TMI Blog2008 (5) TMI 691X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s primarily against the appellant therein were that the first accused used to consult her and she used to instigate him. As the couple was residing at Kuwait, indisputably the entire cause of action arose at Kuwait. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Navsari, however, took cognizance of the aforesaid offences and directed issuance of summons to the appellant by an order dated 30.5.2003. An application was filed by her stating that the complaint petition filed without obtaining the requisite sanction under Section 188 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was bad in law. The same was dismissed. A joint application with her son was thereafter filed by the appellant for quashing of the entire complaint petition which was withdrawn. Appellant, however, filed a fresh application on or about 6.12.2004 raising a contention that as she is a citizen of Mauritius and as the entire cause of action took place at Kuwait, the order taking cognizance is bad in law. Whereas the learned trial judge rejected the said plea, the Revisional Court on a revision application filed by the appellant there against, allowed the same. Respondent No. 2 moved the High Court of Gujarat aggrieved th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the previous sanction of the Central Government. In our constitutional scheme, all laws made by Parliament primarily are applicable only within the country. Ordinarily, therefore, all persons who commit a crime in India can be tried in any place where the offence is committed. Section 41 of the Indian Penal Code, however, extends the scope of applicability of the territorial jurisdiction of the court of India to try a case, the cause of action of which took place outside the geographical limits. Parliament indisputably may enact a legislation having extra territorial application but the same must be applied subject to fulfillment of the requirements contained therein. There are materials before us to show that the appellant is a citizen of Mauritius. She has been visiting India on Visas issued by India. She, thus, indisputably is not a citizen of India. She might have been staying in India with her relatives as has been contended by the complainant, but it has not been denied and disputed that she is not a citizen of India. If she is not a citizen of India having regard to the provisions contained in Section 4 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 188 of the Code of Criminal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n (a) to Section 4, I.P.C. delimits the scope of the section. It indicates the extent and the ambit of this section. It runs as follows: (a) A, a coolie, who is a Native Indian subject commits a murder in Uganda. He can be tried and convicted of murder in any place in British India in which he may be found. In the illustration, if (A) was not a Native Indian subject at the time of the commission of the murder the provisions of Section 4, I.P.C. could not apply to his case. The circumstance that after the commission of the offence a person becomes domiciled in another country, or acquires citizenship of that State, cannot confer jurisdiction on the courts of that territory retrospectively for trying offences committed and completed at a time when that person was neither the national of that country nor was he domiciled there. Strong reliance has been placed by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents on Ajay Agarwal vs. Union of India [AIR 1993 SC 1637]. The question which arose for consideration therein was that as to whether a sanction of Central Government for prosecution in terms of Section 188 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was necessary. The sa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ul, punishable of for a criminal object or for the use of criminal means. (emphasis supplied) The court therein was concerned with a charge of conspiracy. It was in the aforementioned context opined that no sanction would be required. R. M. Sahai, J. in his concurring judgment stated: Language of the section is plain and simple. It operates where an offence is committed by a citizen of India outside the country. Requirements are, therefore, one - commission of an offence; second - by an Indian citizen; and third - that it should have been committed outside the country. Out of the three there is no dispute that the appellant is an Indian citizen. But so far the other two are that the conspiracy to forge and cheat the bank was hatched by the appellant and others in India. Whether it was so or not, cannot be gone into at this stage. The learned counsel submitted that as in the earlier application, the appellant merely complained of the absence of any sanction, this application should not be entertained. We do not agree. Principles analogous to res judicata have no application with regard to criminal cases. An accused has a fundamental right in terms of Article 21 of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
