TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Supreme Court overturns judgment, emphasizes jurisdictional limits, deems proceedings void.</h1> The Supreme Court set aside the impugned judgment, allowing the appeal with costs assessed at Rs. 25,000. The Court held that Indian courts lack ... - Issues Involved:1. Interpretation of Section 4 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and Section 188 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC).2. Jurisdiction of Indian courts over offences committed outside India by non-citizens.3. Requirement of sanction u/s 188 CrPC for prosecuting offences committed outside India.Summary:Issue 1: Interpretation of Section 4 IPC and Section 188 CrPCThe appeal concerns the interpretation of Section 4 of the IPC and Section 188 of the CrPC. The appellant, a citizen of Mauritius, challenged the cognizance taken by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Navsari, on a complaint alleging physical and mental torture by her son and herself, with the entire cause of action arising in Kuwait. The appellant argued that the complaint was bad in law due to the lack of requisite sanction u/s 188 CrPC.Issue 2: Jurisdiction of Indian Courts Over Offences Committed Outside India by Non-CitizensThe Court held that the provisions of Section 4 IPC and Section 188 CrPC extend the jurisdiction of Indian courts to try offences committed outside India only if the accused is a citizen of India or if the offence is committed on an Indian-registered ship or aircraft. Since the appellant is a citizen of Mauritius and the alleged offences occurred in Kuwait, the Indian courts lack jurisdiction. The Court referenced Central Bank of India Ltd. vs. Ram Narain [AIR 1955 SC 36], emphasizing that jurisdiction is based on the accused's citizenship at the time of the offence.Issue 3: Requirement of Sanction u/s 188 CrPCThe Court noted that the requirement for sanction u/s 188 CrPC is mandatory for prosecuting offences committed outside India. In Ajay Agarwal vs. Union of India [AIR 1993 SC 1637], it was clarified that no sanction is required for conspiracy charges. However, this case did not involve conspiracy, and thus, the lack of sanction rendered the cognizance order illegal.The Court concluded that the appellant's fundamental right u/s 21 of the Constitution was violated as the offence was not committed within India's territorial limits, making the provisions of IPC and CrPC inapplicable. The entire proceedings were deemed null and void due to lack of jurisdiction, and the principle of res judicata was held inapplicable in criminal cases involving jurisdictional issues.Conclusion:The Supreme Court set aside the impugned judgment, allowing the appeal with costs assessed at Rs. 25,000, emphasizing that jurisdictional issues can be raised at any stage of the proceedings.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
