Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

Home Case Index All Cases Indian Laws Indian Laws + SC Indian Laws - 1957 (9) TMI SC This

  • Login
  • Cases Cited
  • Referred In
  • Summary

Forgot password       New User/ Regiser

⇒ Register to get Live Demo



 

1957 (9) TMI 48 - SC - Indian Laws

Issues Involved:
1. Jurisdiction over a foreign national.
2. Validity of trial and conviction under extradition circumstances.
3. Admissibility of letters and telegrams as evidence.
4. Validity of conviction under Section 420 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Jurisdiction over a Foreign National:
The primary issue was whether a Pakistani national, who was not physically present in India during the commission of the offence, could be tried and convicted under the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The court held that the IPC applies to every person for acts committed within India, irrespective of their nationality or physical presence at the time of the offence. The court emphasized that the locality of the offence determines jurisdiction, not the nationality or physical presence of the offender. The court cited various principles of international law and common law to support its view that the exercise of criminal jurisdiction depends on the locality of the offence and not on the nationality of the alleged offender.

2. Validity of Trial and Conviction under Extradition Circumstances:
The appellant argued that he was extradited for a different offence and could not be tried for the current offence. The court dismissed this contention, stating that the appellant was surrendered under the Fugitive Offenders Act, which contains no provision restricting trial for other offences. The court also noted that even if the arrest for the fresh offence was not justified, it would not vitiate the conviction following the trial. The court referenced several cases to support this view, including *Parbhu v. Emperor* and *H. N. Rishbud v. The State of Delhi*.

3. Admissibility of Letters and Telegrams as Evidence:
The appellant challenged the admissibility of letters and telegrams, arguing that they were proved on legally inadmissible material. The court held that the genuineness of documents could be proved by direct or circumstantial evidence, including internal evidence from the contents of the documents. The court found that the letters and telegrams were part of a chain of correspondence and were sufficiently proved by the oral evidence of the complainant, Jasawalla, and Sequeria. The court rejected the appellant's objections, stating that the approach adopted by the lower courts in determining the genuineness of the documents was legally sound.

4. Validity of Conviction under Section 420 read with Section 34 of the IPC:
The appellant contended that the conviction under Section 420 read with Section 34 IPC was unsustainable as the co-accused were not before the court and he was not in Bombay at the time. The court held that the appellant was found guilty of the offence of cheating under Section 420 IPC itself, and the conviction would be valid even if the charge was under Section 420 read with Section 34 IPC. The court referenced *Willie (William) Slaney v. The State of Madhya Pradesh* to support its view that a conviction under Section 420 IPC is valid unless prejudice is shown to have occurred.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the conviction and sentences awarded by the lower courts. The court found no merit in the appellant's contentions regarding jurisdiction, extradition, admissibility of evidence, and the validity of the conviction under Section 420 read with Section 34 IPC. The court emphasized that the appellant was liable for the offence committed within India, irrespective of his nationality or physical presence at the time.

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates