1999 (7) TMI 711 - HC - FEMA

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution.
2. Applicability of Section 188 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) for offences committed outside India.
3. Requirement of Central Government sanction for investigation under Section 188 CrPC.
4. Powers of the police to investigate offences committed outside India.
5. Binding nature of precedents and judicial propriety.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution:
The learned Single Judge dismissed the Original Petition on the ground that the offence was committed outside India, beyond the territorial jurisdiction of the Court. However, the Full Bench held that Section 188 CrPC allows the offender to be dealt with as if the offence had been committed within India at any place where he may be found. Since the accused were living within the jurisdiction of Kerala State, the High Court had territorial jurisdiction to issue directions to Respondents 1, 2, and 3, who were within the territorial jurisdiction of the Court.

2. Applicability of Section 188 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) for offences committed outside India:
Section 188 CrPC applies when an offence is committed outside India by a citizen of India or by a person on any ship or aircraft registered in India. The section allows the offender to be dealt with in respect of such offence as if it had been committed within India. The Full Bench emphasized that Section 188 CrPC is relevant to the case as the alleged offence was committed outside India by an Indian citizen.

3. Requirement of Central Government sanction for investigation under Section 188 CrPC:
The proviso to Section 188 CrPC states that no such offence shall be inquired into or tried in India except with the previous sanction of the Central Government. However, the Full Bench clarified that this sanction is required only for inquiry and trial, not for the investigation stage. The investigation can proceed without the sanction of the Central Government, as supported by precedents in Remla's case and Muhammed's case.

4. Powers of the police to investigate offences committed outside India:
The Full Bench referred to the decisions in Remla's case and Muhammed's case, which held that the police have the power to investigate offences committed abroad without requiring the sanction of the Central Government. The words "dealt with" in Section 188 CrPC include investigation, inquiry, and trial. Therefore, the Kerala Police can conduct an investigation into offences committed abroad by Indian citizens.

5. Binding nature of precedents and judicial propriety:
The learned Single Judge's dismissal of the petition was criticized for not adhering to the binding precedents set by the Division Bench in Muhammed's case and the Single Judge in Remla's case. The Full Bench emphasized the importance of judicial propriety and the need for a Single Judge to follow the decisions of a Division Bench or refer the matter to a larger Bench if there is doubt about the correctness of the decisions. The language used by the learned Single Judge against the Hon'ble Judges was deemed improper and uncharitable.

Conclusion:
The Full Bench set aside the judgment under appeal, holding that the High Court had territorial jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. The police have the power to investigate offences committed outside India without requiring the sanction of the Central Government. The writ appeal was allowed, and Respondents 1 to 3 were directed to conduct and complete the investigation within four months from the date of receipt of the judgment and proceed further in accordance with law.