Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

14.The language of Section 188 Cr.P.C. is quite clear that when an offence is committed outside India by a citizen of India, he may be dealt with in respect of such offences as if they had been committed in India. The proviso, however, indicates that such offences could be inquired into or tried only after having obtained the previous sanction of the Central Government. As mentioned hereinbefore, in Ajay Aggarwal's case (supra), it was held that sanction under Section 188 Cr.P.C. is not a condition precedent for taking cognizance of an offence and, if need be, it could be obtained before the trial begins. Even in his concurring judgment, R.M. Sahai, J., observed as follows :- (SCC p. 628, para 29) "29 Language of the section is plain and simple. It operates where an offence is committed by a citizen of India outside the country. Requirements are, therefore, one -- commission of an offence; second -- by an Indian citizen; and third -- that it should have been committed outside the country.;"

17.It may also be indicated that the provisions of the Indian Penal Code have been extended to offences committed by any citizen of India in any place within and beyond India by virtue of Section 4 thereof. Accordingly, offences committed in Botswana by an Indian citizen would also be amenable to the provisions of the Indian Penal Code, subject to the limitation imposed under the proviso to Section 188 Cr.P.C."

14.On the strength of this authority it has been submitted that incident which alleged to have been occurred in Riyad is an independent offence and a completed one. It is not continuing offence of the earlier one alleged to have been occurred in Inida. Hence permission of Central Government is required to prosecute the petitioner for the alleged offence committed by the petitioner at Riyad in Saudi Arab in view of proviso of Section 188 Cr.P.C. However for other offence the trial may go on.

(ii) Whether the proceedings pending before Lucknow court are without jurisdiction?

17. So far as question of Section 188 Cr.P.C. is concerned in Thota Venkateswarlu's case (supra) the Apex Court after considering the judgement rendered by Supreme Court in Ajay Aggarwal's case (Supra) ruled that offence which are completed in itself and committed outside India the permission under proviso of Section 188 Cr.P.C. of Central Government would be required, but for the offence which are committed within India there would be no impediment in taking the cognizance and the accused persons without previous permission under proviso 2 of Section 188 Cr.P.C. can be prosecuted and court would be competent to proceed with the case and to decide the same.

18. Ajay Aggarwal's case (supra) was a case of criminal conspiracy and the Apex Court held that the criminal conspiracy was hatched in India. If some of the part of offence has taken place in pursuance of that conspiracy to achieve objective of the criminal conspiracy outside India no permission of Central Government would be required of proviso to Section 188 Cr.P.C. In Ajay Aggarwal's case (supra) the Apex Court held that criminal conspiracy itself a substantive offence and is continuing one unless object of criminal conspiracy is achieved. This case was considered by the Apex Court in Thota Venkateswarlu's case (supra) and has been distinguished. on fact. In Thota Venkateswarlu's case (supra) the petitioner left India for Botswana in January 2006 alone. Respondent No.2, the wife went to Botswana to join the petitioner. While she was in Botswana the respondent No.2 alleged to have been severely ill treated by the petitioner. Apart from the above, various demands were also made including demand for additional dowry of Rs. 5,00,000/-. The court while deciding this matter came to the conclusion that offence pertaining to Botswana are in itself completed offence. These are not continuing hence permission of Central Government would be required under the proviso of section 188 Cr.P.C.. However, the offence under Section ¾ D.P. Act was committed in India. Hence the same shall be tried in India.