DAMODARAM SANJIVAYYA NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITY

SABBAVARAM, VISAKHAPATNAM, A.P., INDIA

PROJECT TITLE
JURISDICTION

SUBJECT
IPC- I

NAME OF THE FACULTY

Proff . Vara Lakshmi Mam

Name of the Candidate

KranthiKiran. T
Roll no. 18LLB127
Semester III

Table of Contents
1
Acknowledgement…………………………………………………………..3

Abstract………………………………………………………………………4

Synopsis……………………………………………………………………….5

Meaning and Types of Jurisdiction…………………………………………6-8

Intra-Territorial Jurisdiction………………………………………………..9

Exceptions for Intra-Territorial Jurisdiction……………………………….10

Extra-Territorial Jurisdiction……………………………………………10-11

Extension of Extra Territorial Jurisdiction……………………………11-13

Offences Committed on Land………………………………………….13

Provisions Related with “Extra Territorial Jurisdiction of CRPC”…13-14

Admiralty Jurisdiction……………………………………………………14-16

Offences Committed on Air Craft………………………………………….16

Offences Committed by Foreigners In and Outside of India…………17-18

Case Laws…………………………………………………………………19-21

Conclusion…………………………………………………………………..22

Bibliography…………………………………………………………………23

2
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

I heart fully express my special thanks to my subject teacher Proff. Vara Lakshmi mam for
giving me the opportunity to do the project on the topic ‘JURISDICTION’.It helped me to
know many things and gain knowledge. I also thank him for guiding me throughout the
project and responding for my doubts regarding the project.

I would also like to thank my University ‘Damodaram Sanjivayya National Law University’
for providing me with all the required materials for the completion of my project and I also
came to know many new things.

3
 ABSTRACT

The Indian Penal Code was drafted by the First Indian Law Commission presided over by

Lord Thomas Babington Macaulay. The draft underwent further revision at the hands of well

Known jurists, like Sir Barnes Peacock, and was completed in 1850. The Indian Penal Code
was used by the then Legislature on 6 October 1860 and was enacted as Act No. XLV of
1860.

The Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC, 1860) exhaustively codifies the law relating to offences
with which it deals and the rules of the common law cannot be resorted to for inventing
exemptions which are not expressly enacted. It is not necessary and indeed not permissible to
construe the IPC, 1860 at the present day in accordance with the notions of criminal
jurisdiction prevailing at the time when the Code was enacted. The notions relating to this
matter have very considerably changed between then and now during nearly a century that
has elapsed. It is legitimate to construe the Code with reference to the modern needs,
wherever this is permissible, unless there is anything in the Code or in any particular section
to indicate the contrary

The material sources on this subject are the provisions of the Penal Code, the Code of
Criminal l Procedure, certain British Statutes and the interpretation by the judiciary of these
provisions. Jurisdiction is an aspect of state sovereignty and it refers to judicial, legislative
and administrative competence. Although it is an aspect of sovereignty, it is not co-extensive
with it. International law circumscribes a state's right to exercise jurisdiction. Some
principles on the basis of which criminal jurisdiction is exercised, are

(1) The territorial principle;

(2) The principle of personal jurisdiction (the principle of nationality);

(3) The universal principle;

(4) Special jurisdiction, exercisable under specific conventions relating to particular types of
offences (extradition etc.).

4
The IPC is one of the most comprehensive penal code anywhere in the world. The statute,
though of colonial vintage, has shown its resilience in the fact that even one hundred and
forty five years after it was originally passed, the entire statute remains substantially
unaltered. The territorial coverage of the IPC extends to the whole of India, barring the
territory of the State of J&K. which has enacted its separate criminal law. The general
principle of criminal jurisdiction is that jurisdiction is determined by the locality of the
offence irrespective of the nationality or other similar attributes for the offender.

SYNOPSIS

Introduction

Jurisdiction word came from two latin words ( Ius, Iuris+ Dicere)’,Ius, Iuris means law and
Dicere means To Speak. Jurisdiction is the practical authority granted to the legal body to
administer to justice or to a political leader to deal with and make pronouncements on legal
matters and, by implication, to administer justice within a defined area of responsibility.

In the other words, Jurisdiction means is the power of or right of a legal or political agency to
exercise its authority over a person, subject matter, or territory, jurisdiction over a person
relates to the authority to try him or her as a defendant. Jurisdiction over a subject matter
relates to authority derived from the country’s constitution or laws to consider a particular
case. Jurisdiction over a territory relates to the geographic area over which a court has the
authority to decide cases concurrent jurisdiction exists where two courts have simultaneous
responsibility for the same case.

+Section 1 of IPC: Title and extent of operation of the code.

Section 2 of IPC: Punishment of offences committed within India

Section 3 of IPC: Punishment of offences committed beyond, but which by law may be
tried within India.

Section 4 of IPC: Extension of Code to extraterritorial offences.

Aim of the project:

5
The main aim and objective of the study is to learn the legal aspects jurisdiction and to know
more about different kinds of jurisdiction . As a law student some case laws regarding the
topic is also being collected.

Importance of the project:

Learning about Jurisdiction may help in gaining knowledge about territories and boundaries
and punishments that are awarded if any offences committed regarding jurisdiction.

Scope of the Study:

The topic of jurisdiction will be mostly concentrating and the sections related to jurisdiction
help us know the complete picture of jurisdiction.

Literature Review:

The Indian Penal Code, 1860 is one of the most comprehensive penal code anywhere in the
world. It applies all over India expect in the territory of Jammu and Kashmir. However, in
certain cases, IPC may have extra territorial jurisdiction as well.

Research Questions:

1. Whether a crime committed by a foreigner within the territory of India is liable?

2. Whether crimes committed outside India comes under Indian Penal Code?

Research Methodology:
The research is being conducting by referring through various books, sources and also
interacting with few teachers. The information gathered will be verified and arranged in
systematically in the project.

Meaning and Types of Jurisdiction:

Jurisdiction may be defined as power or authority of a court to hear and determine a case, to
adjudicate and exercise any judicial power in relation to it by taking cognizance of matters
presented before the court.

There are two kinds of jurisdiction of courts-

6
a) inherent jurisdiction,

b) local jurisdiction.

By want of inherent jurisdiction, it is meant that the court is not empowered to try the case.
The local jurisdiction means the limit of the area in which the court can exercise its power.
The lexfori or law of jurisdiction controls all matters pertaining to remedial as distinguished
from substantive rights. If question of jurisdiction is raised the trial can be commenced after
deciding that question.

Territorial Jurisdiction or local jurisdiction is provided just as a matter of convenience,

keeping in mind the administrative point of view with respect to the work of a particular
court, the convenience of the witnesses who have to appear before the court. Under the
English Law, 'all crimes are local' and are triable at the common law by the courts within
whose jurisdiction they are committed.

Section 2 of the Indian Penal Code deal with the intra-territorial jurisdiction and section 3 &
4 deals with Extra-territorial jurisdiction.

In Cr.P.C, the basic rule is reflected in Section 177 which reads that proper and ordinary
venue for trial of a crime is the area of jurisdiction in which, on the evidence, the facts occur
and which are alleged to constitute the crime. The word "ordinarily", however, suggests that
certain exceptions are implicit and they are not limited to these specially provided in the
CRPC. Specific Exceptions have been laid down in Sections 179 to 185 and 188.

Section 1 of IPC: Title and extent of operation of the code.

This Act shall be called the Indian Penal Code, and shall extend to the whole of India except
the State of Jammu and Kashmir.

Section 2 of IPC: Punishment of offences committed within India.

Every person shall be liable to punishment under this code and not otherwise for every act or
omission contrary to the provisions thereof, of which he shall be guilty within India.

Section 3 of IPC: Punishment of offences committed beyond, but which by law may be
tried within India.

7
Any person liable, by any Indian law, to be tried for an offence committed beyond India shall
be dealt with according to the provisions of this code for any act committed beyond India in
the same manner as if such act had been committed within India.

Section 4 of IPC: Extension of Code to extraterritorial 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.
(3) Any person in any place without and beyond India committing offence target=ing a
computer resource located in India.

In this section,

 The word “offence” includes every act committed outside India which, if committed
in India, would be punishable under this code.
 The expression “computer resource” shall have the meaning assigned to it in clause
(k) of sub section (1) of section 2 of the Information Technology Act, 2000.

Intra-Territorial Jurisdiction of the Indian Criminal Courts

1
As per Section 2 of the Indian Penal Code, which deals with the, intra-territorial jurisdictionevery
person shall be liable to punishment under this Code and not otherwise for every act or omission
contrary to the provisions thereof, of which he shall be guilty within India. The words “Every person”
clearly say that subject to the General Exceptions (Chapter-IV), every person, irrespective of his caste,
region, religion, etc., shall be punished, if he is proved guilty under the provisions of this Code.

Foreigner

A foreigner, who is a guilty of any offence under this Code, shall be punishable under this Code, if he
has committed any offence in India, although the alleged offence might have not been an offence in
his motherland. In State of Maharashtra v. Mayer Hans George , a German National left Zurich for
Manila by a Swiss Plane with 34 Kilos of gold. He had not declared it in the manifest for transit. The
plane arrived at Bombay. The passenger had remained in the plane. The Indian custom authorities, on
search, recovered the gold carried by him on his person. He was prosecuted for importing gold into
India under the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973.

1
Ratan Lal& DhirajLal, The Indian Penal Code, 2, 36th edn.

8
Corporations

A company is liable to be persecuted and punished for criminal offenses. Although there are earlier
authorities to the fact that the corporation can not commit a crime, the generally accepted modern rule
is that a corporation may be subject to indictment and other criminal process although the criminal act
may be committed through its agent. However, a corporation can’t be imposed corporal punishments
for the offences which can be committed by human beings only, viz., murder, treason, perjury, etc.

“Within India”

The expression “within India” in section 2 of the IPC points out towards the intra-territorial
jurisdiction of the Indian Penal Code. This includes the whole land territory of India, the maritime belt
of India which presently extends up to twelve nautical miles in the sea, the whole air space over and
the area underneath this total area. The maritime belt, which is also known as territorial waters, is
measured from the appropriate base line. The Indian Parliament has kept itself abreast with the latest
development in the field of international law and has enacted the Territorial Waters, Continental
Shelf, Exclusive Economic Zone and other Maritime Zones Act, 1976 Section 3 (2) of which has
extended the territorial waters of India to twelve nautical miles. In 1977 the Exclusive Economic Zone
has also been extended to two hundred nautical miles. If any offence relating to property is committed
within this zone, the Indian criminal jurisdiction will naturally extend to it.

High seas

High seas are open to all, and represent the entire sea-space beyond the three miles limit of the shore.
This expression includes all ocean seas, bays, channels, rivers, creeks and waters below low water-
mark, and where great ships could go, with the exception only of such parts of such ocean and as were
within the territory of some country.

2
Exceptions to the Intra-Territorial Jurisdiction

Section 2 of the IPC mentions “every person” within India. However, there are certain persons
exempted from the jurisdiction of Criminal Courts. These persons are given certain rights, privileges,
etc. This is the same position in other countries also. Such persons are:

Foreign Sovereigns: Foreign Sovereigns are the persons completely exempted from the jurisdiction
of the Indian Criminal Courts. Since a sovereign is the highest authority of his nation, he is not
amenable to the jurisdiction of other countries. He is totally independent and represents the dignity of
his country.
2
Ratan Lal& DhirajLal, The Indian Penal Code ,4, 36th edn.

9
Ambassadors: Certain immunities and privileges have been granted to Ambassadors of other
countries by the Diplomatic Privileges Act, 1964 of England, the United Nations (Privileges and
Immunities) Act, 1947 (Act No. XLV of 1947) of India, etc., are examples. Therefore, Ambassadors
are exempted from the jurisdiction of the Indian Criminal Courts.

Alien Enemies: The military persons of alien enemies do not come under the jurisdiction of ordinary
Criminal Courts, for the acts done connecting with the war. However, if they commit theft, robbery,
rape, etc., unconnected with war, they shall be tried by the Indian Criminal Courts.

Warships: The warships entered into the Indian Sea waters cannot be tried under the ordinary Indian
Criminal Courts. The Public International Law applies to such men-ofwar.

President and Governors: The President of India and the Governors of the States are exempted from
the jurisdiction of the Criminal Courts, by Article 361 of the Indian Constitution.

Foreign army: The Foreign army personnel entered into the Indian territories with the permission of
the Indian Government is exempted from the jurisdiction of the criminal courts. There are many
instances when a foreign army is based on the soil of another country with the consent of the host
country.

Every person

This provision subjects every person to punishment under this Code who violates any provision of
the Code by his act or omission of which he shall be guilty within India. The use of the expression
‘every person’ in this section and not ‘any person’ as in sections 3 and 4 (2) is deliberate. No
distinction has been made of nation, rank, caste or creed of the person and whoever violates any
provision is liable to punishment. A foreign national committing an offence within India can be
punished.

Extra Territorial Jurisdiction:

Section 3
Punishment of offences committed beyond, but which by law may be tried within, India:

Any person liable, by any Indian law to be tried for an offence committed beyond India shall
be dealt with according to the provisions of this Code for any act committed beyond India in
the same manner as if such act had been committed within India.

10
3
This section and Section 4 relate to the extra territorial operation of the Code. The words of
this section postulate the existence of a law that an act constituting an offence in India shall
also be an offence when committed outside India. Thus, taking part in a marriage which is
prohibited by the child marriage restraint act, 1929 by a citizen of India beyond India is not
an offence which can be punished in India.
This section only applies to the case of a person who at the time of committing the offence
charged was amenable to an Indian Court. Thus, an Indian Citizen who committed an offence
charged outside India which was not an offence according to the laws of that country would
still be liable to be tried in India if it was an offence under Indian Law. An Indian Citizen was
murdered by another Indian Citizen in a foreign country and the police refused to register the
FIR on the ground that the offence was committed outside India. The court held that the
refusal was illegal and directed the police to register the crime and proceed with investigation
in accordance with the law.
The court observed that section 3 of the IPC, 1860 helps the authorities in India to proceed by
treating the offence as one committed within India. No doubt it is by a fiction that such an
assumption is made. But such an assumption was necessary for practical purposes. In a series
of cases it was held that an offence committed outside India by a citizen of India can be
investigated by the local police even without prior sanction of the central government. Where
both husband and wife are Indians residing at USA, a complaint against the husband alleging
cruelty is maintainable.
The operation of the section is restricted to the cases specified in the extradition Act, 1962
and the Cr PC , 1973 sections 188 and 189.

Extension of Extra Territorial Jurisdiction

Section 4 of the IPC is an Extension of Code to extra-territorial offences. It applies to –

• Any citizen of India in any place of the world.

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

• any person in any place without and beyond India committing offence targeting a computer resource
located in India

3
Ratan Lal& DhirajLal, The Indian Penal Code, 7, 36th edn.

11
In this Section the word “offence” includes every act committed outside India which, if committed in
India, would be punishable under this Code.

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

Sections 3 and 4 of the IPC give the Indian Courts to inquire into offences, done by the Indians,
committed outside India. If the offences committed on any ship or aircraft registered in India,
irrespective of his nationality, he can be inquired by the Indian Courts.

Crimes committed outside India:

Where an offence is committed beyond the boundary of India but the offender is found within limits,
two contingencies arise: -

a) the offender may be given up for trial to the country where the offence was committed
(extradition) and

b) the offender may be tried in India (extra-territorial jurisdiction).

Extradition:

Extradition is the surrender by one state to another of a person desired to be dealt with crimes
for crimes of which he has been accused or convicted and which are justifiable in the courts
of the other state. Surrender of a person within the state to another state- whether a citizen or
an alien- is a political act done in pursuance of a treaty or an arrangement ad hoc. Though
extradition is granted in implementation of the international commitment of the state, the
procedure to be followed by the courts in deciding, whether extradition should be granted on
what terms, is determined by the municipal law of communities that the criminals sould not
go unpunished and on that account, it is recognised as a part of the comity of nations that one
state should ordinarily afford to another state assistance towards bringing offenders to justice.
The procedure for securing the extradition from India is laid down in the Extradition Act,
1962.

Extra Territorial Jurisdiction:

Indian Courts are empowered to try offences committed out of India on

A) Land
B) High Seas

12
 C) Aircraft

Offences Committed on Land

4
By virtue of Section 3 and 4 of Indian penal Code and Section 188 of CRPC, local courts can take
cognizance of offences committed beyond the territories of India. Where the court is dealing with an
act committed outside India by a citizen of India which would be an offence punishable under the
penal code if it had been committed in India, section 4 constitutes that the act an offence and it can be
dealt with under section 188 of the Cr PC, 1973. If however, at the time of commission of the offence
the accused person is not a citizen of India , the provisions of section 4 of the penal code and section
188 of Cr PC, 1973 have no application.

Provisions Related with “Extra Territorial Jurisdiction of CRPC”

Section 188 of the CRPC deals with the offences 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

189. Receipt of evidence relating to offences committed outside India. When any offence alleged to
have been committed in a territory outside India is being inquired into or tried under the provisions of
Section 188, the Central Government may, if it thinks fit, direct that copies of depositions made or
exhibits produced before a judicial officer in or for that territory or before a diplomatic or consular
representative of India in or for that territory shall be received as evidence by the Court holdings such
inquiry or trial in any case in which such Court might issue a commission for taking evidence as to
the matters to which such depositions exhibits relate.

The Section 188 of the CRPC provides for extra-territorial jurisdiction over Indian citizens as well as
Non-Indian Citizens. 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.

4
Ratan Lal& DhirajLal, The Indian Penal Code, 10,36th edn.

13
 The Section specifies two cases in which a person is triable for offence committed out of India,
namely, -

(a) When an Indian citizen commits an offence in any place either on the high seas or elsewhere, and
(b) When any person, not being such citizen, commits an offence on any ship or aircraft registered in
India.

Admiralty Jurisdiction:

The jurisdiction to try offences committed on high seas is known as admiralty jurisdiction. It
is founded on the principle that a ship on high seas is a "floating island" belonging to the
nation whose flag she is flying. It extends over Indian vessel, not only when they are sailing
on the high seas, but also when they are in the rivers of a foreign country at a place below
bridges, where tides ebbs and flows and where great ships go. It makes no difference whether
ship is made fast to the bottom of the river by anchor and cable, the admiralty jurisdiction
extends over Indian ships although they may be at a spot where municipal authorities of a
foreign country might exercise concurrent jurisdiction, if invoked

The accused, an English sailor, stole three chests of tea out of a British vessel, when it was
lying in a river in China. It was urged that as the vessel was 20-30 miles from the sea, the
offence was committed on high seas. It was held the offence was committed within the
admiralty jurisdiction.

Admiralty jurisdiction extends over

1) Offences committed on Indian Ships on the high Seas.

2) Offences committed on foreign ships in Indian territorial waters
3) Piracy

The High Court as a court of admiralty is treated as a separate entity exercising a distinct and
specific or limited jurisdiction. This reasoning is based on the assumption that the
continuance in force of the colonial courts of Admiralty Act, 1890 as an existing law carves
out a distinct jurisdiction of the high court limited in ambit and efficacy to what has been
granted by the admiralty court act 1861, and that jurisdiction has remained stultified ever
since.

This restrictive is not warranted by the provisions of the constitution. According, a foreign
ship falls within jurisdiction of the high court where the vessel happens to be at the relevant

14
time, i.e, at the time when the jurisdiction of the high court is invoked, or where the cause of
action wholly or in part arises. The Merchant Shipping Act, empowers the concerned High
Court to arrest a ship in respect of a substantive right. This jurisdiction can be assumed by the
concerned High Court, whether or not the defendant resides or carries on business, or the
cause of action wholly arose or in part, within the local limits f jurisdiction.

Once a foreign ship is arrested within the local limits of the jurisdiction of the High Court,
and the owner of the ship has entered appearance and furnished security to the satisfaction of
the High Court for the release of the ship, the proceedings continue as a personal action.

The conclusion is that all the High Courts in India have inherent admiralty jurisdiction and
can invoke the same for the enforcement of the maritime claim.

Piracy:

Piracy consists of any of the following acts:

A) Any illegal acts of violence or detention, or any act of depredation, committed for
private ends by the crew or the passengers of a private ship or a private aircraft, and
directed:
B) On the high seas, against another ship or aircraft, or against persons or property on
board such ship or aircraft:
C) Any act of inciting or of intentionally facilitating an act described in the above points.

5
According to international law, piracy takes place outside the normal jurisdiction of a state,
without state authority, and is private, not political, though acts of unlawful warfare, acts of
insurgents and revolutionaries, mutiny, and slave trading have been defined as piracy by
national laws of various countries or by special treaties.

Piracy has occurred throughout history. In the ancient Mediterranean, piracy was often
closely related to maritime commerce, and the Phoenicians appear to have engaged in both,
as did the Greeks, the Romans, and the Carthaginians. In the Middle Ages, Vikings from the
north and Moors from the south also engaged in piracy. At the conclusion of European wars
during the Renaissance and after, naval vessels were routinely laid up and their crews
disbanded; the unemployed crew from these ships was often drawn into the service of pirates.

5
Ratan Lal& DhirajLal, The Indian Penal Code, 11, 36th edn.

15
A common source of piracy was the privateer, a privately owned and armed ship
commissioned by a government to make reprisals, gain reparation for specified offenses in
time of peace, or prey upon the enemy in time of war; its officers and crew were granted a
share of the plunder taken from captured vessels. After a war the temptation was great to
continue this profitable business without authorization. During the wars between England
and Spain  in the late 16th century, treasure-laden Spanish galleon sailing from Mexico into
the Caribbean were a natural target for privateers, and the distinction between privateering
and piracy became difficult to draw.

Although piracy declined dramatically in the 19th century, the practice of hijacking ships and
airplanes developed into a new form of piracy in the late 20th century.

Offences Committed on Aircraft

The provisions of the CRPC have been made applicable to any offence committed by any
person on any aircraft registered in India, wherever it may be.

In Mayor Hans George the accused was a German national travelling in a Swiss aircraft from
Zurich to Manila. When the aircraft landed at Bombay on 28 the November, 1962, in transit,
he remained within the aircraft. He had not filed a declaration regarding the Gold he was
carrying on his personas required under Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1947 as amended
on 8 November, 1962. He was therefore, apprehended, tried and convicted in India for the
violation.

Offences Committed by Indian Citizens beyond India

Clause (a) of Section 188 of CRPC deals with the offence committed by Indian Citizen at any
place beyond India. The jurisdiction of the courts is not lost because venue of offence is in
foreign country. The case of 6Central Bank of India v. Ram Narain dealt with the offence
committed outside India, by a person who acquired Indian citizenship after he had committed
the said offence – It was held that the person had not acquired the citizenship of India at the
time of offence, and therefore Section 4 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 188 of the
Code of Criminal Procedure Code was not applicable.

Offences committed by Foreigners in India

6
Jurisdiction, Novelguide.com,( October 20, 2019, 8:30pm) www.novelguide.com

16
Crimen trahit personam: The Crime carries the person.16 The commission of Crime gives the
court of the place where it is committed jurisdiction over the person of the offender. The
fastening of criminal liability of a foreigner for offences committed in India are judicially
attributable to him notwithstanding that he is corporeally not present here at the time of
commission of a crime is not give extra-territorial operation of the law; for it is in respect of
an offence whose locality is in India, that the liability is fastened on that person.

Offences Committed By Foreigners outside India

There is no express enactment by which the Indian legislature can assume to render
foreigners subject to the criminal law of India with reference to acts committed by them
beyond the limits of India.

Sanction under Section 188

Sanction under sec. 188 is not a condition precedent to taking cognizance of the offence. If it
need be, it could be obtained before the trial begins. Where the conspiracy was hatched at
Chandigarh mere presentation of bill of lading at Dubai or payment at Dubai which were not
isolated acts and were part of chain activities between the appellant side and his associates to
cheat the bank at Chandigarh; prior sanction prior sanction of Central Government under the
Section was not necessary.

Which Court Can Try Such Offences

Generally the rule is that The Courts within whose jurisdiction the offender may be found
will have jurisdiction in the matter. But it may not always be so. In 7Empress v. Maganlal
decided in the year 1882 interpreting the word 'found', it was opined that it was used to confer
the jurisdiction to the court of a place where the accused is actually found, i.e., produced
before the Court and not where a person is discovered. In other words, it would mean that an
accused may be discovered by the Police at a place not within the jurisdiction of the Court
enquiring or trying but that is not the place contemplated by Section188. For the purpose of
jurisdiction, it would be the court where he is actually produced or appears which can said to
have found him. In8 Emperor v. VinayakDamodar Sarvarkar the contention that the accused
is charged before a Magistrate with an offence under the Penal Code and was brought there
7
Criminal Law, academia.edu,(October 20, 2019, 9:00 pm) https://www.academia.edu/
Territorial_And_Extra-Territorial_Jurisdiction_Under_The_Indian_Penal_Code_1860
8
Criminal Law, academia.edu,(October 20, 2019, 9:00 pm) https://www.academia.edu/
Territorial_And_Extra-Territorial_Jurisdiction_Under_The_Indian_Penal_Code_1860

17
illegally from a foreign country was rejected. An illustration was given in that a man commits
a crime, say murder, in a country but he escapes to some other country before he is
apprehended, the Police finding him in some other country, brings him to England and
produces him before a Magistrate. It would not be open to the Magistrate to refuse to commit
him. The Court held that "If he were brought here for trial, it would not be a plea to the
jurisdiction of the Court that he had escaped from justice, and that by some illegal means he
had been brought back". In the above decision of the Court cannot be said to be a good law in
the present times when we have to follow due process of law where even a legal act done
through illegal means will be illegal only. The principle of fruit of a poisonous tree must
follow here. I hold that the above observation of the court does not qualify to be a good law
in a democratic society. In the case of Om Hemrajani v. State of U.P. The scheme
underlying Section188 is to dispel any objection or plea of want of jurisdiction at the behest
of a fugitive who has committed an offence in any other country. If such a person is found
anywhere in India, the offence can be inquired into and tried by any Court that may be
approached by the victim. The victim who has suffered at the hands of the accused on a
foreign land can complain about the offence to a Court, otherwise competent, which he may
find convenient. The convenience is of the victim and not that of the accused. It is not the
requirement of Section188 that the victim shall state in the complaint as to which place the
accused may be found. It is enough to allege the accused may be found in India. The Court
where the complaint may be filed and the accused either appears voluntarily pursuant to issue
of process or is brought before it involuntarily in execution of warrants, would be the
competent Court within the meaning of Section 188 of the Code as that Court would find the
accused before him when he appears. The finding has to be by the Court. It has neither to be
by the complainant nor by the Police. The Section deems the offence to be committed within
the jurisdiction of the Court where the accused may be found.

Case Laws:

9
Mobarik Ali v. State of Bombay

In the famous case of Mobarik Ali v. State of Bombay

9
Ratan Lal& DhirajLal, The Indian Penal Code, 3, 36th edn

18
A national of Pakistan made certain false representations from Karachi by letters, telegrams
and telephones to the complainant at Bombay on the belief of which the complainant paid a
certain amount of money to the agent of the Pakistani at Bombay.

The Supreme Court held that the Pakistani national was subject to the jurisdiction of the
Indian Courts for having committed the offence of cheating and as the appellant had already
surrendered to the authorities of India under the provisions of the Fugitive Offenders Act,
1881 in connection with another case, his conviction was valid under section 420, Indian
Penal Code

10
R v. Esop

A foreigner had committed an unnatural offence on an Indian ship lying in St. Katherine’s
Docks. His defense that he was a foreigner and that in his country such an act was not an
offence was rejected on the ground that the act was an offence under the Indian Penal Code
and that it was committed on an Indian ship which was Indian Territory.
A foreigner, who is a guilty of any offence under this Code, shall be punishable under this
Code, if he has committed any offence in India, although the alleged offence might have not
been an offence in his motherland.

11
West Bengal vs Corporation of Calcutta

The Supreme Court held that state and its bodies are liable to criminal proceedings unless
specifically exempted.

12
State of Maharashtra vs syndicate Transport Company

The Bombay Court held that the body corporate ought to be indictable for criminal acts or
omission its directors or authorised agents or servants, whether or not they involve mens rea.

10
Criminal Law, academia.edu,(October 20, 2019, 9:00 pm) https://www.academia.edu/
Territorial_And_Extra-Territorial_Jurisdiction_Under_The_Indian_Penal_Code_1860

11
Criminal Law Cases, casemine.com,( October 21, 2019, 2:30 pm)
https://www.casemine.com/search/in/territorial%20jurisdiction%20objection.
12
Judgments, Indiankanoon.com, (October 21, 2019, 2:00 pm) https://indiankanoon.org/search/?
formInput=territorial%20jurisdiction+doctypes:judgments

19
13
State of Maharashtra v. Mayer Hans George

a German National left Zurich for Manila by a Swiss Plane with 34 Kilos of gold. He had not
declared it in the manifest for transit. The plane arrived at Bombay. The passenger had
remained in the plane. The Indian custom authorities, on search, recovered the gold carried
by him on his person. He was prosecuted for importing gold into India under the Foreign
Exchange Regulation Act, 1973.

14
FATIMA BIBI AHEMED PATEL VS. STATE OF GUJRAT

In this case the supreme court held that the quote has no application for and offence
committed by a foreigner outside India even though we acquire citizenship letter on.

Appellant Fatima bibi was a citizen of mauritius and her son and daughter-in-law were
residing at kuwait. Appellant had been visiting India on Visas and staying in the India with
her relative in Gujarat. son of appellant Hanif Ahmed Patel was married to the complainant
respondent on 2-42002. the relation between the appellant son and daughter in law became
strained and a complaint petition was filed before the chief judicial magistrate,
Navsari(Gujarat) by complainant respondent (daughter- in- law)Alleging physical and mental
torture by her husband under Section 498A and 506(2) IPC and against the appeal and that
she used to instigate her son accordingly.

15
QUEEN VS. KEYN

In this case the captain of German streamer the "Franconia" was convicted by a lower British
Court of manslaughter. For the death of a passenger caused by a collision that took place
within three miles of the British Coast. The high court dismissed the case on the ground that
although the exercise by the state, jurisdiction over the marine league was evidenced by the
practice of nations and by the statements of writers of authority, parliament had not yet
actually extended the criminal jurisdiction of the courts over the territorial waters in question.
However, consequent on the decision in R. v. Keynis the Territorial Waters Jurisdiction Act

13
Judgments, Indiankanoon.com, (October 21, 2019, 2:00 pm) https://indiankanoon.org/search/?
formInput=territorial%20jurisdiction+doctypes:judgments.
14
Criminal Law Cases, casemine.com,( October 21, 2019, 2:30 pm)
https://www.casemine.com/search/in/territorial%20jurisdiction%20objection.
15
Criminal Law Cases, casemine.com,( October 21, 2019, 2:30 pm)
https://www.casemine.com/search/in/territorial%20jurisdiction%20objection.

20
was passed by British Parliament declaring that all offences committed in territorial waters of
the Queen's dominions were triable by the local courts. This Act which is applicable to India
defines territorial waters as any part of the sea within one marine league (3 miles) of the
coast. Section 7 of the Act defines an 'offence' as follows: " 'offence' as used in this Act
means any act, neglect or default of such description as would, if committed within the body
of a county in England be punishable on indictment according to the law of England for the
time being in force". There has not been any Indian case decided under this Act. The
following problems arise for consideration

Conclusion

JURISDICTION is the important for all offence, Crime had done in the territory or beyond
territory accused liable for the punishment. Many crime held in the society like cheating,
fraud, rapes, murder, dacoity, kidnaping, harassment, breach of contract, etc.

Crime arise in the society and society made law to control on it.

At the present time the crime raised very fast in whole world. The parliament made the new
law and old judgement also overruled by the court for better jurisdiction. As per second done
a crime in the society.

To control the crime, punishment of different crimes decided under the section of the Indian
Penal code. Territorial and Extra-territorial jurisdiction is very wide concept for the crime.
Government made the new law under territorial and extra-territorial jurisdiction for future
regulation of the law.

As a general rule, every offence must be inquired into and tried by the court within whose
jurisdiction it was committed. At the same time however, if any offence is inquired into or
tried by a magistrate who has no territorial jurisdiction over the place of offence, it would
amount to irregularity and the trial would not be vitiated nor the conviction and sentence set
aside on the ground of wrong place of trial unless it has occasioned failure of justice. At the
same time, however, the prosecution cannot choose a wrong court by ignoring the clear
provision of the code. The provision of Section 462 of Cr. P.C. protects proceedings initiated
in a wrong court if failure of justice has not occasioned thereby. But that Section does not
empower the magistrate to proceed with a trial with his eyes open to the fact of want of

21
territorial jurisdiction. Whenever an objection as to jurisdiction of the court is raised, trial
cannot proceed unless that question is decided. If the defect regarding jurisdiction is pointed
out before the commencement of the trial, it should be set right immediately. But if an
objection as to the place of trial is not raised at the preliminary stage, such objection may not
be raised by an appellate or revisional court if no prejudice is caused to the accused. Finally it
should be remembered that the court has to decide the question of jurisdiction with reference
to the facts stated, allegations levelled and averments made in the complaint and charge-sheet
not on the basis of the defense of the accused. But the facts are positively disproved or the
court is satisfied that it has no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint, the court will have to
return the complaint to the complainant for the presentation to the proper court.

Bibliography

1. Ratan Lal& DhirajLal, The Indian Penal Code,36th edn.

2. R. N Saxena, Indian Penal Code.
3. Prof. S.N Misra, Indian Penal Code.

22
4. CriminalLawCases,casemine.com,https://www.casemine.com/search/in/territorial
%20jurisdiction%20objection
5. Judgments,Indiankanoon.com,https://indiankanoon.org/search/?formInput=territorial
%20jurisdiction+doctypes:judgments.
6. JathaMalii& Chopra’s, The Indian Penal Code.
7. Prof. N.V Paranjape, Indian Penal Code.

23