JURISDICTION

OF IPC

SUBMITTED TO- DR. ANJU

CHOADHARY

SUBMITTED BY- RIYA

SECTION-F
349/19
BCOMLLB
 INDEX
1. Acknowledgement

2. Introduction

3. Brief background

4. Intra-territorial jurisdiction

5. Persons exempted from Indian Penal Code,1860

6. Extra-territorial Jurisdiction

7. Admiralty Jurisdiction

8. Analysis

9. Conclusion
Acknowledgement

I would like to express my special thanks of gratitude to Prof.

Dr. Anju Choadhary, my project in charge, who guided me
through the project gave valuable suggestions and guidance
for the completion of this project. She helped me to
understand the intricate issues in project making besides
effectively presenting it. My project has been a success only
because of his constant guidance. I am highly indebted to
Prof. Rajinder Kaur, Director, University Institute of Legal
Studies, for providing me with the opportunity to be able to
make this project. I would like to express my gratitude
towards my parents & friends for their kind co-operation and
encouragement which helped me in completing this project.
Introduction
Jurisdiction can be defined as the limit within which the Court
of law can exercise its powers concerning suits, appeals,
actions, proceedings, etc.
Jurisdiction is an aspect of state sovereignty, and it refers to
judicial, legislative, and administrative competence.
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-
a) Inherent jurisdiction, it is meant that the court is not
empowered to try the case,
b) Local jurisdiction means the limit of the area in which the
court can exercise its power. The lex fori or law of jurisdiction
controls all matters pertaining to remedial as distinguished
from substantive rights. If the question of jurisdiction is raised
the trial can be commenced after deciding that question.
The Indian Penal Code, 1860 is one of the most
comprehensive penal code anywhere in the world. It applies
all over India except in the territory of Jammu and Kashmir.
However, in certain cases, IPC may have extraterritorial
jurisdiction as well.
Under Indian Law, there are 5 types of jurisdictions:
Subject-matter Jurisdiction – This type places a limit on
Courts to exercise their powers over a particular type of case
or a particular subject matter.
Territorial Jurisdiction – This type places a limit on
Courts to exercise their powers within a territorial limit.
Pecuniary Jurisdiction – This type deals with limitation
of Courts regarding the monetary value or cost of suits or
cases.
Original Jurisdiction – This type allows Courts to hear
new cases that have been initiated.
Appellate Jurisdiction – This type allows Courts to re-
hear or review judgments given by lower courts.

Brief Background
Section 1 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC)[ states
that the Code would apply to the whole of India. With the
2019 Judgment of the Supreme Court regarding Article 370 of
the Indian Constitution, the IPC would also apply to the state
of Jammu and Kashmir.
However, the IPC does not mention that it would apply only
to citizens of India. This is interesting to note as other Acts
and legal provisions state otherwise. Sections 2, 3 and 4 of the
IPC lay down the provisions for intra-territorial and extra-
territorial jurisdiction of the IPC.
However, the IPC is not the only legal provision that deals
with this. The Code of Criminal Procedure, (CrPC) and the
Informational Technology Act, 2000 (IT Act) also lays down
provisions of their extra-territorial jurisdiction.
Under the IPC, intra-territorial jurisdictions deal with crimes
and offences committed by anyone within the territory of
India. Therefore, anyone who commits a crime within the
territory of India as mentioned under Article 1 of the Indian
Constitution, will be liable for punishment under the IPC.

Intra-Territorial
Jurisdiction
Section 2 of the IPC states that “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.”

In essence, these are the following essentials of Section 2 of

the IPC:

 An offence must be committed by any person. This

means that it is not necessary for the person to be a
citizen of India. As long as a person is within the
territories of the Indian subcontinent, they shall be liable
under this Code.
  The person will be liable only under this Code and not
otherwise. This means that intra-territorial jurisdiction
under this Code only applies to offences committed
under the IPC and does not hold persons liable for
offences committed under other Indian laws.
 The person should have committed some act or omission
as per the provisions of this Code. This is in connection
with the previous essential that only for acts or omissions
committed under the IPC, the person shall be liable.
 The person will be guilty of the offences committed
within India. They will only be held accountable in India
for their actions or omissions that were committed in
India as per the IPC.
The two main aspects of this Section are:
Every wrongdoer is liable for punishment under this Code,
irrespective of caste, creed, nationality, or rank, as long as the
offence is committed within the territory of India.

A foreigner is also liable for punishment under this Code if

he commits any act or omission within the territory of India,
irrespective of whether the act or omission is an offence in
their native country.
In the landmark case of R v. Esop, the accused was charged
for the unnatural offence that he committed in India, and he
defended himself with the fact that he was not a native of
India but of Baghdad, where the action did not amount to an
offence. However, the Court rejected this defence and
convicted him for an unnatural offence.
In another case of State of Maharashtra v. M.H. George, a
German national was travelling to Manila with 34kg of gold,
which he failed to declare in the manifest for transit. The plan
arrived in Bombay and the Indian Customs on search
recovered the gold and prosecuted him under the Foreign
Exchange Regulation Act. The Supreme Court of India held
that, even though the man remained on the plan, he cannot be
exempted from conviction on the plea of ignorance of the law
and convicted him under the said Act.

The term ‘territory of India’ includes two types of

territories:

Geographical territory – Article 1 of the Indian

Constitution states that the territory of India includes the
territories of the States, the union territories specified in the
First Schedule and such other territories as may be acquired.

Maritime Territory – An area of 12 nautical miles

calculated from the appropriate baseline is known as territorial
waters and marks the maritime territory of India. Territorial
waters are regarded as the Sovereign territory of the State. For
example, if an offence is committed within 12 nautical miles
in the sea from the coast of Mumbai, then the appropriate
Court of Mumbai would have jurisdiction over this matter.
Persons Exempted from
Indian Penal Code, 1860
The Indian Penal Code exempts certain officers and persons
of rank from liability under the Code.

Presidents and Governors – The Presidents of countries and

Governors of states are exempted from the jurisdiction of
Criminal Courts as per Article 361 of the Constitution of
India.

Foreign Sovereigns – Foreign Sovereigns are exempted

from this Code, as they are said to absolute independent
authorities and an exercise of criminal jurisdiction on them
would be incompatible with their dignity.

Ambassadors and Diplomats – An Ambassador of a

country is the representative of a Foreign Sovereign and
enjoys the same immunity as that of the Sovereign.
Ambassadors and Diplomats are provided immunity under the
United Nations (Privileges and Immunities) Act, 1947 and the
Diplomatic Relations (Vienna Convention) Act, 1972.

Alien Enemies – For any act committed in respect of war,

Alien Enemies would not be liable under the IPC and for
them, Martial Law would be applicable. However, Alien
Enemies would be liable for offences committed under the
IPC that are not in relation to war, such as theft or robbery.

Foreign Army – Foreign Army personnel who have entered

the territory of India with the permission of the Government
of India would be exempted from the jurisdiction of criminal
courts.

Warships – Warships of a State enjoy immunity from

criminal liability on the territory of another country on the
ground that it is the property of a Sovereign, and not subject
to the legal process of another country.

Extra-Territorial Jurisdiction
Section 3 of the Indian Penal Code states that “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.”
The following are the essentials of this Section:
 A person must be liable under Indian law. Therefore, a
citizen of India or any foreigner who is bound under
Indian law is bound by Section 3 of the IPC.
  The offence must be committed beyond the territory of
India, either geographical or marine. Such persons shall
be bound by Indian law for any offence committed
outside India, as though the offence was committed
within India.
In the case of Mobarak Ali v. The State of Bombay, a
Pakistani national made false representations from Karachi to
a man in Bombay on the pretext that he had a stock of rice and
on receipt of money, he would ship the rice. However, no
shipment was made after the complainant paid the amount. On
arrest, the accused claimed that he was in Pakistan at the time
of the offence and therefore, he cannot be held liable for his
actions. The Court held that though the offence was
committed in Bombay and that he was not present in Bombay
at the time of the commission of the offence, he would still be
held liable.

Section 4 of the Indian Penal Code states that

“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 targeting a computer resource located in
India.
Explanation. —In this section—
(a) the word “offence” includes every act committed outside
India which, if committed in India, would be punishable under
this Code.
(b) 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 (21 of
2000).”
Section 4 lays down the persons who shall be liable under
extra-territorial jurisdiction of Criminal Courts. Such persons
include:
Any citizen of India, who may be within or outside the
territory of India.
In the case of Remia v. Sub-Inspector of Police, the accused,
an Indian citizen, murdered another Indian citizen in Sharjah,
UAE. After the Police refused to file an FIR as they believed
to not have jurisdiction over the case, the Court directed the
Police to file an FIR.
Any person, citizen or foreigner, on a ship or aircraft within or
outside the territory of India that is registered in India.

Such jurisdiction can be exercised in the following cases:

· When the offence is committed on an Indian ship.
· When the offence is committed on a foreign ship in
Indian territorial waters.
· When the offence amounts to piracy jure gentium which
consists of any illegal act of violence, detention or
depredation committed for private needs, by persons onboard
a private ship or private aircraft, and which is directed against
a ship or persons or property on the high seas. Admiralty
jurisdiction shall apply in such cases.
· When the offence is committed in an aircraft, registered
in India, wherever it is located.
Any person, citizen or foreigner, who may be within or
outside the territory of India, who targets a computer resource
in India.
This provision was included by the Information Technology
(Amendment) Act in 2008.

Admiralty Jurisdiction
Admiralty Jurisdiction is the jurisdiction which confers the
power on Courts to try offences which are committed on high
seas. This type of jurisdiction was introduced by various
statutes such as the Admiralty Offences Act, 1849, Colonial
Courts of Admiralty Act 1890 with the Indian Colonial Courts
of Admiralty Act 1891, and the Merchant Shipping Act, 1894.
The principle behind this jurisdiction is the notion that a ship
which floats on the high seas is like a floating island.
Admiralty jurisdiction can be exercised in the following cases:
 Offences which are committed on Indian ships on high
seas.
 Offences which are committed on foreign ships within
Indian territorial waters.
In the landmark case of the Republic of Italy through
Ambassador v. Union of India, two Indian fishermen were
killed off the coast of Kerala aboard the St. Antony, after they
were fired upon by Italian marines on board the Italian ship,
Enrica Lexie. The incident occurred at 20.5 Nautical Miles off
the Indian Coast, within the contiguous zone area of India’s
Exclusive Economic Zone. Indian Coast Guard got hold of
Enrica Lexie near the Lakshadweep Islands and compelled it
to proceed to Kochi. Subsequently, two Italian Marines were
arrested and charged for the offence of murder.
Italy challenged the arrest before the Court alleging that India
has no jurisdiction to try the case at the very first instance, as
the incident did not happen on the territorial waters of India
but on international waters. Italy cited Article 97 of the United
Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), which
stated that “In the event of a collision or any other incident of
navigation concerning a ship on the high seas, only the flag
state of that ship can launch penal proceedings”.
However, India based its jurisdictional claims on domestic
legislation, which confers jurisdiction upon Indian Courts to
try any person, citizen, or foreigner, in respect of an offence
committed on board a ship registered in India. The Court held
that as per the notice by the Indian Government issued in
pursuant of the Convention on the Law of the Sea, India has
jurisdiction, and thus, the case can be triable in India. The
Court also held that only the Indian Government and not the
Kerala Government can exercise this jurisdiction.
Analysis
Section 2 of the IPC states that any person who commits any
act or omission contrary to the provisions given under the
Code would be punished only according to the provisions of
the IPC. This provision was included in the Code at a time
when India had various laws in force which were difficult to
regulate. In today’s time, when those laws have been repealed,
having such a provision has become redundant.
As mentioned before, there are two main types of intra-
territorial jurisdiction, namely, geographical, and maritime
jurisdiction. However, there is no specific provision that states
whether maritime territories would be included within the
territory of India or beyond the territory of India. Section 18
of the Code provides that territory of India includes the whole
of India, except the state of Jammu and Kashmir. However, it
does not specify as to whether territorial waters would be
included within this ambit. Although Courts have decided
otherwise, a formal provision is needed to understand the
scope of intra-territorial jurisdiction as well as extra-territorial
jurisdiction.
Section 4 of the Code applies to offences committed by
citizens of India beyond the territory of India. However, it is
necessary that this is made applicable to aliens who render
services to the State Government or the Central Government.

Conclusion
Jurisdiction is referred to as the limits within which Courts
can exercise their powers over cases. With respect to the
Indian Criminal Courts, there are two basic types of territorial
jurisdiction: intra-territorial jurisdiction and extra-territorial
jurisdiction.
Intra-territorial jurisdiction deals with crimes committed
within the territory of India, while extra-territorial jurisdiction
deals with crimes committed beyond the territory of India.
The Criminal Courts can exercise their powers within these
jurisdictions only.
While various cases have come up regarding jurisdiction of
Criminal Courts, the laws, as well as Courts, have provided
clear provisions for the same. However, these provisions have
not included every aspect of jurisdiction and there still exists
confusion within the system regarding this.
It is necessary for improvements of these laws to ensure that
citizens of India, as well as foreign nationals, are held liable
for offences committed within the scope of the IPC.