2002 (9) TMI 891 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues:
1. Failure to register a crime against the fourth respondent based on petitions submitted.
2. Legal implications of a foreign conviction on subsequent prosecution in India.

Analysis:
1. The petitioner sought directions for respondents 1 to 3 to register a crime against the fourth respondent based on Annexure I and Annexure II petitions. The petitioner, a businessman in Abu Dhabi, alleged that the fourth respondent, along with three others, committed theft amounting to Rs. 2 crores over two years in his establishment. Despite the fourth respondent's conviction in Abu Dhabi, the petitioner argued that Indian authorities are obligated to register a crime. Section 188 Cr.P.C. allows for dealing with offences committed by Indian citizens outside India as if they occurred within India. The bar under Section 300 Cr.P.C. against double jeopardy applies when a person is tried for the same offence. However, the allegation in Annexure I pertains to a different offence than the one the fourth respondent was convicted for in Abu Dhabi. Thus, the bar for a second trial does not apply, and respondents 1 to 3 are directed to register the crime and investigate.

2. The judgment delves into the legal intricacies of foreign convictions and subsequent prosecutions in India. Section 300(6) of the Cr.P.C. clarifies that Section 188 is not affected when dealing with offences committed outside India by Indian citizens. Article 20(2) of the Indian Constitution prohibits prosecution and punishment for the same offence more than once. However, this prohibition applies to the same offence under the same law. In this case, the prosecution in India is for an offence under Indian law, distinct from the offence the fourth respondent was convicted of in Abu Dhabi. The principle of identity of the offence is crucial, allowing for subsequent prosecution for separate and distinct offences arising from the same facts. Therefore, despite the foreign conviction, Indian authorities can proceed with registering the crime based on Annexure I if it discloses a cognizable offence. Respondents 2 and 3 are directed to take action and investigate the matter further.

In conclusion, the judgment clarifies the legal obligations regarding registering crimes based on foreign convictions and emphasizes the distinction between offences under different legal jurisdictions. It upholds the petitioner's request for action against the fourth respondent in India, highlighting the importance of identifying separate offences for prosecution.