9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Whether the sanction of the Central Government is necessary u/s 188 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) for prosecuting offences committed outside India. 2. Whether the offence of conspiracy is a continuing offence and can be tried in India if part of the conspiracy occurred in India. 3. Jurisdiction of Indian courts to try offences committed partly in India and partly outside India. Issue 1: Necessity of Sanction u/s 188 CrPC The primary question is whether the sanction of the Central Government as required under the proviso to Section 188 of the CrPC is necessary. Section 188 states that offences committed outside India by a citizen of India can be dealt with as if they were committed within India, but they cannot be inquired into or tried in India without the previous sanction of the Central Government. The court held that sanction under Section 188 is not a condition precedent to take cognizance of the offence. If necessary, it could be obtained before the trial begins. Since the conspiracy was initially hatched at Chandigarh and continued, there is no need to obtain sanction from the Central Government. Issue 2: Conspiracy as a Continuing Offence The court examined whether conspiracy is a continuing offence. It was held that conspiracy to commit a crime is punishable as a substantive offence and every individual offence committed pursuant to the conspiracy is separate and distinct. The agreement does not end with its making but endures till it is accomplished or abandoned. Therefore, being a continuing offence, if any acts or omissions which constitute an offence are done in India or outside its territory, the conspirators continuing to be parties to the conspiracy would obviate the need to obtain sanction of the Central Government. Issue 3: Jurisdiction of Indian Courts The court discussed that judicial power extends to the punishment of all offences against the municipal laws of the State by whomsoever committed within the territory. It also has the power to punish such offences wherever committed by its citizen. The court held that the jurisdiction to inquire or try vests under Section 177 in the court within whose local jurisdiction the offence is committed. It is the commission of the offence and not the residence of the accused which is decisive of jurisdiction. Therefore, the court at Chandigarh has jurisdiction to try the offences committed in pursuance of the conspiracy, even though part of the conspiracy and overt acts took place at Dubai. Conclusion: The appeal was dismissed, and it was held that the prosecution of the appellant under Section 120B read with Sections 420 and 471 IPC can proceed without the previous sanction of the Central Government. The conspiracy was considered a continuing offence, and the Indian courts have jurisdiction to try the offences committed in pursuance of the conspiracy.
|
