Sec. 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.
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 Uganda. He can be tried and convicted of murder in any place in India in which he may be found.
A. Sections 3 and 4 give the Indian Courts to inquire into offences, done by the Indians, committed outside India.
B. If the offences committed on any ship or aircraft registered in India, irrespective of his nationality, he can be inquired by the Indian Courts.
C. Mohd Sajeed K. vs. State of Kerala (1995) CrLJ 3313 (Ker.)
While disposing this case, the Kerala High Court held that, if an offence was committed outside India by an Indian, can be inquired by the police without seeking previous permission from the Central Government under Sec. 3.
D. Remia vs. Sub-Inspector of Police, Tanur (1993 CrLJ 1098)
An Indian was murdered by another Indian in a foreign country. The local police did not register it. The High Court ordered the police to register F.I.R., and to inquire into the matter under Sec. 3 of the Code.
E. Urea scam, Bofors scam:
There are several scams which have been committed by the Indian political leaders and bureaucrats in the last two decades. In the year 2007, India stands at eighteenth position in the world in corruption.
Crores of rupees of public money have been exchanged from hands and have been misappropriated. The Supreme Court held that the Indian courts have competent jurisdiction to prosecute and enquire the wrong-doers with the help of the foreign countries’ investigation.
F. Dr. Ambati’s dowry case:
Dr. Ambati’s name is well known in entire world. His family settled in America. He is an American citizen. He completed M.B.B.S. at his 18th year, and received award from Guianese Book of the World Records and also from Bill Clinton, the then President of America. With affection on India, he married the Indian (of Karnataka) girl. She could not adjust with them in America.
She returned to her parents’ house. She complained to the police in Karnataka that her husband Dr. Ambati demanded dowry, and ill treated her. A case was registered under Sec. 498-A.
Some months after the police registered the case, Dr. Ambati visited India for medical association meeting. At that time, he was arrested by the police, and a criminal case was prosecuted against him. Of course, he was discharged by the Court from the allegation.
In the Public International Law, “Extradition” means the surrender an accused by one nation to another, for trial and punishment, or convicted of an offence within the jurisdiction of the latter. To effect the Extradition, there must be an extradition agreement between two countries.
There is an extradition agreement between India and Great Britain and with some other countries. There is no such Extradition Agreement between India and Pakistan. Dawood Ibrahim, the accused of Bombay blasting, took shelter in Pakistan. In spite of several requests of the Indian Government, the Pakistan Government has not been extraditing him to India.
Rajan Pillai’s Case
Rajan Pallai, businessmen, was involved in a Scam. A non-bailable arrest warrant was issued by the Indian Court. He was not found anywhere in India. Later it came to know that he settled in Singapore.
The Government of India under the Extradition Treaty asked the Government of Singapore to arrest Mr. Pillai and to hand over him to Government of India. Mr. Pillai, was arrested in Singapore and was later handed over to India. Consequently a trial was conducted against him. During his custody in Tihar Jail, he died. His death created a sensation throughout the Country.
The objects of extradition are:
(i) That it is the common interest of mankind that offences against person and property which militate against the general well-being of society, should be repressed by punishment, as the means of deterring others from committing, as well as of deterring the criminal himself from repeating, the offence, as also of disabling the offender, either permanently or temporarily from further crime; and
(ii) that it is to the interest of the State into which territory the criminal has come that he shall not remain at large therein, inasmuch as from his past conduct it may reasonably be anticipated that, if opportunity offers, he will again be guilty of crime. No State can desire that its territory should become a place of refuses for the malefactors of other countries. It is obviously its interest to get rid of them.
These are motives rather for the punishment of offenders than strictly for their extradition. Indian Parliament enacted the Extradition Act, 1962.
A, a foreigner, committed an offence in South Africa, and has been staying in India. The Indian Courts have no jurisdiction to try A. He can be entrusted under Extradition Act, 1962 to South Africa on its request. (Case-Law: Jameson, 1896 2 QB 425)
A, a foreigner, abets a criminal act to be done in India. As the result of abetment of A, that criminal act is committed in India. The Indian Courts have no jurisdiction over A. (Case-Law: Bahadur (1918) PR No. 23 of 1918).
A, a foreigner, abets a criminal act to be done in India. As the result of abetment of A, that criminal act is completed in India. Later A is found in India. Then the Indian courts have jurisdiction to try A and his accomplice. (Case-Law: Chhotalai 1912 14 Bom. LR 147)
H. Extra-territorial jurisdiction: Sections 3 and 4 confer the Indian criminal courts to have extraterritorial jurisdiction to inquire into any offence defined in this Code offence committed by,
(a) Any citizen of India in any place without and beyond India;
(b) Any person on any ship or aircraft registered in India wherever it may be.
The illustration appended to Sec. 4 very clearly enunciates where a citizen of India commits an offence in another country, he can be tried and convicted for the said offence in any place in India in which he may be found.
X, an Indian citizen commits an act in the United States of America which is not an offence according to the U.S. laws but it amounts to an offence under the Indian Penal Code. Shortly after the commission of the act X returns to India. Discuss whether X can be tried for the offence in India. (Sept. 95, o.u.)
The problem given above is identical with the judgment given in Sheikh Haidar vs. Syed Issa (1939) Nag 241). While disposing the case, the Bombay High Court observed that Section 3 postulates the existence of a law that an act constituting an offence in India shall also be an offence when committed in that foreign country, where the offence is said to have been committed. In that case, A, the accused, married a child in a Gulf country.
The child marriages are not prohibited in the Islamic countries. Moreover they are recognised under the Law of Puberty by the Islamic law. A was prosecuted under the Child Marriage Restraint Act in India.
A contended that he could not be prosecuted under the Child Marriage Restraint Act, as the defined offence was not an offence in that Gulf country. The trial Court convicted him.
On appeal, the High Court acquitted the accused opining that the accused could not be held liable, as the act done by him was not an offence in that foreign country, even though it would be an offence in India under the Indian Penal Code.
A, who is a citizen of India, commits a murder in England. If A is found in Delhi, can he be tried and convicted by the Court in Delhi? Give reasons. (Oct. 96, b.u.)
The above problem is identical with the illustration appended to Section 4. A can be tried by the criminal court in Delhi under Section 4.
Section 188 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 lays down as follows:
(Cr.P.C.) Sec. 188. Offence committed outside India:
When an offence is committed outside India, by a citizen of India, whether on the high seas or elsewhere; 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 committed at any place within India at which he may be found.
(Cr.P.C.) Sec. 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 holding 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 or exhibits relate.
In Bofors case, on the request of the Indian Government, the Switzerland Government procured certain evidence, and handed over to the Indian Government under Sec. 189, and the prosecution is being under process.
I. Admiralty Jurisdiction:
Admiralty is that branch or department of law which relates to maritime property, affairs, and transactions, whether civil or criminal.
In a more limited sense, it is the tribunal exercising jurisdiction over maritime causes and administering the maritime law by a procedure peculiar to itself and to some extent, and in respects, distinct from that followed by other Courts.
Under Section 4, its jurisdiction extends over, (a) offences committed on Indian ships on the high seas; (b) offences committed on foreign ships in the Indian territorial waters; and (c) Piracy.
Firstly, the Supreme Court at Calcutta, and later, the High Courts at Bombay, Calcutta and Madras had the admiralty jurisdiction.