at the bar.

So far as the jurisdiction of Courts in India to entertain the complaint against a person who has committed an offence in another country is concerned, the identical issue was decided by this Court in Om Hemarajani Vs. State of U.P. & another (Supra) which has been upheld by the Apex Court in SLP No. 99 of 2004 and has dealt with in extenso keeping in view of the proviso under section 188 Cr.P.C. requiring prior sanction of the central government. The word 'inquiry' used in proviso to section 188 Cr.P.C. is confined to proceedings before the Magistrate prior to trial alone but cannot be extended to investigation by the police. A police officer investigates a case by himself or under the order of the Magistrate under section 202 Cr.P.C. In view of the same the bar if any, will operate to inquiry before the Magistrate after the police laid the charge sheet for the offence. The requirement of sanction is necessary at the stage of trial and is not a precondition to taking cognizance. Similar view has been laid down by the Apex Court in Ajai Agarwal Vs. Union of India 2005(1993) (3) SCC 609, and Thota Narain Vs. State of A.P. (2011) (9) S.C.C.527,. The aforesaid decisions clearly cull out that sanction under section 188 Cr. P. C is only necessary before the commencement of trial and it is not a condition precedent for taking cognizance for issuing of process. The applicants cannot derive any benefit as there are sufficient materials showing complicity of the applicants in the commission of said offences.