NATIONAL LAW INSTITUTE UNIVERSITY

BHOPAL

CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE

TRIMESTER IX

Jurisdiction of Criminal Courts in Inquiries and Trials:

Section185-189

SUBMITTED TO: SUBMITTED BY:

Prof. P. K Shukla Rashi Ratna Baksh

2017BALLB51
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

Presentation, inspiration, and motivation have always played a vital role in the success of any
venture. I express my sincere thanks to Prof. Dr. P.K Shukla, National Law Institute University,
Bhopal .

I pay my deep sense of gratitude to the professor for encouraging me to the highest peak and to
provide me the opportunity to prepare the project on the topic ‘Jurisdiction of criminal courts in
inquiries and trials.' I am immensely obliged to my Parents for their elevating inspiration,
encouraging guidance and kind supervision in the completion of my project.

Last, but not the least my Friends are also a necessary inspiration for me. So with due regards, I
express my gratitude to them.

Page 2 of 25
 INDEX

S.no Topics
1. Introduction

2. Power of State to order cases to be tried in

different Sessions Division
3. Question as to inquiry of an offence
4. Magistrate’s power to inquire into an offence
committed outside his Local Jurisdiction.
5. Power of Magistrate to inquire into and try
offences committed outside India
6. Receipt of Evidence relating to offences
committed outside India
7. Conclusion

8. Recommendations and Suggestions

Page 3 of 25
 SYNOPSIS

INTRODUCTION

Section 177-189 in Chapter XIII of the Cr.P.C provide for the basic principles for the
determination of the proper court to inquire into and try an offence. Further, Section 156(1),
extend these general rules for determination of the rules applicable for deciding the proper police
station. Every offence shall ordinarily be inquired into and tried by a Court within whose local
jurisdiction it was committed.

A Magistrate, within whose Jurisdiction an offence has taken place, has power to, take
cognizance of that offence and further, transfer the case to the Court of Session if the court
provides for a session trial.

STATEMENT OF PROBLEM

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.

HYPOTHESIS

There are certain cases where more than one Court have 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

Page 4 of 25
need to consider all the factors governing the jurisdiction and begin with the proceedings after
referring to the Code of Criminal Procedure.

RESEARCH AIMS AND OBJECTIVES

This project is an effort to understand the following:

 Power of State to order cases to be tried in different Sessions Division
 Magistrate’s power to inquire into an offence committed outside his Local
Jurisdiction.
 Power of Magistrate to inquire into and try offences committed outside India.
 Receipt of Evidence relating to offences committed outside India

RESEARCH QUESTIONS

 What type of jurisdiction does criminal courts have for the inquiry and trial?
 What are the powers conferred on the State Government for the trial of cases in
different session divisions .
 Understanding the relevance of the Maxim, "nemo debet bis vexari pro una et
eadem causa", with section 186 Cr,P,C,
 What are the powers conferred upon Magistrates for trying an offence outside his
local jurisdiction .
 What are the powers given to the Magistrates under section 188 Cr,P.C.

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

The methodology used in this research project is doctrinal.

Page 5 of 25
 REVIEW OF LITERATURE

CASES REFERRED:

 Naresh Kavarchand Khatri v. State of Gujarat, (2008) 8 SCC 300

 State of M.P v. K.P Ghiara, 1957 CriLJ 322.

 P.T.S Saibaba v. Mangatyaru, 1978 CrLj 1362 (AP).

 Subramanian Swamy v. Union of India (2016) 7 SCC 221
 Manoj Kumar Sharma v. State of Chhattisgarh, (2016) 9 SCC 1
 Dashrath Rathod v. State of Maharastra, (2014) 9 SCC 129.
 K. Bhaskaran v. Sankaran Balan, (1999) 7 SCC 510.
 M/s bridgestone india pvt. Ltd. v. Inderpal singh (2016) 2 SCC 75.

 Dashrath Rathod v. State of Maharastra, (2014) 9 SCC 129.

 Mohd. Akhtar v. State of J&K (2018) 5 SCC 497.
 G. Shreeramalu v. V. Rangaswamy, 1978 Cri Lj 1475, 1476 (AP).
 State of Rajasthan v. Bhagwan Das Agrawal, (2013) 16 SCC 574

 Purshottamdas Dalmia v. State of West Bengal, 1961 AIR 1589

 Chhotey Mian v. State, 1973 Cri LJ 908.
 Purshottamdas Dalmia v. State of West Bengal, 1961 AIR 1589
 C. N. Krishna Mutrthy v. Abdul Subhan, AIR 1965 Mys 126

 State Of Karnataka vs M. Balakrishna, 1980 CriLJ 1145

 Meera Gupta v. Kanchan Gupta, 1990 SCC OnLine All 665

 Upendra Kumar Joshi v. Manik Lal Chatterjee, 1979 SCC OnLine Pat 180

 Muhammed v. State of Kerela, (1994) I KLT 464.

 Fatma Bibi Ahmed Patel v. State of Gujarat, (2008) 6 SCC 789

 K. Satwant Singh v. State of Punjab, (1960) 2 SCR 89

 Srichand P. Hinduja vs State Through C.B.I., 121 (2005) DLT 1.

Page 6 of 25
BOOKS AND STATUTES REFERRED:

 Pillai K.N. Chandrasekhran, R.V. KELKAR’S CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, (6th edn., 2017).

 Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973

 Indian Penal Code, 1860.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Page 7 of 25
 Introduction

Section 177-189 in Chapter XIII of the Cr.P.C provide for the basic principles for the
determination of the proper court to inquire into and try an offence. Further, Section 156(1),
extend these general rules for determination of the rules applicable for deciding the proper police
station. The Common Law Principle in England, that all crimes are local and Justiciable by the
local courts within whose Jurisdiction, they are committed 1, is incorporated in Indian Law, by
virtue of Section 177, which provides for the general rule regarding, the determination of
Jurisdiction, in the following words, ‘Ordinary place of inquiry and trial. Every offence shall
ordinarily be inquired into and tried by a Court within whose local jurisdiction it was
committed’. The word ‘Ordinarily’ means except in cases provided for hereinafter to the
contrary.2 However, this rule is not absolute and is subject to a number of exceptions and
explanations, which are provided for in sections 178- 189.

A Magistrate, within whose Jurisdiction an offence has taken place, has power to, take
cognizance of that offence and further, transfer the case to the Court of Session if the court
provides for a session trial. Hence, if an offence is committed in a local area, then only the
magistrate of that area, having jurisdiction over the area can take cognizance of that offence, and
not the magistrate or police Station for some other part of the same area

The question whether an officer in charge of a police station has the requisite jurisdiction to
make investigation or not will depend upon a large number of factors including those contained
in Sections 177, 178 and 181 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. In a case where a trial can be
held in any of the places falling within the purview of the aforementioned provisions, the
investigation can be conducted by the officer in charge of the police station concerned which has
jurisdiction to investigate in relation thereto.3 

1
Prasad Justice Chandramauli Kumar & Saxena Namit, RATANLAL AND DHIRAJLAL THE CODE OF
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE (22 ed., 2017).
2
Ibid.
3
Naresh Kavarchand Khatri v. State of Gujarat, (2008) 8 SCC 300

Page 8 of 25
This rule is a rule to expedite the proceedings and so that it is not inconvenient for the person
reporting an office, or for the police officers in taking the accused to the concerned magistrate.
The Magistrate cannot be indifferent on the question of jurisdiction simply because Section 462,
is there to save the decisions of the court, which had no territorial jurisdiction to try the case. 4
The Place of inquiry or trial of an offence depends upon the averments contained in the
complaint or the police report. In absence of any positive proof to the contrary, the court has to
be presumed to have jurisdiction on the basis of the facts made out by the averments.5

Under section 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, it is obligatory on part of the person, who
has received dowry to; return it back to the women, at the place where she is residing. If he fails
to do so, then the women can file a complaint at the place, where it should have been transferred
to her.6 Further, the court, within whose Jurisdiction an omission takes place, has the Jurisdiction
to take cognizance of that offence.

In Subramanian Swamy v. Union of India 7, the Constitutional validity of Section 499 and 500
IPC i.e Criminal Defamation was put to test. It was contended on behalf of the petitioner that, in
cases of defamation multiple complaints are filed at multiple places and there is an abuse of the
process of the court, and hence the aforementioned sections should be declared to be ultravires.
However, the Supreme Court through the Bench of Justices Dipak Misra and P.C Pant held that
in the absence of any specific provisions to determine the place of proceedings in a case of
defamation, it shall be governed by the provisions of Chapter XIII CrPC — Jurisdiction of the
Criminal Courts in Inquiries and Trials. Further, the court held that the CrPC governs the
territorial jurisdiction and needless to say if there is an abuse of the said jurisdiction, the person
aggrieved by the issue of summons can take appropriate steps in accordance with law. But that
cannot be a reason for declaring the provision unconstitutional.

Manoj Kumar Sharma v. State of Chhattisgarh8, is a case of bride committing suicide by hanging
of a women in her matrimonial home within 5 months of marriage. The inquiry was conducted
by the police under section 174 of the Cr.P.C, upon receipt of information regarding death. No
offence was found to be committed. The report of inquiry was forwarded to the SDM, which was
4
Pillai K.N. Chandrasekhran, R.V. KELKAR’S CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, (6th edn., 2014).
5
State of M.P v. K.P Ghiara, 1957 CriLJ 322.
6
P.T.S Saibaba v. Mangatyaru, 1978 CrLj 1362 (AP).
7
Subramanian Swamy v. Union of India (2016) 7 SCC 221
8
Manoj Kumar Sharma v. State of Chhattisgarh, (2016) 9 SCC 1

Page 9 of 25
accepted and the case was finally closed. However, after about 5 years, on basis of an
anonymous letter received by the brother of the deceased, the death was described as a planned
murder. A fresh FIR was filled against the husband and his family under section 498A, 304B and
34 of the IPC at PS Bhillai Nagar, District Durg, Chhattisgarh.

Being aggrieved by the filing of the FIR, the appellants filed a writ petition before the High
Court. The Division Bench of the High Court, directed for the continuance of the investigation of
the alleged offence. Later on, the said writ petition was withdrawn with the leave of the court and
the appellants herein filed a criminal miscellaneous petition before the High Court under Section
482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for quashing of the FIR. The learned Single Judge
of the High Court [Manoj Kumar Sharma v. State of Chhattisgarh9] , allowed the proceedings to
continue with a direction to the police to hold a fair and proper investigation to ensure logical
conclusion of the same without unnecessary delay.
Further, the appellants filed criminal miscellaneous petition being under Section 482 read with
Section 397 of the Code before the High Court for quashing of charge-sheet and cognizance
taken thereof by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Durg. The learned Single Judge of the High
Court dismissed the petition filed by the appellants herein. Aggrieved by the abovesaid order, the
appellants preferred appeal by way of special leave before the Supreme Court.
The main issue before the Supreme Court was that whether the Magistrate at Durg, had the
Jurisdiction to take cognizance of an offence which was committed in Ambala, Haryana. The
Supreme Court speaking though Justice Madan B. Lokur and Justice R.K Agrawal, rejected the
contention that the magistrate had Jurisdiction in the following words:
‘27. The territorial jurisdiction of a court with regard to a criminal offence would be
decided on the basis of the place of occurrence of the incident. In the instant case, the
suicide was committed at Ambala. Ambala Police closed the case after fulfilling the
requirements of Section 174 of the Code holding that there was no foul play in the
incident and also there was no requirement of lodging FIR under Section 154 as none
of the family members of the deceased raised any suspicion over the death even
though the death was committed within seven years of marriage. Also, there is no
evidence of it being a continuing offence. Hence, the offence alleged cannot be said to
have been committed wholly or partly within the local jurisdiction of the Magistrate's
9
Manoj Kumar Sharma v. State of Chhattisgarh, 2011 SCC OnLine Chh 151.

Page 10 of 25
 Court at Durg. Prima facie, none of the ingredients constituting the offence can be said
to have occurred within the local jurisdiction of that Court.’
Therefore, the court affirmed, that trial and inquiry, of an offence should only be done, by the
Court under whose Jurisdiction the offence has been committed.
In Dashrath Rathod v. State of Maharashtra10, the Supreme court speaking through Justice T.S
Thakur, over ruled the division bench judgement in the case of K. Bhaskaran v. Sankaran
Balan11 , and held that a complaint of Dis-honor of cheque, under section 138 of the Negotiable
Instruments Act, 1881, can be filed only in the court within whose local jurisdiction the offence
was committed, which is where the cheque is dishonored by the bank, on which it is drawn. The
court emphasized that the complainant is statutorily bound to comply with section 177 of the
Cr.P.C.

However, in M/s Bridgestone India Pvt. Ltd. v. Inderpal Singh 12, Justice Khehar observed that
Section 142(2)(a), amended through the Negotiable Instruments (Amendment) Second
Ordinance, 2015, vests jurisdiction for initiating proceedings for the offence under Section 138
of the Negotiable Instruments Act, inter alia in the territorial jurisdiction of the Court, where the
cheque is delivered for collection (through an account of the branch of the bank where the payee
or holder in due course maintains an account). Thereby, the effect of the Dashrath Rathod’s
case13 , has been nullified by the Negotiable Instruments (Amendment) Second Ordinance, 2015.

Power of State to order cases to be tried in different Sessions Division

10
Dashrath Rathod v. State of Maharastra, (2014) 9 SCC 129.
11
K. Bhaskaran v. Sankaran Balan, (1999) 7 SCC 510.
12
M/s bridgestone india pvt. Ltd. v. Inderpal singh (2016) 2 SCC 75.
13
Dashrath Rathod v. State of Maharastra, (2014) 9 SCC 129.

Page 11 of 25
As per section 185 of the C.r.P.C:

‘Notwithstanding anything contained in the preceding provisions of this Chapter, the

State Government may direct that any cases or class of cases committed for trial in
any district may be tried in any sessions division:

Provided that such direction is not repugnant to any direction previously issued by
the High Court or the Supreme Court under the Constitution, or under this Code or
any other law for the time being in force.’

The power conferred on the state government, in the aforementioned section is an extraordinary
power intended to be used only when some consideration of Public interest, such as maintenance
of public order during the trial of a sensational case, justifies the holding of session trial in a
different sessions division. However, this power of the State government cannot over ride any
directions issued by the High Court or the Supreme Court.

A similar power is given to the Supreme Court under section 406 of the Cr.P.C, in the following
words:

‘406. Power of Supreme Court to transfer cases and appeals. Whenever it is made to
appear to the Supreme Court that an order under this section is expedient for the ends
of justice, it may direct that any particular case or appeal be transferred from one High
Court to another High Court or from a Criminal Court subordinate to one High Court
to another Criminal Court of equal or superior jurisdiction subordinate to another High
Court.’

Likewise, similar power is also given to the concerned High Court, under section 407 and to the
Sessions Court under section 408 of the Cr.P.C.

In Mohd. Akhtar v. State of J&K14 (Kathua Rape Case), the court faced the question that whether
the trial of a rape case, which had involvement of many groups, obstruction by bar association,
communal tensions being raised and unwarranted situation outside the court, the trial of the case
should be transferred to outside the state or not. The 3 judge bench emphasized on the
importance of a fair trial and held that:
14
Mohd. Akhtar v. State of J&K (2018) 5 SCC 497.

Page 12 of 25
 ‘10. Needless to say, a fair trial is a sacrosanct principle under Article 21 of the
Constitution of India and a “fair trial” means fair to the accused persons, as well as to
the victims of the crime. In the instant case, direct victims are the family members of
the deceased, although ultimately collective is the victim of such crime. The fair trial
commands that there has to be free atmosphere where the victims, the accused and the
witnesses feel safe. They must not suffer from any kind of phobia while attending the
court. Fear and fair trial are contradictory in terms and they cannot be allowed to co-
exist.’

In furtherance of the concept of ‘Fair Trial’, the Supreme Court Transferred the case from Court
of the District and Sessions Judge, Kathua, to the District and Sessions Judge, Pathankot situate
in the State of Punjab.

Question as to inquiry of an offence

Section 186 Cr.P.C, based on the Maxim, "nemo debet bis vexari pro una et eadem causa" i.e. no
man shall be put in jeopardy twice for one and the same offence.’ holds that:

Page 13 of 25
 ‘Where two or more Courts have taken cognizance of the same offence and a question
arises as to which of them ought to inquire into or try that offence, the question shall
be decided-

1. if the Courts are subordinate to the same High Court, by that High Court;
2. if the Courts are not subordinate to the same High Court, by the High Court within the
local limits of whose appellate criminal jurisdiction the proceedings were first
commenced, and thereupon all other proceedings in respect of that offence shall be
discontinued.’

However, where two complaints are different from each other, dates of occurrence are different
and some of the accussed are also different, Section 186 (b) cannot be applied.15

In State of Rajasthan v. Bhagwan Das Agrawal16, the accused was the Managing Director of a
company. A case was registered against him and 10 others in Baheria P.S, M.P. for illegally
supplying explosives to M/s Ganesh Explosives. Subsequently, the Judicial Magistrate took
cognizance of the offence. An identical case was registered at Chanderi P.S, M.P against him and
7 other accused. The Magistrate again took cognizance of this offence. One other case was
registered against the accused and 15 others in Dholpur P.S, Rajasthan.

The Accussed approached the High Court, by asserting that the continuance of proceedings at
Rajasthan was illegal, as the court at Sagar, M.P had taken cognizance. The Court took into
account section 186 and held that:

From a bare reading of the aforesaid provision it is manifest that the main object and
intention of the legislature in enacting the provision is to prevent the accused persons
from being unnecessarily harassed for the same offences alleged to have been
committed within the territorial jurisdiction of more than one court. In order to avoid
unnecessary harassment of the accused to appear and face trial in more than one court,
necessary direction is to be issued to discontinue the subsequent proceedings in other
courts. The provision is based on the principle of convenience and expediency.

15
G. Shreeramalu v. V. Rangaswamy, 1978 Cri Lj 1475, 1476 (AP).
16
State of Rajasthan v. Bhagwan Das Agrawal, (2013) 16 SCC 574

Page 14 of 25
 However, the sine qua non for the application of this provision is that the cases
instituted in different courts are in respect of the same offence arising out of the same
occurrence and that the same transaction and that the parties are the same. In other
words, the person implicated as an accused in different cases must be the same. If
these conditions are satisfied then subsequent proceeding has to be discontinued.

The Court concluded by observing that, except the allegation that the explosives were loaded at
Dholpur, the mode and manner in which the offence was committed at different places are not
the same. Therefore, the provision of Section 186 of the Code is not attracted in the facts of the
present case. Hence, the High Court erred in passing the impugned order, and the same was set
aside.

In State Of Karnataka vs M. Balakrishna17, the Sessions Judge, Chickmagalur, made a reference

under Section 186 of the Code of Criminal procedure, 1973, where he expressed a doubt whether
the Court of Session at Chickmagalur has jurisdiction to try the offence punishable under Section
376 of the Indian Penal Code, which is said to have been committed by the accused not within
the territorial jurisdiction of the said Court, but committed it within the territorial jurisdiction of
the court of Session at Shimoga. The offence of kidnapping which is punishable under section
366 of the I.P.C. was committed at Mudigere within the jurisdiction of the Court of Session at
Chickmagalur and the offence of rape punishable under Section 376 of the I.P.C. was committed
at a place within the territorial jurisdiction of the Court of Session at Shimoga.

The Karnatka High Court followed, the Supreme Court case of Purshottamdas Dalmia v. State
of West Bengal18 where the Supreme Court while considering Sections 177, 235 and 239 Cr.P.C.
(old Code) with regard to the criminal conspiracy and offences in pursuance of conspiracy
committed in different local limits, held that the court having jurisdiction to try offence of
conspiracy has also jurisdiction to try offences committed in pursuance of conspiracy outside its
jurisdiction 

17
State Of Karnataka vs M. Balakrishna, 1980 CriLJ 1145.
18
Purshottamdas Dalmia v. State of West Bengal, 1961 AIR 1589

Page 15 of 25
The Court also followed the Allahabad High Court judgment in the case of Chhotey Mian v.
State19, where a kidnapped a girl of less than 18 years, was taken from the lawful custody of her
parents at Bareilly and thereafter took her to Haldwani where rape was committed on her. After
following the law laid down by the Supreme Court in Purshottam Dalmia's case20 the Allahabad
HC, on a reference under section 186, held that a Court having jurisdiction to try certain offence
committed in the course of a transaction, can hold an enquiry of trial even in respect of an
offence committed in the course of the same transaction but beyond its jurisdiction. 

 In C. N. Krishna Mutrthy v. Abdul Subhan21, Hegde, J., (as he then was) while adverting to the
tests to determine what amounts to the 'same transaction' observed thus :-

“The word 'transaction' is not intended to be interpreted in any artificial or technical

sense; common sense and ordinary use of language must decide whether on the facts
of a particular case, one is concerned with one transaction or several transactions. In
order that a series of acts be regarded as the same transaction, they must be connected
together in some way as for instance by proximity of time, unity of place, unity or
community of purpose or design and continuity of action.”

Accordingly, the Karnataka High Court, used the aforementioned precedents in M.

Balakrishna’s case22, and directed the session Judge to proceed with the case, including both
charges of Rape as well as Kidnapping and dispose off the same

Magistrate’s power to inquire into an offence committed outside his Local

Jurisdiction.

Section 187 gives power to the Magistrate of the first class to initiate action against any person
within their Jurisdiction, who is reasonably suspected of having committed an offence triable by
a court outside that jurisdiction. Section 187 is as follows:
19
Chhotey Mian v. State, 1973 Cri LJ 908.
20
Purshottamdas Dalmia v. State of West Bengal, 1961 AIR 1589
21
C. N. Krishna Mutrthy v. Abdul Subhan, AIR 1965 Mys 126
22
State Of Karnataka vs M. Balakrishna, 1980 CriLJ 1145.

Page 16 of 25
 ‘187. Power to issue summons or warrant for offence committed beyond local
jurisdiction. (1) When a Magistrate of the first class sees reason to believe that any
person within his local jurisdiction has committed outside such jurisdiction (whether
within or outside India) an offence which cannot, under the provisions of sections 177
to 185 (both inclusive), or any other law for the time being in force, be inquired into or
tried within such jurisdiction but is under some law for the time being in force triable
in India, such Magistrate may inquire into the offence as if it had been committed
within such local jurisdiction and compel such person in the manner. hereinbefore
provided to appear before him, and send such person to the Magistrate having
jurisdiction to inquire into or try such offence, or, if such offence is not punishable
with death or imprisonment for life and such person is ready and willing to give bail to
the satisfaction of the Magistrate acting under this section, take a bond With or
without sureties for his appearance before the Magistrate having such jurisdiction.

(2) When there are more Magistrates than one having such jurisdiction and the
Magistrate acting under this section cannot satisfy himself as to the Magistrate to or
before whom such person should be sent or bound to appear, the case shall be reported
for the orders of the High Court.’

In Meera Gupta v. Kanchan Gupta23, a question arose that whether S. 187, Cr. P.C. can be
applied if in one district a complaint against sixteen accused is pending while in another district a
police challaned case against ten of those accused is pending regarding same offences. The court
observed that  section does not draw a distinction between cases in which cognizance is taken on
police-report and on the complaint. The prosecution cannot be permitted to voluntarily choose
two modes for prosecuting different sets of accused at two different places for one and similar
offences. The accused's argument that such modes are designed to cause harassment to the
accused appears plausible. The accused's right to get one fair trial for the alleged offence at one
place must be safeguarded by Court. The Court concluded by holding that:

‘Therefore, it would be doing violence to the language used in Section 186, Cr. P.C. if
the word ‘congnizance’ therein is interpreted to create an artificial distinction between

23
Meera Gupta v. Kanchan Gupta, 1990 SCC OnLine All 665.

Page 17 of 25
 cognizance on complaint and cognizance on police-report, sought to be created by the
learned counsel for the complaint. Therefore, the right of the accused-to invoke
Section 186, Cr. P.C. cannot be denied just because the informant chose to alter some
of the anciliary allegations and reduce the number of the accused in the F.I.R. at the
later place than she has disclosed in her complaint at the former, material acts and
omissions remaining similar in both.’

In Upendra Kumar Joshi v. Manik Lal Chatterjee 24, complaint was made on 10 September, 1975
by the petitioner for offences under Section 207 and 630 of the companies Act, 1956 against 17
persons including Kesoram Industries and Cotton Mills Ltd., Calcutta before the Chief Judicial
Magistrate, Bhagalpur on the allegation of failure to pay to him his dividend amounting to Rs.
30/- on three shares held by him. The complaint was dismissed on 27 July 1977 by the
Magistrate on the ground that no offence under Section 207 or 630 of the Act, was committed at
Bhagalpur, the registered office of the Company being at Calcutta.

It was contended before the court that he principle underlying section 187, Criminal Procedure
Code would apply to the present case and in view of these principles, the Bhagalpur Court will
have jurisdiction to try the offence. However, Justice M.P Singh out rightly rejected the
contention, by holding that ‘In my opinion, the contention is not sound. This section will apply
only to a case where the accused is a person residing within the local jurisdiction of the Court. In
the instant case, not a single person lives within the jurisdiction of any of the Courts at
Bhagalpur. They are all or Calcutta’25.

Power of Magistrate to inquire into and try offences committed outside India

24
Upendra Kumar Joshi v. Manik Lal Chatterjee, 1979 SCC OnLine Pat 180
25
Ibid.

Page 18 of 25
Section 188 provides the necessary procedural counterpart to Section 4 IPC, and those
substantive penal laws, which have extra territorial application. Section 188 of the Cr.P.C
provides that:

‘188. Offence committed outside India. When an offence is committed outside India-
(a) by a citizen of India, whether on the high seas or elsewhere; or

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

The result is that if a citizen of India commits an offence in Jammu, he may be dealt with at any
place in any other state of India, where he may be found, but no other offence shall be inquired
into or tried in India, except with the previous sanction of the Central Government. 26 If a
Pakistan Citizen, is granted with Indian citizenship, then that doesn’t give retrospective
Jurisdiction to Indian Courts to inquire into an offence committed in Pakistan, when he was not
an Indian Citizen.

The object of sanction is to prevent, a person from being tried for the same offence again and
again, for the same offence in different places. Further, in Muhammed v. State of Kerela27, it was
held that the police can investigate a crime committed in a foreign country.

According to Prof. K.N Chandra Sekhran Pillia, ‘if a person has been convicted and sentenced to
nominal punishment or has been acquitted after a colorable trial in a foreign court, and if he is
afterwards found here in India, the Central government might give the sanction to persecute him
here in an Indian Court for the same offence’28.

In Fatma Bibi Ahmed Patel v. State of Gujarat 29,the appellant’s daughter in law filed a complaint
against the appellant that she instigated the complainant’s husband to commit atrocities against
26
Pillai K.N. Chandrasekhran, R.V. KELKAR’S CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, (6th edn., 2014).
27
Muhammed v. State of Kerela, (1994) I KLT 464.
28
Pillai K.N. Chandrasekhran, R.V. KELKAR’S CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, (6th edn., 2014).
29
Fatma Bibi Ahmed Patel v. State of Gujarat, (2008) 6 SCC 789

Page 19 of 25
the complainant. The cognizance of the offence was taken by CJM in Gujrat. However, it turned
out that appeallant was a citizen of Mauritius and the alleged offence took place in Kuwait. The
Court observed that the In terms of Section 4 of the Penal Code, the Indian courts will have
jurisdiction to try an accused only if the accused is a citizen of India even if the offence was
committed outside India or by any person on any ship or aircraft registered in India wherever it
may be. Neither of the aforementioned contingencies is attracted in the instant case. On the
question of the application of Section 188 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the code observed
that the section deals with offences committed outside India. Clause (a) brings within its sweep a
citizen of India, whether on the high seas or elsewhere, or by a person, although not citizen of
India when the offence is committed on any ship or aircraft registered in India. In view of the
fact that the offence is said to have been committed in Kuwait, the provisions of the Penal Code
or the Code of Criminal Procedure cannot be said to have any application.

K. Satwant Singh v. State of Punjab30, is a case of the Constitution bench of the Supreme Court,
regarding the charge of cheating in 1942, when Kohlapur was in a native state. The facts of the
case were that Misrepresentation was made by the accused in Simla. False certification by an
abettor was made at Jhansi. Payment as a result of the misrepresentation was made by cheque
posted from Kohlapur, delivered at Lahore and further cashed at Lahore. The Court held that the
posting of the cheque at Kohlapur cannot be regarded as delivery of cheques at kohlapur,
because the post office cannot be demmed to be an agent of the accused. The Payment must be
held to be made at Lahore and not Kohlapur. Thus. On the facts established, no part of the
offence of cheating was committed by the accused outside british india, and hence the provision
of S. 188 CrPc is not applicable.

Receipt of Evidence relating to offences committed outside India

As per section 189 of Cr.P.C,

30
K. Satwant Singh v. State of Punjab, (1960) 2 SCR 89

Page 20 of 25
 ‘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.’

For instance, in the Bofors Scam case, where India signed a Rs 1,437-crore deal with Swedish
arms manufacturer AB Bofors for the supply of 400 155 mm Howitzer guns for the Army. A
year later, on April 16, 1987, a Swedish radio channel alleged that the company had bribed top
Indian politicians and defence personnel to secure the contract. The scandal rocked the Rajiv
Gandhi-led government in the late 1980s. On January 22, 1990, the Central Bureau of
Investigation (CBI) lodged an FIR against the then president of Bofors Martin Ardbo, the alleged
middleman Win Chadda and the Hinduja brothers for criminal conspiracy, cheating and
forgery.31

In the Bofor’s case, on the request of the Indian Government, the Switzerland Government
procured certain evidence, and handed over to the Indian Government under Sec. 189 of the
Cr.P.C. However, lateron all proceedings against the Hinduja Brothers and against the Bofors
Company were quashed and they were discharged from the case.32

31
Express Web Desk, What is the Bofors scam case?, The Indian Express (February, 3, 2018 9:15:22 Am)
https://indianexpress.com/article/india/what-is-the-bofors-scandal-case-why-is-it-being-opened-now-4823576/.
32
Srichand P. Hinduja vs State Through C.B.I., 121 (2005) DLT 1.

Page 21 of 25
 Conclusion

If the Court doesn’t have the power to try a particular offence and tries that, the trial will be
vitiated. Since, the power to try a particular offence is given to a different category of judges,
depending on their Experience and expertise, which they gradually develop in course of Judicial
service. Therefore, if a Magistrate tries an offence, which is triable by the court of sessions, then
indeed the complete trial will be vitiated. Recently, in Suresh v. State of Kerela33, an offence
which was triable by the Magistrate, was tried by the Court of Sessions. The Kerela HC, held
that such trial will be irregular and void.

However, if an offence is committed outside the territorial jurisdiction of a magistrate, and still
is tried, then the situation is different. As a general proposition of law, the common law principle
that all crimes are local and Justifiable by local courts only within whose Jurisdiction, they are
committed, as been accepted by the Code of Criminal Procedure. Further, Sections 178 to 185,
enunciate further explanation to this general proposition of law and provide solutions to
jurisdictional issues that often arise. However, even if, a jurisdictional error has taken place, then
it will be saved, if the error is covered, under the scope of section 462 of Cr.P.C, which states
that:

No finding, sentence or order of any Criminal Court shall be set aside merely on the
ground that the inquiry, trial or other proceedings in the course of which it was arrived
at or passed, took place in a wrong sessions division, district, sub- division or other
local area, unless it appears that such error has in fact occasioned a failure of justice.

Hence trial or a sentence passed by a criminal court cannot be vitiated, until and unless a
Jurisdictional error has occurred, which results in failure of justice. A failure of Justice doesn’t
simple mean a wrong decision. It means that the procedure has not been followed which would
give the person affected a fair opportunity to defend himself.34

Further, a new concept of ‘Zero FIR’ has emerged, according to which FIR can be filed at any
police station, irrespective of place of incident or jurisdiction and the same can be later

33
Suresh v. State of Kerela 2018 (1) KHC 735.
34
Emperor v. Mehtar (1941) 42 Cri Lj 37.

Page 22 of 25
transferred to the concerned Police Station.35 For instance, in the recent Rewari Gang Rape case
(2018), a 'zero FIR' was lodged on the complaint of the girl, and the investigation was later on
transferred to the Mahendergarh police as the incident occurred under their jurisdiction.

The Concept of Zero FIR, was discussed by the Supreme Court in Satvinder Kaur v. State
(Government of NCT of Delhi)36, where an issue arose before the Supreme Court that whether the
High Court was justified in quashing the FIR on the ground that Delhi Police Station did not
have territorial jurisdiction to investigate the offence, because the alleged dowry items were
entrusted to the respondent at Patiala and that the alleged cause of action for the offence
punishable under Section 498A I.P.C. arose at Patiala.

The Court observed that ‘Chapter XIII of the Code provides for "Jurisdiction of the Criminal
Courts in inquiries and trials". It is to be stated that under the said Chapter there are various
provisions which empower the Court for inquiry or trial of a criminal case and that there is no
absolute prohibition that the offence committed beyond the local territorial jurisdiction cannot be
investigated, inquired or tried… Hence, in the present case, the High Court committed a grave
error in accepting the contention of the respondent that investigating officer had no jurisdiction
to investigate the matters on the alleged ground that no part of the offence was committed within
the territorial jurisdiction of the police station at Delhi. The appreciation of the evidence is the
function of the Courts when seized of the matter. At the stage of the investigation, the material
collected by an investigating officer cannot be judicially scrutinized for arriving at a conclusion
that police station officer of the particular police station would not have territorial jurisdiction. ’

The provision of Zero FIR came up as recommendation in Justice Verma Committee Report in
the new Criminal Law (Amendment) Act, 2013, devised after the December 2012 gang rape of a
23-year-old girl in the territory.37 Therefore, in the Present time, even if an offence is not
committed in the territorial Jurisdiction of the P.S or the Magistrate, still an F.I.R, can be
registered and later on, the matter can be transferred.
35
FP Staff, 19-year-old CBSE topper from Haryana's Rewari alleges gangrape by 12 while returning from coaching
centre; 'zero FIR' filed, First Post, (September 17, 2018 12:13:03 IST), https://www.firstpost.com/india/19-year-old-
cbse-topper-from-haryanas-rewari-alleges-gangrape-by-12-while-returning-from-coaching-centre-zero-fir-filed-
5181611.html
36
Satvinder Kaur v. State (Government of NCT of Delhi), (1999) 8 SCC 728.
37
Registering FIR in a police Station without Jurisdiction: Is it Possible?, I Pleaders, (November, 5, 2015),
https://blog.ipleaders.in/registering-fir-outside-jurisdiction/.

Page 23 of 25
 Suggestions and Recommendations

1. It has been observed that even after the introduction of the concept of ‘Zero FIR’. It is a
common notion that people are often refused an FIR registration, on the ground of
required territorial Jurisdiction. Therefore, there is a dire need to sensitize, the people and
also the police about this new concept. Further, strict Punishment should be imposed on
the Police officer, if it is found that F.I.R registration is refused, only on account of lack
of territorial Jurisdiction.

2. Even if a person has been convicted and sentenced to nominal punishment or has been
acquitted, by trial in a foreign Jurisdiction, the central government should not grant
Sanction for Prosecution in India, based on the Maxim, "nemo debet bis vexari pro una et
eadem causa" i.e. no man shall be put in jeopardy twice for one and the same offence and
protection from double jeopardy provided under article 20 (2) of the Constitution.

3. Police officers in India are not sensitized about the latest developments in law, especially
about the latest decisions or directions, which are passed or issues by the Supreme Court
or by different High Courts. Hence, there emerges a need of time bound orientation
sessions for all police officers, from constable to the DGP level, so that the police
officials perform their functions within the limits prescribed by the Constitution.

4. Since the maintenance of public order, comes under the concurrent list of the 7 th schedule
to the Constitution of India, therefore section 185 Cr.P.C., must be amended to include
even the power of the Central Govt. to transfer case, interstate. This will further widen
the scope of section 185, since currently; this provision can only be used to transfer a
case from one session division to another, within the same state.

Page 24 of 25
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Page 25 of 25