PLACE OF INQUIRIES AND TRIALS

SUBMITTED BY: SUBMITTED TO:

MANJEET KUMAR DR. SHRUTI GOYAL

ASSISTANT PROFESSOR OF LAW
ROLL NO. 18106

GROUP NO. 18

RAJIV GANDHI NATIONAL UNIVERSITY OF LAW,

PUNJAB

09 AUGUST, 2021
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

On completion of this project it is my present privilege to

acknowledge my heartfelt gratitude and indebtedness
towards my teachers for their valuable suggestion and
constructive criticism. Their precious guidance and
unrelenting support kept me on the right path throughout
the whole project and very much thankful to my teacher in
charge and project coordinators for giving me this
relevant and knowledgeable topic.

I wish to express my sincere gratitude to my teacher Dr.

Shruti Goyal ma’am for their guidance and encouragement
in carrying out this project work.

I also wish to express my thanks to my group members and my

friends for their ideas because of which this project became more
captivating. I am also thankful to my institution library for
providing a broad range of books to learn more.
RAJIV GANDHI NATIONAL UNIVERSITY OF
LAW, PUNJAB

SUPERVISOR’S CERTIFICATE

Dr. Shruti Goyal Patiala

(Punjab)
Date:09
August

Rajiv Gandhi National University of Law

Punjab

This is to certify that the Dissertation titled Place of Inquiries

and Trials , submitted to Rajiv Gandhi National University
of Law, Patiala in partial fulfilment of the requirement of the
B.A.LLB (Hons.). Course is an original and bona fide
research work carried out by Mr. Manjeet Kumar under my
supervision and guidance. No part of this project has been
submitted to any University for the award of any Degree or
Diploma, whatsoever.

Dr. Shruti Goyal

 CONTENTS
1. INTRODUCTION ……………….……………………………

2. JURISDICTION OF THE CRIMINAL COURTS IN

INQUIRIES AND TRIALS……………………………………

3. PLACE OF TRIAL, WHEN THE PLACE OF AN OFFENCE

COMMITTED AND CONSEQUENCES ENSURED ARE
DIFFERENT…………………………………………………….

4. PLACE OF TRIAL, WHEN ACT IS AN OFFENCE BY ITS

RELATION WITH OTHER OFFENCE

5. PLACE OF TRIAL IN CASE OF CERTAIN OFFENCES …

6. PLACE OF TRIALS FOR VARIOUS OFFENCES……….….

 Offences committed by letters
 Offences committed on a journey or voyage
 Offences committed outside India

7. CONCLUSION…………………………………………………..
1.INTRODUCTON
Inquiry: As per Section 2(g) inquiry is every request other than a trial, investigated by a
Magistrate or Court.
Local Jurisdiction: Section 2(j) defines local jurisdiction as the local area within which a
court or Magistrate can exercise all or any of its or his power under this Code.

Of all the branches of law, criminal law is the most important branch of law, because it
closely touches and concerns man in his day-today affairs. From the beginning of the human
civilization the human society has prescribed a code of conduct for its members. Any act or
anti-social behavior which will violate the code of conduct and will reduce human happiness
is considered as crime. But violations are bound to occur and crime is inevitable. It is the
responsibility of the state to protect the members of the society from any antisocial behaviour
and hence the state makes criminal laws with the object to protect the society from the
criminals. The Criminal law occupies a predominant place among the agencies of social
control. But when a person commits a crime he is not automatically punished or he himself
will not come and confess that has committed a crime and accept punishment. There must be
a procedure to enforce the criminal law. The offender must be brought before the court and
his guilt must be proved. For this process the procedural criminal law is necessary. However,
the nature of most criminal punishment is such that it confines the individual liberty of a
person. Imprisonment, if illegal, violates some of the most basic freedoms and rights
associated with a democracy. Thus, we need a law that sets the state’s machinery running
with respect to enforcing law and order and imparting justice, and regulates the procedure
followed by these institutions. The Criminal procedure code refers to the working of these
institutions for the entire time period between when a crime has been committed until the
time the sentence against the crime is passed and the case is closed. It refers to the machinery
to be adopted by the State when a violation of the penal law, i.e., offence under the Indian
Penal Code, has been detected or reported. It also lays down the principles and procedure that
must be followed while prosecuting and adjudicating other claims. The investigation, inquiry
and trial of the other offences are also governed by these provisions, subject to any other law
that may be in force which regulates the manner of investigation, inquiry or trial of the
matter.1 The Criminal Procedure Code is designed to look after the process of the
administration and enforcement of the Criminal law. The Criminal procedure is an
inseparable part of the penal law. Without the Criminal procedure code the substantive
criminal law will become worthless and meaningless. Our law of criminal procedure is
mainly contained in the code of criminal procedure 1973. It provides the machinery for the
detection of crime, apprehension of suspected criminals, collection of evidence,
determination of the guilt or innocence of the suspected person and the imposition of suitable
punishment on the guilty person. The object, purpose, or design of all procedural law is to
further the ends of justice and not to frustrate them by the introduction of endless
technicalities.

The object of the Code is to ensure that an accused person gets a full and fair trial along
certain well established and well under stood lines that accord with notions of natural justice.
Where an accused is tried by a Court, the court must be a competent court under the law
vested with jurisdiction to try such cases, the accused must be told and made to understand
the nature of the offence of which he is being tried, his plea is recorded, he is provided with
full and fair opportunity to defend himself against the charge, it is substantial compliance of
the outward form of law. And where the accused alleges and shows substantial prejudice
caused to him the compliance of law is not substantial. In the former case, if there is an error
or omission in the trial it is called a curable irregularity which does not vitiate the trial. In the
later case where prejudice is caused to the accused and it is a substantial prejudice, such
error, omission or mistake in trial is called incurable illegality and the consequence of it is
vitiating the trial. Justice is to be done and not denied. Justice is to be shown to have been
done according to law and it is not sacrificed at the altar of the procedure.1

2. JURISDICTION OF THE CRIMINAL COURTS IN

INQUIRIES AND TRIALSASSIGNMENT

Section. 177 : Ordinary place of inquiry and trial.

This section is meant for the facility of both, the prosecution and the defence who can
conveniently attend trial if it is held in the Court of their locality.
The provision of this section regarding the place of inquiry and trial is applicable to trials
whether held under the Code or under any local or special laws. The words “ordinarily” used

1
Object and purpose of the Code of Criminal Procedure, available at: https://www.academia.edu/ (Visited on
november 1, 2019
in the section clearly suggests that the provisions are not exclusive and there are certain other
special provisions in the Code itself which provide for alternative venues for inquiry and trial
for certain offences.

The place of inquiry or trial of an offence is generally dependent as to where and how the
offence was committed as gathered from the contents of the complaint or the police report,
i.e., the charge-sheet. In absence of any positive proof to the contrary, the Court will be
presumed to have jurisdiction on the basis of facts made out by averments.
Generally, a Magistrate within whose local jurisdiction the offence is committed is authorised
to take cognizance and try the case or commit it to the Court of Session. The subsequent
transfer of locality to another district does not oust the jurisdiction of the Magistrate. Where
the offence consists of different acts done in different places such as conspiracy, it may be
inquired into or tried by a Court having jurisdiction over any such place. In Defamation cases
the Trial Court has the jurisdiction to go into the merits of issue pertaining to territorial
jurisdiction.

K.M. Mathew v. K. Abraham,2

In respect of a defamation case against a newspaper for publishing a defamatory article in the
newspaper, if the newspaper is printed and published at one place and circulated at another
place, the Court within jurisdiction of which the newspaper is circulated has also the
jurisdiction to entertain the case.

Offence under section 498A IPC : Complaint filed by a wife against the cruelty by husband
under Section 498-A cannot be entertamed by the Court situate at the place of her parent’s
residence as no part of alleged cruelty or harassment arose within the jurisdiction of that
Court.
Bhora Ram v. State of Rajasthan ,3
All the alleged acts as per the complaint had taken place in the State of Punjab. But the
complaint was filed in Sri Ganganagar in the State of Rajasthan against the appellant and
challan was filed before the A.C.J.M., Ganganagar who framed charges against the appellants
under ss. 498A and 406 I.P.C. But no part of cause of act ion took place at Sri Ganganagar
even if they were then residing at Sri Ganganagar. The Court of Sri Ganganagar had no

2
K.M. Mathew v. K. Abraham, 1998 CrLJ 327Ker
3
Bhora Ram v. State of Rajasthan , AIR 2008 SC 2666 : (2008) 4 SCC 103 : 2008 CrLJ 3496
jurisdiction to try the case. So, the Supreme Court quashed the proceedings pending before
the A.C.J.M., Sri Ganganagar, granting liberty to the complainant to file the complaint to
appropriate Court in the State of Punjab.

In such cases only Magistrate of the place or places where the wife was actually subjected to
cruelty shall have territorial jurisdiction to try the case.
Bigamy ( S.494, I.P.C) : In such cases, a complaint against the husband by wife, when she
was residing with her parents, it was held that Court having jurisdiction over the place of
wife’s residence (parents) could entertain the complaint as Section 177 was covered by
Section 182 (2).

S. Karan Singh v. S, Jatinder,4

When the second marriage has taken place at 'B', the Court at place 'B' can conduct the
enquiry and trial of the offence of bigamy. But the Court at place 'J' where the complainant
first wife is residing there at present has no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint of bigamy.

Any High Court, in exercise of its power under Section 407 may order that any offence be
inquired into or tried by any Court not otherwise empowered under Sections 177 to 185.

Section 178: Place of inquiry or trial:

a) When it is uncertain in which of several local areas an offence was committed, or
b) where an offence is committed, partly in one local area and partly in another, or
c) where an offence, is a continuing one, and continues to be committed in more
local areas than one, or
d) where it consists of several acts done in different local areas, it may be inquired
into or tried by a Court having jurisdiction over any of such local areas.

The section is primarily intended to resolve the difficulty that may arise where there is a
conflict as to jurisdiction of the Courts situated in different areas in order to prevent an
accused person getting off because of the doubt as to which Court (Magistrate) has the
jurisdiction to try the case.

Section 178(a): UNCERTAINITY –

4
S. Karan Singh v. S, Jatinder, 2007 CrLJ 2588 (J & K).
A person charged with offence of breach of trust either at a place X, Y or Z but it is uncertain
at which particular place he actually committed the offence. As per Section 178 (a), he may
be tried at any of these places. Same rule may also be applicable for the offence of criminal
conspiracy if it is not certain as to exactly at what place it was hatched.

Section 178(b): OFFENCE PARTLY COMMITED IN ONE LOCAL AREA AND PARTLY
IN OTHER-
Where an offence is commenced within the local jurisdiction of one Court and completed
within the local jurisdiction of another Court, such an offence may be tried by either of the
two Courts.

Section 178(c): CONTINUING OFFENCE-

A conspiracy to commit an offence has been treated as a continuing offence. Again,
abduction is a continuing offence but kidnapping is not a continuing offence. Travelling
without a valid passport has been treated as a continuing offence.

5
Mohd. Daud v. Superintendent
In this case, District Jail, Moradabad, the accused was initially arrested and detained in
Maharashtra for an offence under NDPS Act. Subsequently he was brought to Moradabad in
U.P. in connection with another case. On being acquitted in Sessions trial at Moradabad, he
challenged the validity of his arrest and detention in Maharashtra in the High Court of
Allahabad.

The High Court held that the Allahabad High Court had no jurisdiction under Section 178 to
declare the arrest and detention of the accused under NDPS Act in Maharashtra as illegal,
because it constitutes an altogether different offence having no nexus with his detention at
Moradabad. It was beyond the jurisdiction of the High Court of Allahabad to decide the
legality of an arrest or detention for an offence which was committed in Maharashtra.

Section 178(d): SEVERAL ACTS CONSTITUTING THE OFFENCE DONE IN

DIFFERENT LOCAL AREAS:

5
Mohd. Daud v. Superintendent 1993 CriLJ 1358.
Where an offence consists of several acts done in different local areas, it may be inquired into
or tried by a court having jurisdiction over any of such local areas.6

3.PLACE OF TRIAL, WHEN THE PLACE OF AN

OFFENCE COMMITTED AND CONSEQUENCES
ENSURED ARE DIFFERENT

Section 179: Offence triable where act is done or consequence ensues. When an act is
an offence by reason of anything which has been done and of a consequence which has
ensued, the offence may be inquired into or tried by a Court within whose local
jurisdiction such thing has been done or such consequence has ensued.

This section prescribes the venue of the trial of cases in which a person is accused of an
offence by reason of some act done by him and of some consequences that have ensued from
such act. In such cases, the offence can be inquired into or tried by any Court within the local
limits of whose jurisdiction the act was committed or consequences ensued.
The offences contemplated under this section are those which are not complete till a special
consequence has ensued. Thus “consequences” constitute the essential ingredient of the
offence to be covered under this section.

The section, however, does not extend to offence punishable under Section 376, IPC. The
cases of cheating, deception , dishonestly inducing delivery of property etc. may be covered
under this section and either of the Courts from whose jurisdiction they were committed and
in whose jurisdiction its consequences ensues shall have jurisdiction to try such cases.

However, the question of Court’s jurisdiction in cases involving the offence of criminal
breach of trust and criminal misappropriation of property is to be governed by Section 181
(4) of the Code.

6
R.v. kelkar’s , Criminal Procedure, EBC publishing (P) Ltd, Lucknow, Sixth edition (2019)
Mubarak Ali v. State of Bombay,7
In this case, the accused from Karanchi made false representations to the complainant at
Bombay through letters, telegrams and telephone talks as a consequence of which the
complainant parted with money at Bombay on the faith of such representations.
The Supreme Court held that the entire offence took place at Bombay and that the
representations, though made from Karanchi, were made at Bombay and, therefore, the
Bombay Court had the jurisdiction to try the case of cheating.

Purushottam Das Dalmia v. State of West Bengal,8

In this case, the Supreme Court held that the Court having the jurisdiction to try the offence
of conspiracy also has the jurisdiction to try an offence constituted by the overt acts which
are committed in pursuance of the conspiracy beyond its jurisdiction and all the offences can
be tried together jointly by the Court trying the offence of conspiracy.
Where the wife was tortured at her husband’s place in Hoogly and she fell ill as a
consequence of such torture at her father’s place at Howrah, the Court at Howrah had the
jurisdiction to try the case under Section 498-A of IPC.

State of Madhya Pradesh v. Suresh Kaushal,9

In this case, the allegations were that wife was subjected to physical torture when she was
pregnant and she had to be taken back to her parental home at place J. Due to beating,
miscarriage took place at J.
The High Court held that Court at J had the jurisdiction to try the offence. The plea of the
accused that since acts alleged against him took place at I, where couple resided after
marriage and hence Court at J had no jurisdiction was, rejected by the High Court.

K. Satwant Singh v. State of Punjab,10

The Supreme Court had held in this case, that where the act of misrepresentation by the
accused was done at one place and consequent delivery of property took at another place, the
accused could be tried for the offence of cheating by Court at either of these two places.
Where the accused kidnapped a girl from a village within the jurisdiction of one Court and
actually committed a rape on her in another village within the jurisdiction of another Court, it
7
Mubarak Ali v. State of Bombay , AIR 1957 SC 857
8
Purushottam Das Dalmia v. State of West Bengal , 1961 AIR 1589, 1962 SCR (2) 101
9
State of Madhya Pradesh v. Suresh Kaushal, (2003) 11 SCC 126
10
K. Satwant Singh v. State of Punjab, 1960 AIR 266, 1960 SCR (2) 89
was held that the provisions of Section 179 of the Code were not attracted because the
consequence of rape was not an essential part of the offence of kidnapping.

As regards the offence of defamation, the Court of the place where the defamatory letter was
written and posted or the place where it was received or read has the jurisdiction to inquire
into or try the case.

Subramaniam Swamy v. P.S. Pai,11

In this case, the alleged defamatory statement was made by the accused in a press conference
at Chandigarh, and that statement was published in a newspaper which was published and
circulated in Bombay. It was held that since consequence was completed at Bombay, hence
both the Courts at Bombay and Chandigarh would have the jurisdiction to entertain the
complaint and the complainant could move either of these Courts.

Where the manufacture of substandard fertilizer was done at one place and its sale at another,
the manufacturer could be tried for an offence under the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 by
the Court at the place of sale of the fertilizer.

Where any Magistrate of the First Class has the power to take cognizance of any offence, no
matter that the offence is committed within his territorial jurisdiction or not, it was held that
the complaint cannot be quashed on the ground of territorial jurisdiction of the Court.

4. PLACE OF TRIAL, WHEN ACT IS AN OFFENCE

BY ITS RELATION WITH OTHER OFFENCE
Section 180: Place of trial where act is an offence by reason of relation to other offence.
When an act is an offence by reason of its relation to any other act which is also an
offence or which would be an offence if the doer were capable of committing an offence,
the first-mentioned offence may be inquired into or tried by a Court within whose local
jurisdiction either act was done.

The simplest illustration to explain the provisions of this section is an offence of abetment. A
charge of abetment may be inquired into or tried either by the Court within whose local
11
Subramaniam Swamy v. P.S. Pai, 1983 (2) BomCR 129
jurisdiction the abetment was committed or by the Court within whose local jurisdiction the
offence abetted was committed. But if the offence abetted is not actually committed, then the
charge of abetment can be tried only at the place where it has been committed.

Likewise, a charge of receiving or retaining stolen property may be inquired into or tried
either by the Court within whose jurisdiction the property was stolen or by any Court within
whose local jurisdiction any of such property was at any time dishonestly received or
retained.

But so far as the offence of theft (i.e., stealing property or goods) is concerned, it can be tried
only at a place where the theft was actually committed and not at the place of receiving or
retaining the stolen property or goods unless by virtue of special provisions contained
elsewhere in the Code, it has been made possible, such as Section 181 (3) in case of theft.12

5. PLACE OF TRIAL IN CASE OF CERTAIN

OFFENCES
Section 181: Place of trial in case of certain offences.

The section provides for alternative local jurisdictions as to inquiry or trial in respect of
certain offences mentioned in sub-sections (1) to (5) of the section. These offences are
1. Being a thug (Section 311 IPC) or murder committed by a thug
2. Dacoity (Section 335 IPC) belonging to a gang of dacoits or dacoity with murder
(Section 302 IPC)
3. Escape from custody (Section 274 IPC)
4. Kidnapping (Sections 359, 360 & 361 IPC)
5. Abduction (Section 362 IPC)
6. Theft (Section 378 IPC)
7. Extortion (Section 383 IPC)
8. robbery (Section 390 IPC)
9. Criminal misappropriation (Section 403 IPC)
10. Criminal breach of trust (Section 406 IPC) and
11. Possession of stolen property (Section 410 IPC)
12
Places of Trial, http://lawtimesjournal.in/charge-under-crpc/( last visited on 13 November 2019)
12. Cheating
13. Forgery (415) (463 IPC), etc.

The offence of criminal breach of trust can be tried either in a Court within whose
jurisdiction the offence was committed; or where any part of property, which was the subject
matter of the offence, was received or retained; or at the place where property was required to
be returned or accounted for by the accused.

In cases where it is not known to the complainant as to where the misappropriation actually
occurred, jurisdiction will lie to the Court at the place where the property had to be delivered.

Asit Bhattacharjee v. Hanuman Prasad Ojha and others13

The Supreme Court in this case of has clarified that offences of cheating and criminal mis-
appropriation can be tried and investigated at the place where fraudulent representation is
made or where property had been entrusted or was to be accounted for.
Thus where the complainant company was having its business at place ‘C* in one state and
the charges for offences under Sections 420, 406, 120-B, etc. committed by company’s agent
in another state, the Police at “C’ place will have jurisdiction to investigate as the
reconciliation of accounts took place at C, notwithstanding the fact that major part of offence
took place in another state.

6. PLACE OF TRIALS FOR VARIOUS OFFENCES

Section 182 : Offences committed by letters, etc.

Section 182(1) Cheating-

It deals with the offence of cheating when it is committed through the post or telegram or
telephone.
Provision of s. 182 as dealing with those cases where deception is practiced by letters or
telecommunication messages. Such cases are classified into two:
(i) The earlier part covered all cases of deception by letters or telecommunication
messages, and

13
Asit Bhattacharjee v. Hanuman Prasad Ojha and others, 2007 CRI LJ 3181
(ii) The letter part was confined to such deception by letters or telecommunication
messages where, in addition to deception, property is also delivered to the offender.
It must be remembered that section 415, I.P.C. has been recognized to deal with two distinct
classes of offences of cheating:
(i) Where property is delivered and
(ii) Where property is not delivered, but an act or omission is done in addition to the
practice of deception in both cases.
Dealing with the cases of cheating generally by letters or telecommunication messages, the
earlier part of s. 182, CrPC leaves option with the complainant to choose his forum out of any
of the two places, viz. , the Court within whose local jurisdiction the letters or messages were
either sent, or received; but in those particular cases of cheating where delivery of goods is
also made in consequence of deception by letters or telecommunication messages, the
jurisdiction is confined to the Court within whose local jurisdiction the goods are delivered.
But in either case , the deception must be practised by letters or telecommunication
messages.

Sub section (2): Bigamy-

The jurisdiction to try the offence of bigamy has been widened by the amendment of sub-sec.
(2) by Act 45 of 1978. In a case of bigamy, under s. 494 or 495 I.P.C.,any of the following
Courts have territorial jurisdiction to inquire into or try the offender--
a) The Court within whose jurisdiction the second marriage took place;
b) The Court within whose jurisdiction the offender last resided with his or her spouse
by the first marriage;
c) The Court within whose jurisdiction the wife by the first marriage has taken up
permanent residence offer the commission of the offence. 37

When after the husband committed the offence of bigamy, the first wife took her residence at
her father's house, the Court of that place will have the jurisdiction to enquire into or try the
offence of bigamy filed by the first wife.
However, even where the first wife had living in her father's house from the offence
committed by the husband, the Court of that place would have the jurisdiction in view of s.
182Cr.P.C. as amended by the Amendment Act of 1978.
In order that the Court within whose local jurisdiction the offender resided with his or her
first spouse must mean the place where the accused last resided with the first spouse at the
time of commission of the offence of bigamy. The place when the spouse with the other
spouse was living prior to the commission of the offence of bigamy and not at the time of
commission of the offence of bigamy would have no jurisdiction to enquire into or try the
offence.

The impact of the amended provision of section. 182 CrPC. is that the Court within whose
local jurisdiction the offence took place or where the offender last resided with his or her
spouse by first marriage would have the jurisdiction. So, when the first wife last resided with
her husband at Warud from which she deserted her husband, the Court of Warud would have
the jurisdiction to try the offence of bigamy also, apart from the place when the offence of
bigamy took place.14

Section 183: Offence committed on journey or voyage-

In case of offences committed during journey or voyage it is generally not known as to at

what exact place the offence was actually committed. Therefore, determination of the
jurisdiction of Court in such cases might create some doubts, problems or difficulties which
are intended to be resolved by the provision of this section.
The section provides that the Court having local jurisdiction at the place of termination of the
journey is also competent to inquire into or try the accused for an offence committed in
course of a journey.

The provisions of this section are applicable only when the journey is continuous and
uninterrupted and the section applies only for trial of offences committed in India and not
abroad.

In a case, where a quarrel took place on a running train between Shahjahanpur and
Moradabad and the accused got down at Moradabad, but the complainant terminated his
journey at Jallundhar, where he files the complaint against the accused, it was held that the
Jallundhar Court had the jurisdiction to try the case as per the provision contained in Section
183 of the Code.
14
Saroj v. Ganesh, 2007 CrLJ NOC 101Bom .
Section 184: Place of trial of offences triable together-

When an accused person under Section 219,220 or 221 can be charged with and tried at one
trial for all or more offense, it is but reasonable to assume that the venue for the trial can be
laid in any local jurisdiction within which any of those offences may be inquired into or tried
under the above mentioned rules of chapter 13 of the code. Similarly when two or more
persons may be charged with and tried together for different offences under section 223, the
prosecution would have similar choice of venue for the trial.

Apart from the rule contained in section 184, it would be obvious that the provision of
section 223 is not controlled by section 177. It has been observed that there should be no
reason why the provision of section 219 to 223 might not also provide exceptions to section
177, if they do permit the trial of a particular offence along with others in one court.15

Section 188: Power to inquire into and try offences committed outside India-

According to Section 188 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, when an offence is committed
outside India by a citizen of India, whether on the high seas or elsewhere, or by any 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 committed at any place within India at which he may
be found.
However, 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.

Section 188 of the Code provides for the necessary procedural complement to Section 4 of
the Indian Penal Code and other penal laws have extra territorial application Section 188 of
the Code refers to crimes committed beyond the limits of India. The object of requiring the
sanction of the Central Government appears to be to prevent the accused person being tried
over again for the same offence in two different places.

15
Supra note 6 at p.g 213
The Central Government may refuse to extradite the offender if he is wanted for being tried
in a foreign country subsequent to his trial in an Indian Court or by refusing to sanction a
prosecution against him if he has already been tried in a foreign country in respect of the
same offence. Section 188 of the Code does not apply to an offence committed by a foreigner
outside Indian Territory though he may subsequently be found in India.

7. CONCLUSION
Whenever an offence is committed, the first question which arises is that in whose
jurisdiction the offence would fall. The jurisdictional issue is the most important issue which
needs to be resolved so that the proceedings can begin without any hindrance. Sections 177-
189 deals with the concept of jurisdiction. Under normal circumstances, the case shall be
inquired and tried by a court under whose jurisdiction the offence has been committed.

However, there are certain cases where more than one Court has the power to inquire and try
the cases. Such issues have been explicitly dealt with by the provisions of the Code of
Criminal Procedure. The Code also mentions the circumstances when the offence is
committed by an Indian citizen in a foreign country or by a foreign travelling in an aircraft or
ship registered in India. The courts need to consider all the factors governing the jurisdiction
and begin with the proceedings after referring to the Code of Criminal Procedure.