Section 188 CrPC permits investigation without prior sanction, while writ jurisdiction remains available when respondents are within reach.

Territorial jurisdiction under Article 226 was not negatived merely because the alleged offence occurred outside India, where the respondents were within reach of the writ court and the relief was sought against authorities in the State. Prior sanction of the Central Government was held unnecessary for investigation under Section 188 CrPC; the proviso was treated as applying only to inquiry or trial, not to the preliminary investigative stage. The contrary view of the Single Judge was rejected, and the authorities were directed to complete the investigation according to law.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the High Court lacked territorial jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to direct investigation into alleged offences committed outside India; (ii) Whether prior sanction of the Central Government was necessary before investigation could be conducted under Section 188 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 in respect of offences committed outside India.

Issue (i): Whether the High Court lacked territorial jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to direct investigation into alleged offences committed outside India.

Analysis: The relief sought was directed against authorities within the State, and the persons against whom action was sought were stated to be within the jurisdiction. The mere fact that the alleged offence originated outside India did not by itself denude the Court of jurisdiction to issue directions to authorities amenable to its writ jurisdiction. The earlier view that the petition was outside territorial jurisdiction was found unsustainable.

Conclusion: The objection to territorial jurisdiction was rejected and the finding of lack of territorial jurisdiction was set aside.

Issue (ii): Whether prior sanction of the Central Government was necessary before investigation could be conducted under Section 188 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 in respect of offences committed outside India.

Analysis: Section 4 of the Code contemplates investigation, inquiry and trial under the Code for offences under other laws, subject to any special enactment. Section 188 was held to be procedural and to permit dealing with an offender found in India for an offence committed abroad. The Court adopted the view that the power to investigate is not excluded by the proviso to Section 188, and that the previous sanction of the Central Government is required only for inquiry or trial, not for the preliminary stage of investigation. The contrary view taken by the Single Judge was held not to be good law.

Conclusion: Prior sanction of the Central Government was held not to be necessary for investigation, and the order dismissing the petition on that basis was set aside.

Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded, the reference was answered in favour of the appellant, and the authorities were directed to complete the investigation in accordance with law.

Ratio Decidendi: Section 188 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 requires previous sanction of the Central Government for inquiry or trial of offences committed outside India, but not for investigation, and territorial jurisdiction to issue writ directions is not negatived merely because the alleged offence occurred abroad when the respondents are within reach of the Court's jurisdiction.

---