Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

5. The Police conducted investigation in the matter. The Investigating Agency examined 23 witnesses, seized various documents and submitted final report concluding that the petitioner committed offences under Sections 406, 408, 420 and 467 of IPC.

6. I have heard Sri.C.Unnikrishnan, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri.G.Sudheer, the learned Public Prosecutor.

7. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the complaint as well as the final report do not disclose any offences as alleged. The prosecution failed to establish that the petitioner at the very inception of his service had any intention to cheat the company and respondent No.1. It is submitted that the allegations at the most reveal only a civil wrong. The learned counsel for the petitioner further contended that Annexure III order of appointment and Annexure IV memorandum of understanding would rule out the entire allegations raised by the prosecution. The learned counsel further canvassed that as the offences were committed outside India the Investigating Agency was not competent to enquire into the allegations except with the previous sanction of the Central Government as provided in Section 188 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

16. I have gone through the materials placed before me. It is pertinent to note that the prosecution challenges the genuineness of the documents relied on by the petitioner. Those materials are not of sterling and impeccable quality. I am of the view that the documents relied on by the petitioner do not persuade to dismiss and condemn the factual basis of the accusations.

17. The next contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that as the offences were committed outside India the enquiry, investigation and prosecution are barred in view of the proviso to Section 188 Cr.P.C.

18. As per Section 188 Cr.P.C., when an offence is committed outside India- (a) by a citizen of India, whether on the high seas or elsewhere; or (b) by a person, not being the citizen, on any ship or aircraft registered in India, the offender may be dealt with in respect of such offence as if it had been committed at any place within India at which he may be found. The proviso to Section 188 Cr.P.C. says that no such offence shall be inquired into or tried in India except with the previous sanction of the Central Government.

19. The section gets attracted when the entirety of the offence is committed outside India and the grant of sanction would enable such offence to be enquired into or tried in India. A Three Judge Bench of the Supreme Court in Sartaj Khan v. State of Uttarakhand (2022 LiveLaw (SC) 321) held that if the offence was not committed in its entirety, outside India, the matter would not come within the scope of Section 188 Cr.P.C. and there is no necessity of any sanction as mandated by the proviso to Section 188. In view of the settled law, the contention of the petitioner relying on Section 188 Cr.P.C. fails.