Territorial jurisdiction under Section 188 depends on the accused being found before court, not on police or complainant tracing him.

Section 188 of the Code of Criminal Procedure treats the place where an accused is actually present before the court as the place where he is "found" for an offence committed outside India. The expression does not require the complainant or police to locate the accused, and the accused's residence or business place is irrelevant. The provision creates a legal fiction to support jurisdiction where the accused appears or is produced before a competent court, reflecting convenience for the victim and preventing evasion by concealment. Territorial objection to jurisdiction was therefore rejected.

---

---

Issues: Whether, for an offence committed outside India under Section 188 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the expression "at which he may be found" means the place where the accused may be located by the complainant or the police, or the place where the accused is actually found by the court.

Analysis: Chapter XIII of the Code places primary emphasis on the place of commission of the offence, while Section 188 creates a legal fiction for offences committed outside India by treating the place where the accused is found in India as the place of commission. The scheme of the Chapter shows that the residence or business place of either party is irrelevant. The expression "found" in Section 188 is to be understood in the sense that the accused is present before the court, whether voluntarily or pursuant to process. The responsibility to "find" the accused is not on the complainant or the police. The provision is meant to protect the convenience of the victim and to avoid a fugitive from justice defeating jurisdiction by concealment. The court before which the accused appears or is produced is competent to proceed, provided it is otherwise competent to try the offence.

Conclusion: The expression "at which he may be found" means that the accused is found by the court when he appears or is produced before it, and not that the complainant or the police must locate him. The territorial objection failed.

Final Conclusion: Section 188 was construed in favour of the victim's choice of forum, and the challenge to jurisdiction was rejected.

Ratio Decidendi: Under Section 188 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the place where an accused charged with an offence committed outside India is "found" is the place where he is actually present before the court, and the provision does not require the complainant or the police to locate him.

---