DAMODARAM SANJIVAYYA NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITY,

SABBAVARAM, VISAKHAPATNAM, A.P., INDIA

PROJECT TITLE
PENAL CODE 1860 AND JURISDICTIONAL CHALLENGES

SUBJECT
IPC - I

NAME OF THE FACULTY

NAME- SHLOKA DIKSHIT

SEMESTER- 3RD

Page 1
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT-

I would like to thank BHAVANI PRASAD PANDA SIR for giving me an opportunity for
deeply studying about the jurisdictional challenges in IPC. This project is a result of dedicated
effort. It gives me immense pleasure to prepare this project report on “PENAL CODE 1860
AND JURISDICTIONAL CHALLENGES”.

My deepest thanks to our Lecturer Bhavani Prasad Panda, the guide of the project for guiding
and correcting various documents with attention and care. I thank him for consultative help and
constructive suggestion in this project. I would also like to thank my parents and colleagues who
have helped me for making the project a successful one.

Page 2
CONTENTS-

1.COVER PAGE
2. ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
3.PROJECT SUMMARY
4.OBJECTIVE OF STUDY
5.SIGNIFICANCE AND BENEFIT OF STUDY
6. SCOPE OF THE STUDY
7. LITERATURE REVIEW
8. RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
9. HYPOTHESIS
10. CONCLUSIONS AND SUGGESTIONS

Contents Under the Body of the Project-

Page 3
1. Introduction………………………………………………………………………………..8
2. Offences against public tranquillity……………………………………………………….8
3. IPC Jurisdiction…………………………………………………………………………..10
4. Intra-territorial jurisdiction………………………………………………………………10
5. Extra-territorial jurisdiction……………………………………………………………...11
6. Cases……………………………………………………………………………………..11
7. Conclusion………………………………………………………………………………16
8. Bibliography……………………………………………………………………………..16

Page 4
 PENAL CODE 1860 AND JURISDICTIONAL CHALLENGES

ABSTRACT

The Indian Penal Code, 1860 places an intra-territorial as well as extraterritorial jurisdiction for
offences committed under the IPC.

With regards to jurisdiction, Section 2 deals with intra-territorial jurisdiction while Sections 3
and 4 deal with extra-territorial jurisdiction.

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.”

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.

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
Page 5
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.

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.

OBJECTIVE OF THE STUDY-

Herein the researcher through this project is trying to analyse the jurisdiction provisions present
in the Indian Penal Code, 1860, understand the challenges associated with it through case laws.

SIGNIFICANCE OF THE STUDY-

Page 6
The research was helpful in gaining knowledge about the jurisdictional provisions in the IPC. It
also gave the researcher immense exposure of various case laws associated with the IPC.

SCOPE OF THE STUDY-

The researcher is limiting the scope only up to the provisions of jurisdiction in the IPC and the
challenges associated with it.

REVIEW OF LITERATURE-

This research paper is prepared by referring many books, articles from magazines, journals,
newspaper, internet sources etc.

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY-

This is a doctrinal research.

HYPOTHESIS

An Indian citizen outside India can be tried for an offence under IPC

Introduction:

The Indian Criminal Code was enacted in 1860. In the midst of cataclysmic, social and political
upheavals, it stands as a tribute to the genius of Lord Macaulay, who, as president of the First
Indian Law Commission established in 1834, said: ‘Our principle is simply this: uniformity when
you can have it; diversity when you must have it; but, in all cases, certainty.’ The Indian Penal

Page 7
Code is a role model in terms of certainty. It has undergone the last number of amendments in
the 143 years of its existence in the statutory book. Indeed, one rarely finds a judgment stressing
the need to fill any lacuna in the Criminal Code due to the ambiguity of the language or
otherwise.1

Peace and tranquillity are the prerequisites for the development of society. If there is unrest in
society or any other hindrance of the same nature, society cannot provide the individual with an
opportunity to grow and develop to its full potential, and therefore the maintenance of peace and
tranquillity is a must for every society and nation as a whole.

Offenses against public tranquillity are offenses against not only a single person or property, but
against society as a whole. These kinds of crimes are committed by a group of people who share
a common intention to disturb the peace and tranquillity of the area, thus affecting the whole of
society.2

Public offences:

Under IPC, chapter eight deals with public offences. These offences could be categorized into
three:

 Unlawful assembly: Section 141 of the IPC, 1860 deals with the unlawful assembly.
Assembly of 5 or more people to commit an unlawful offence is called an unlawful
assembly.3 The presence of a common intention to disturb public peace and tranquility is
an important aspect of an illegal assembly. The mere presence of a person in an assembly
without any reason to violate the peace of the surroundings is not punishable. The
common objective is to determine the purpose and nature of the assembly.

 Rioting: “Section 146 and 147 under IPC deal with rioting. It usually takes place as a way
to dissent something or for a perceived threat or grievance.

1. When an offense is committed by a group of people or by any person belonging to

1
https://www.legalbites.in/indian-penal-code-general-introduction-background/
2
https://blog.ipleaders.in/offences-against-public-tranquility/#:~:text=Offences%20against%20the%20public
%20tranquillity,thus%20affecting%20the%20whole%20society.
3
Section 141 of the IPC, 1860.

Page 8
 for rioting. This offense is generally grounded in civil unrest and is usually a
sudden and provocative behaviour. It shows a herd-like mentality, and this is the
reason why, in the event that a person belonging to the guilty party has not
committed a violent act, he/she will be liable for rioting.4
2. One of the most important ingredients is that rioting is a common intention and the
object of a crime. This very ‘common intention’ makes it possible for all the
people in the group to be punished even if they have not even committed the crime
themselves in rioting.
3. Historically, rioting has taken place due to grievances against government policies,
the outcome of a sporting event, frustration with any legal judgment, taxation,
oppression, race conflict, or has been a means of channelling the repression faced
by the people to the government.”
4. Punishment for rioting is present under section 148 of the IPC and is a description
of a term of 3 years or fine or both.5 

 Affray:

1. Affray refers to the public struggle to disturb public order and peace. In order to be
affrayed, the presence of two or more persons is a must and their action should
negatively affect the tranquility of their surroundings. The most important thing,
however, is that the effect of their behavior should create disorder in society and
for people.
2. On the basis of the impact of their conduct, the guilty parties could also be
convicted in the context of unlawful assembly or rioting. Punishment usually
depends on the impact of their behavior on society or the level of threat they pose.
3. It is important to note that it is not necessary that any offence committed in public
is affray, only the offence that has the potential to cause a disturbance in the public
tranquillity could be termed as affray.6

IPC Jurisdiction:

4
Section 146 and 147 of IPC, 1860.
5
https://blog.ipleaders.in/offences-against-public-tranquility/#:~:text=Offences%20against%20the%20public
%20tranquillity,thus%20affecting%20the%20whole%20society.
6
Section 159 and 160 of the IPC,1860.

Page 9
Jurisdiction “is an aspect of state sovereignty and refers to judicial, legislative and administrative
competence. Although it is an aspect of sovereignty, it is not co-extensive. International law
restricts the right of a State to exercise jurisdiction

The territorial coverage of the IPC extends to the whole of India. The general principle of
criminal jurisdiction is that jurisdiction is determined by the location of the offence, irrespective
of nationality or other similar attributes for the offender.7”

Territorial Jurisdiction:

Intra-Territorial Jurisdiction:

Section 2 of the Penal Code declares that every person shall be liable to punishment under the
code and not otherwise for every act or omission contrary to the provisions of the code of which
he shall be guilty within India. A foreigner committing a crime in India cannot plead ignorance
of Indian Law.8 “

The two main aspects of this Section are:

 Any wrongdoer shall be liable for punishment under this Code, irrespective of caste,
creed, nationality or rank, for as long as the offense is committed within the territory of
India.

An alien shall also be liable for punishment under this Code if he or she commits any act or
omission within the territory of India, irrespective of whether the act or omission is an offense in
his or her native 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:

7
Mobarik Alt Ahmed v. State of Bombay, AIR 1957 SC 857 (869).
8
Jitendranatk Ghosh v. The Chief Secretary to the Government of Bengal, (1932) 60 Cal.

Page 10
  A person shall be liable under Indian law. Consequently, a citizen of India or any
foreigner bound by Indian law is bound by Section 3 of the IPC.

 The offense must be committed outside the territory of India, whether geographical or
maritime.

 Such persons shall be bound by Indian law for any offense committed outside India, as if
the offense had been committed within India;.9”

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.”10

Cases:

Mobarik Ali Ahmed vs. The State of Bombay

Facts:

A “Pakistani citizen, while staying in Karachi made false representations and induced the
complainant to part with money amounting to over rupees five lakh to the agents of the accused
at Bombay, so that rice could be shipped from Karachi to India as per agreement.

But the rice was never supplied. The accused was arrested, while he was in England, and brought
to Bombay through extradition proceedings, where he was prosecuted and convicted under
Section 420 of the Penal Code for Cheating.11 

Issues:

1. Whether a foreign nationalist can be held liable/punishable for any offenses as if he

Page 11
Arguments:

The learned counsel on behalf of the appellant argued that, first, the appellant-indicted Mubarak
Ali Ahmed, in the above-mentioned case, was a Pakistani nationalist, resided in Karachi, and
therefore never entered Indian soil during the commission period, and therefore did not commit
an offense.

The charge of section 420, which represents cheating and 34 common intention, does not fit to be
framed against the appellant, since three of the accused were jointly alleged in this case and,
during the time of the infringement, the appellant was present in Karachi Pakistan, i.e. in
Bombay, and relied on the aphorism referred to in Shreekanitah Ramayya Munipalli v. State of
Bombay.”

Judgment:

Ratio Decidendi:

On the first issue, the appendix noted that the appellant's L.C. merely called for the absence of
the appellant at the time of the commencement of the infringement and for him to be prohibited
under the provisions of the IPC if he was physically absent, but the court held that the presence
of the applicant did not vitiate or bar him from the trial of the criminal proceedings. As stated in
Section 2 of the Indian Criminal Code, any person who commits any act which is contrary to the
provisions of the Criminal Code shall be held liable under Section 3 and Section 4 of the Indian
Criminal Code relating to extraterritorial jurisdiction and extension.

The Supreme Court upheld the conviction and held that the offense had been committed by the
accused at Bombay, even though he was not physically present at that material time.12

State of Maharashtra v. M. H. George13

Facts:

In this case, “the respondent left Zurich on 27 November 1962 and landed at Santa Cruz airport.
He didn't get out of the plane, and in fact, when he was searched, it was found that he was

12
Ibid.
13
1965 AIR 722, 1965 SCR (1) 123.

Page 12
carrying Gold slabs. Until the 24th of November, there was general permission for a person to
bring or send Gold to India if it went through transit. But a condition was imposed after 24
November. He could not have known the condition when the respondent boarded the plane in
Zurich. He was prosecuted for violating Section 8(1) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act,
1947, and the question was whether the mens rea of the respondent could be established.14

Issues:

Whether a foreigner can plead ignorance of the laws of the land, as to escape from criminal
liability?

Judgement:

The Court held that it was not necessary for Indian law to be published outside India, so that
foreigners could know about it. However, M.H. George, unaware of the change in Indian law,
was held liable under Foreign Exchange Regulations 1948.”

Observation by the Supreme Court: “It is obvious that for an Indian law to operate and be
effective in the territory where it operates viz., the territory of India, it is not necessary that it
should either be published or be made known outside the country..”

Kastya Ram v. State:15

Facts:

The “villagers of one village had lawfully placed fishing stakes in the sea within three miles of
the shore. The villagers of the nearby village, having been annoyed by the fishing stakes,
removed all the fishing stakes. The accused pleaded against the prosecution that they would not
be liable as their act would not come under the purview of the IPC.16

Issues:

Whether the state has jurisdiction over the sea within permitted limits?

Judgement:
14
1965 AIR 722, 1965 SCR (1) 123.
15
(1871) 8 Bom. HCR (Cr.) 63
16
(1871) 8 Bom. HCR (Cr.) 63

Page 13
The High Court of Bombay held that the act of the accused was within the jurisdiction of the
IPC. They had committed mischief, and the place of the crime was three miles from the shore
that was in the territory of India.”

Justice Kemball said that “It is impossible to avoid the conclusion that the territories strictly
speaking include not only the compass of land in ordinary acceptation of the term but also that
portion of the sea lying along and washing its coast which is commonly called its maritime
territory. I fail to discover in the absence of special legislation on the subject any ground, for
distinguishing between offences committed on different portions of a State territory. The venue
of the offence was British India and the charge was rightly laid under Sec. 2 Indian Penal
Code.”17

Remia and Another v. Sub-inspector of Police, Tanur and Others18

Facts: “As to the death of one Sulaiman, a complaint was filed by his mother, widow and brother
before the Deputy Police Inspector, Tanur, Malappuram District. The complaint specifically
mentions that one Ali it was suspected that Sulaiman had been murdered in Sharjah, United Arab
Emirates, on 21-6-1992. The complaint, according to the petitioners, was not accepted by the
Police Sub-Inspector on the ground that the alleged offense had been committed outside India.
The petitioners, therefore, filed this original petition in order to direct the aforementioned Sub-
Inspector to prepare the FIR and to register the crime on the basis of Ext. P3 complaint and start
investigation.19

Issues: Whether IPC can prosecute individuals who have committed crimes beyond the territory
of India?”

Judgement:

Section 188 of Cr. P. C. reads as:

“188. Offence committed outside India. –

When an offence is committed outside India. -

17
Per Kemball, J, in Kastya Ram, (1871) 8 Bom. HCR (Cr.) 63.
18
1993 CriLJ 1098
19
1993 CriLJ 1098

Page 14
(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 committed 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.”20

The Court “held that section 188 concerns how to deal with a person who has committed an
offense outside India. Since the provision imposes an obligation on the Central Government to
obtain prior sanction in order to inquire into and try such a person, the section has a message that
no such penalty is necessary for the pre-inquiry stage. The pre-investigation stage is essentially
related to the investigation of the crime. If there is a stage at which the offender can be dealt with
before the initiation of the investigation, it must be the stage of the investigation.21

The Court further stated that, within one week from the date of receipt of a copy of this
judgment, the Sub-Inspector of the Tanur Police Station had recorded the statement of one of the
petitioners concerning the death of Sulaiman and had prepared the FIR, recorded the crime and
proceeded with the investigation in accordance with the law.”

The High Court of Kerala after has been examined. 3 and 4 of the IPC and S. 188 Cr PC held
that the sub-refusal inspector's was illegal.22

Conclusion:

Jurisdiction refers to the practical authority or domain conferred upon a legal entity in order to be
able to administer justice within that defined area of competence. The term legal body shall
include a court, a political or government office or a law enforcement agency within its sphere of
competence. Jurisdiction with respect to a judicial authority is the limit or the extent to which the
judicial authority has to deal with cases, appeals and other legal proceedings. The reason behind

20
Section 188 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
21
https://indiankanoon.org/doc/191873/
22
https://indiankanoon.org/doc/191873/

Page 15
the introduction of the concept of jurisdiction is to ensure that the courts decide and try only
those matters which fall within the territorial and monetary limits of the court. Time and again,
the legislature makes different laws relating to jurisdiction that are useful for the proper dispersal
of justice. Thus, making the country a better place to live in by making the judicial institution
more organized and organized.

Bibliography:

 https://indiankanoon.org/doc/191873/
 Brownie, Principles of Public International Law
 https://blog.ipleaders.in/offences-against-public-tranquility/#:~:text=Offences%20against
%20the%20public%20tranquillity,thus%20affecting%20the%20whole%20society.
 https://www.legalbites.in/indian-penal-code-general-introduction-background/
 http://14.139.60.114:8080/jspui/bitstream/123456789/742/9/Jurisdiction.pdf
 https://www.indiacode.nic.in/bitstream/123456789/4219/1/THE-INDIAN-PENAL-
CODE-1860.pdf
 https://indiankanoon.org/

Page 16