Mobarik Ali Ahmed vs State of Bombay case: The jurisprudence on “extra-territorial jurisdiction” goes against the basic premise that “all offences are local in nature.” Under the ETJ, it is the legal prerogative of the concerned government to exercise power outside of its territorial limits. The law on the subject matter was settled in the leading case of Mobarik Ali Ahmed vs State of Bombay.
Intra-Territorial and Extra-Territorial Jurisdiction of the IPC
The Indian Penal Code, 1860, which became a territorial law on January 1, 1862, is one of the most extensive penal codes in the entire world. The pre-Independence law applies to the whole of India without exception. However, the statute provides extraterritorial jurisdiction to the law enforcement agencies as well.
Evidently, Section 2 and Section 3 of the Penal Code take into account ‘Punishment of offences committed within India’ and ‘punishment of offences committed beyond India, but which by law may be tried within India,’ respectively.
Further, Section 4, which contains “Extension of Code to Extraterritorial Offenses,” provides teeth to Section 3 and expands the ambit. The Section provides that an offence committed outside of India that may be prosecuted as an offense committed within India, and it lays the groundwork for the “Extradition” of a fugitive offender from another state.
However, the subject matter was elaborated in detail in the archaic judgement of Mobarik Ali Ahmed vs. State of Bombay in 1957.
Also read: 2018, Navtej Singh Johar Vs Union of India: The day India decriminalised homosexuality
The Factual Background of the Mobarik Ali Ahmed vs State of Bombay Case
The complainant-respondent in the instant Mobarik Ali Ahmed vs State of Bombay case was a proprietor at Export-Import Trader Co. named Colonial Limitada. Due to the shortage of rice in the Goa region at the time, he got in touch with an agent named Jasawalla, who was the export-import trader. Later, the complainant was introduced through this agent to the trader from Karachi, Pakistan, who was the sole exporter of rice.
The said Pakistani citizen, who was living in Karachi, made false claims in order to persuade the complainant to pay more than five lakh rupees to the agent of the accused in Bombay so that rice could be shipped from Karachi to India in accordance with the contract. The rice, however, was not shipped to India.
Also read: Preamble: Evolution from loosely worded guideline to Iron-Tight Principle
Extradition, arrest, and conviction of the Pakistani citizen
Evidently, at a later stage, the accused was held by the Indian authorities in England and was extradited to Bombay. In Bombay, he was tried and found guilty of cheating under Section 420 of the Penal Code. Evidently, despite his absence from Bombay at the crucial moment of the commission of crime, the Supreme Court affirmed the verdict and ruled that he was responsible for committing the crime within India.
Also read: Aruna Ramchandra Shanbaug vs. Union of India: The case that paved the way for Passive euthanasia
Verdict of the Apex Court
The Apex Court, while fixing the culpability of the foreign national, observed that with respect to offences committed within India from foreign soil, the plea that the accused was absent at the time of the commission of the crime does not hold good.
The Court held him liable “in absentia” and asserted that under Section 2 of the Indian Penal Code, he whosoever, whether Indian or Foreigner, commits any act which is contrary to the provisions of the Penal Code shall be held liable.” Further, the court justified the arrest and extraction of the accused as it falls under the purview of Sections 3 and 4 of the Indian Penal Code, which afford extraterritorial jurisdiction and extension of the code, respectively.
Further, the Court placed reliance on a series of cases, including Prabhu v. Emperor, Lumbhardar Zutshi v. The King, and H.N. Rishbud v. The State of Delhi, to justify the actions against the fugitive offender. Thereby, bestowing the accused with punishment under the spectrum of Indian laws.
Also read: The most iconic Indian case ever: 1973, Kesavananda Bharati vs State of Kerala – Part 5
Contemporary relevance of the Age of Principle
The concept of “extraterritorial jurisdictions” was envisaged as the brainchild of Thomas Babington Macaulay, who had drafted the code during the British Raj in India. However, the age-old provision has greater significance in the contemporary world, where technology-enabled crimes from foreign soil have become a common practice.
That is to say, in the world of artificial intelligence and cyber-driven global order, the concept of “extraterritorial jurisdiction” plays a key role in holding the culprits accountable for their notoriety. Furthermore, the provision goes a long way in maintaining the comprehensive nature of the penal code.
Support TFI:
Support us to strengthen the ‘Right’ ideology of cultural nationalism by purchasing the best quality garments from TFI-STORE.COM
Also Watch:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LKcmGp_8yFA