2008 (5) TMI 691 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Interpretation of Section 4 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and Section 188 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC).
2. Jurisdiction of Indian courts over offences committed outside India by non-citizens.
3. Requirement of sanction u/s 188 CrPC for prosecuting offences committed outside India.

Summary:

Issue 1: Interpretation of Section 4 IPC and Section 188 CrPC
The appeal concerns the interpretation of Section 4 of the IPC and Section 188 of the CrPC. The appellant, a citizen of Mauritius, challenged the cognizance taken by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Navsari, on a complaint alleging physical and mental torture by her son and herself, with the entire cause of action arising in Kuwait. The appellant argued that the complaint was bad in law due to the lack of requisite sanction u/s 188 CrPC.

Issue 2: Jurisdiction of Indian Courts Over Offences Committed Outside India by Non-Citizens
The Court held that the provisions of Section 4 IPC and Section 188 CrPC extend the jurisdiction of Indian courts to try offences committed outside India only if the accused is a citizen of India or if the offence is committed on an Indian-registered ship or aircraft. Since the appellant is a citizen of Mauritius and the alleged offences occurred in Kuwait, the Indian courts lack jurisdiction. The Court referenced Central Bank of India Ltd. vs. Ram Narain [AIR 1955 SC 36], emphasizing that jurisdiction is based on the accused's citizenship at the time of the offence.

Issue 3: Requirement of Sanction u/s 188 CrPC
The Court noted that the requirement for sanction u/s 188 CrPC is mandatory for prosecuting offences committed outside India. In Ajay Agarwal vs. Union of India [AIR 1993 SC 1637], it was clarified that no sanction is required for conspiracy charges. However, this case did not involve conspiracy, and thus, the lack of sanction rendered the cognizance order illegal.

The Court concluded that the appellant's fundamental right u/s 21 of the Constitution was violated as the offence was not committed within India's territorial limits, making the provisions of IPC and CrPC inapplicable. The entire proceedings were deemed null and void due to lack of jurisdiction, and the principle of res judicata was held inapplicable in criminal cases involving jurisdictional issues.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court set aside the impugned judgment, allowing the appeal with costs assessed at Rs. 25,000, emphasizing that jurisdictional issues can be raised at any stage of the proceedings.