Research

Q- Whether crime under Section 420 committee outside India by an Indian be investigated and tried in
India?

The relevant section with this regards will be section 188 of the Cr.P.C which is as follows.

 188. Offence committed outside India. When an offence is committed outside India-
(a) by a citizen of India, whether on the high seas or elsewhere; or
(b) by a person, not being such citizen, on any ship or aircraft registered in India, he may be
dealt with in respect of such offence as if it had been com- mitted at any place within India at
which he may be found: Provided that, notwithstanding anything in any of the preceding
sections of this Chapter, no such offence shall be inquired into or tried in India except with
the previous sanction of the Central Government.

Another relevant section would be Section 4 of the Indian Penal Code-

4. Extension of Code to extra-territorial offences

The provisions of this Code apply also to any offence committed by:

1. any citizen of India in any place without and beyond India;

2. any person on any ship or aircraft registered in India wherever it may be.

Explanations

1. In this section the word “offence” includes every act committed outside India which, if
committed in India would be punishable under this Code

Illustrations

1. A, who is a citizen of India, commits a murder in Uganda. He can be tried and convicted of
murder in any place in India in which he may be found

Relevant case laws in this regard are-

1. Thota Venkateshwarlu vs State Of A.P.Tr.Princl.Sec.& Anr

It is a 2011 judgment given by the Supreme Court of India by a 3 judge bench comprising of
Justice Altamas Kabir, Justice Cyriac Joseph and Justice Surinder Singh Nijjar. The ratio of
the said judgment is-

The proviso to Section 188, which has been extracted hereinbefore, is a fetter on the
powers of the investigating authority to inquire into or try any
 offence mentioned in the earlier part of the Section, except with the previous sanction of
the Central Government. The fetters, however, are imposed only when the stage of trial is
reached, which clearly indicates that no sanction in terms of Section 188 is required till
commencement of the trial. It is only after the decision to try the offender in India was
felt necessary that the previous sanction of the Central Government would be required
before the trial could commence.

Accordingly, upto the stage of taking cognizance, no previous sanction would be

required from the Central Government in terms of the proviso to Section 188 Cr.P.C.
However, the trial cannot proceed beyond the cognizance stage without the previous
sanction of the Central Government. The Magistrate is, therefore, free to proceed
against the accused in respect of offences having been committed in India and to
complete the trial and  pass judgment therein, without being inhibited by the other
alleged offences for which sanction would be required.

2. Ajay Agarwal v. Union of India

It is a 1993 Supreme Court case wherein the bench comprisd of J. Ramaswamy and J. RM Sahai. The
judgment held that obtaining the previous sanction of the Central Government was  not a
condition precedent for taking cognizance of offences, since sanction could be obtained
before trial begins. RM Sahai in his concurring judgment said that 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.
Q- Whether perjury committed before the courts outside India can be tried by Indian courts?

No, perjury committed before the courts outside India cannot be tried in India. Perjury per se is
not a crime in India. However giving false evidence and fabricating evidence is a crime in India
under section 191,192 and 193 of the IPC for which punishment is defined in section 193 of the
IPC. However section 195 shall be applicable according to which FIR or private complaint cant
be filed. The remedy is to prefer an Application u/s 340 r/w 195 of CrPC, 1973, before the
concerned Public Servant / Judicial authority, to cause them to refer the above stated offence,
to the competent Magistrates Court of jurisdiction. Further, Complaint may also be preferred
before such Authority / Judicial Forum to which the concerned Authority / Judicial Forum is
subordinate, including before High Court.

Along with that under section 193 is applicable only to courts of justice that is Indian courts and
not foreign courts, hence perjury committed before courts outside India cannot be investigated
and tried by Indian courts.
Q- Whether perjury committed outside India in foreign courts can be tried by police in India?

The police has cannot try perjury committed outside India primarily because there is no section in the
Indian Penal code and Cr.PC. Along with that if perjury is to be coincided with any Indian law it would be
section 193 of the IPC. But according to section 195 of the CrPC, applicable according to which FIR or
private complaint can’t be filed. The correct procedure to go for offences committed under
section 193(ipc) is to file an application under section 340 which again is not under the police
thus making it impossible for police to investigate and try perjury committed in foreign courts in
India.
Q-Whether perjury committed in India can be investigated and tried by Indian police?

No, perjury committed in India can’t be tried by Indian Police. In India perjury is governed by ection 193
of the ipc. But for an offence under section 193 of the ipc, the magistrate cant take cognizance na
dnether can a police investigate due to the bar placed on it under section 195 of the Cr.Pc. The correct
procedure is to file an application under section 340 of the Cr.Pc. There are also other case laws in this
regard which are as follows-

 Mahesh Tiwari vs State Of U.P. And Another- It is a 2006 allahabad High court
judgement which states that- Filing of a false affidavit in a proceedings pending before
the Civil Court would amount to an offence falling under Section 193 IPC and
proceedings would have to be initiated on a complaint in writing by that court.
Private complaint filed by the opposite party for an offence allegedly committed
under Section 193 IPC is not maintainable being vitiated for non-compliance of the
mandatory provisions under Section 195(1)(b)(i) Cr.P.C.
 Kailash Mangal v. Ramesh Chand-  It is a Supreme court case of 2015. It states
that -The private complaint filed by the respondent for the offences allegedly committed
under section 193 of the code is not maintainable as the same is vitiated on account of
non-compliance of the mandatory provision of section 195(1)(b)(i) of the Cr.P.C.

 Daulat Ram vs State Of Punjab- It is a 1962 supreme court case. The Court
considered the nature of the provisions of section 195 cr.pc  In the said case,
cognizance had been taken on the police report by the Magistrate and the
appellant therein had been tried and convicted, though the concerned public
servant, the Tahsildar had not filed any complaint. This Court held as under: The
cognizance of the case was therefore wrongly assumed by the court without the
complaint in writing of the public servant, namely, the Tahsildar in this case. The
trial was thus without jurisdiction ab initio and the conviction cannot be
maintained. The appeal is, therefore, allowed and the conviction of the appellant
and the sentence passed on him are set aside.
 Sachidanand Singh v. state of bihar- It is a 1998 judgment by the supreme
court of India(division bench). The judgment states that -  Section 190 of the
Code empowers "any magistrate of the first class" to take cognizance of "any offence"
upon receiving a complaint, or police report or information or upon his own
knowledge. Section 195 restricts such general powers of the magistrate, and the
general right of a person to move the Court with a complaint is to that extent
curtailed. It is a well-recognised canon of interpretation that provision curbing the
general jurisdiction of the court must normally receive strict interpretation unless the
statute or the context requires otherwise
 C. Muniappan and v. State of Tamil Nadu and ors. –It is a 2010 Supreme
court judgement by a division bench. Undoubtedly, the law does not permit
taking cognizance of any offence under Section 188 IPC, unless there is a complaint
in writing by the competent Public Servant. In the instant case, no such complaint had
ever been filed. In such an eventuality and taking into account the settled legal
principles in this regard, we are of the view that it was not permissible for the trial
Court to frame a charge