9911796707
TMI Blog2000 (3) TMI 916X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ates of America (U.S.A.) Spectrum Technologies USA, Inc. at New York. In the said company, both the petitioners own 5,000 of the shares each. The accused also floated an offshore company called Spectrum Infrastructures Ltd., at Jersey, Channel Islands, wherein once again both the petitioners hold 50 per cent share each. Another company called Spectrum Infrastructures Ltd., at Mauritius, was floated by the petitioners with a similar shareholding as mentioned above. Further a company known as Spectrum Technologies USA, Inc., Port Louis, at Mauritius was created. The said company is totally owned by the Spectrum Infrastructures Limited at Mauritius. A fourth-company by name spectrum Technologies USA, Inc. at Mauritius was created by the accused in association with the aforesaid people. According to the complaint, all the abovementioned companies are wholly owned and controlled by the accused-petitioners herein. 3. As matters stood thus, the first of the companies mentioned above - the Spectrum Infrastructures Ltd., Jersey, Channel Islands issued a document styled as project overview . The said company issued a letter dated 30-9-1994, by the first accused. As the whole case revolv ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ve Bank of India. Over one hundred thirty non-resident Indians have contributed to the equity share capital of the appellant and its associate companies for the purpose of investment in the equity capital of Spectrum Power Generation Ltd., copies of the applications filed before the Reserve Bank of India and the Foreign Invest Promotion Board (FIPB) together with the permissions obtained from them are enclosed and marked as Annexure XI. The appellant has furnished all the required information and complies with the necessary formalities for the purpose of investment in the Spectrum Power Generation Limited and the contents in paragraph No. 6 are hereby denied." 4. As matters stood thus, the managing director of the Indian company, i.e., Spectrum Power Generation Limited received a letter dated 26-6-1997, said to have been sent in the name of the Spectrum Non-Resident Indian Investors. According to the complaint, the substance of the said letter is that non-resident Indians are anxiously waiting for the Indian company s shares offer and public issue. The said letter was followed up by some correspondence from various persons claiming to be non-resident Indian investors of the I ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... etition-ers cannot be tried for the same as the petitioners are citizens of the United States of America (U.S.A.) and, therefore, are not governed by the Companies Act of this country. Secondly, he submitted that admittedly the document which forms the basis of the allegation of the commission of various offences under the Companies Act was issued and circulated by the petitioners outside the Indian territory, therefore even assuming that such a transactions would attract the penal provisions of the Companies Act and constitute the various offences under Companies Act referred to in the complaint, the Indian Courts would not have jurisdiction to enforce the Indian Law against the petitioners for a transactions which took place wholly outside the Indian territory as it would amount to giving the Indian law extra-territorial operation. Thirdly, the learned counsel submitted that even if the allegations are assumed to be true, they would not constitute the offences mentioned in the complaint. 10. The Companies Act is an enactment made by Parliament in exercise of its legislative authority conferred on Parliament by virtue of article 246(1) of the Constitution of India read with en ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... jurisdiction, either civil or criminal, over persons or entities situate outside the territorial limits of the country is a very complicated area. As a matter of fact all over the world countries have been asserting such jurisdictions in various contexts, as a general principle of law all crime is local. The jurisdiction over the crime belongs to the country where the crime is committed Macleod v. Attorney-General for New South Wales [1891] AC 455 and Huntington v. Attrill [1893] AC 150. However, there are departures from the above recognised rule. The learned author Dr. P.C. Rao, in his book the Indian Constitution and International Law at page 42 observed as follows : "While this may be so even today as a general principle, the requirements of modern life in a shrunken world have made it necessary for States to exercise jurisdiction on the basis of the criteria other than that of territorial location. States claim extra-territorial jurisdiction in case where their legitimate interests are affected by means of the objective territorial claim, the nationality claim, the passive personality claim, the security claim, the universality claim and the like. . . ." 16 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssuming for the sake of arguments that all the allegations made in the complaint are true, it is doubtful whether it can safely be said that the alleged offences are committed wholly outside the territory of India as one of the elements in the crime is situated in India, i.e., the company in which the petitioners are alleged to have solicited the participation by way of equity, in view of the judgment of the Supreme Court in the Mobarik Ali Ahmed v. State of Bombay AIR 1957 SC 857, wherein their Lordships have held that the corporeal presence of the accused in the country is not essential to assert the criminal jurisdiction. 20. I must hasten to add that I am not declaring the legal position that the case on hand is governed by the ratio of the Mobarik Ali Ahmed s case ( supra ). It only requires that the principle laid down in Mobarik Ali Ahmed s case ( supra ) is required to be examined qua the facts of the case to be established at the trial, to decide that aspect of the jurisdiction. 21. Coming to the last submissions of the learned counsel that the allegations contained in the complaint even if accepted to be true do not constitute the offences under the Co ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
