Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

30. What is the claim then? Two-fold, one the appellant was in Dubai at the relevant time when the offence is alleged to have been committed. Second, since the bills of lading and exchange were prepared and were submitted to the Emirates National Bank at Dubai and the payment too was received at Emirates National Bank in Dubai, the alleged offence of forgery and cheating were committed outside India. Is that so? Can the offence of conspiracy or cheating or forgery on these allegations be said to have been committed outside the country? Substantive law of extra-territory in respect of criminal offences is provided for by Section 4 of the IPC and the procedure to inquire and try it is contained in Section 188 CrPC. Effect of these sections is that an offence committed by an Indian citizen outside the country is deemed to have been committed in India. Proviso to Section 188 CrPC however provides the safeguard for the NRI to guard against any unwarranted harassment by directing, "that, notwithstanding anything in any of the preceding sections of this Chapter, no such offence shall be inquired into or tried in India except with the previous sanction of the Central Government". Since the proviso begins with a non obstante clause its observance is mandatory. But it would come into play only if the principal clause is applicable, namely, it is established that an offence as defined in clause (n) of Section 2 of the CrPC has been committed and it has been committed outside the country.
14. The language of Section 188 CrPC 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 case [(1993) 3 SCC 609 : 1993 SCC (Cri) 961] , it was held that sanction under Section 188 CrPC 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 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, the offences committed in Botswana by an Indian citizen would also be amenable to the provisions of the Penal Code, subject to the limitation imposed under the proviso to Section 188 CrPC.

18. Having regard to the above, while we see no reason to interfere with the High Court's decision to reject the petitioner's prayer for quashing of the proceedings in Complaint Case No. 307 of 2007, we also make it clear that the learned Magistrate may proceed with the trial relating to the offences alleged to have been committed in India. However, in respect of the offences alleged to have been committed outside India, the learned Magistrate shall not proceed with the trial without the sanction of the Central Government as envisaged in the proviso to Section 188 CrPC."

13. Having held that Section 188 Cr.P.C would also apply to the facts of the present case as some offences were committed outside India, it is required to be determined that merely because the officers of CBI brought Chhota Rajan to Delhi would it mean that he was 'found' at Delhi as required as per Section 188 Cr.P.C. and the Court at Delhi has the territorial jurisdiction to try the offence. The word 'found' as used under Section 188 Cr.P.C. was interpreted by Vivian Bose J. in the decision reported as AIR 1948 Nag 251:1948 Cri LJ 376 Sahebrao Bajirao v. Suryabhan Ziblaji and it was held-