Question

In one of landmark judgment, the Supreme Court of India observed that the presence of an accused in the Indian territory at the time the offence had been committed, would not be an essential ingredient for the person to be charged under the provisions of the Indian Penal Code. Identify the case:

• A. Mobarik Ali Ahmed v. The State of Bombay (1957)
• B. M.T. Enrica Lexie & Anr. v. Doramma & Ors (2012)
• C. State Bank of India v. Dr. Vijay Mallya (2002)
• D. Emperor v. Vinayak Damodar Savarkar, (1911)

Hint:

The Mobarik Ali case established that the IPC can apply to foreigners abroad if their actions cause harm or have consequences inside India. The location of the effect of the crime matters, not just the physical location of the accused.

Answer 1

The Correct Option is A

This question deals with the extra-territorial jurisdiction of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).
The landmark case that established the principle described is Mobarik Ali Ahmed v.
The State of Bombay (1957).
In this case, the appellant, a Pakistani national in Karachi, made false representations to a person in Bombay via letters and telegrams, inducing him to part with money.
The appellant argued that he could not be tried by an Indian court as he was not physically present in India when the offense was committed.
The Supreme Court rejected this argument.
It held that the offense of cheating was completed in Bombay where the deception took effect and money was delivered.
The Court ruled that physical presence is not required; if the consequences of an act committed outside India are felt within India, the person can be tried under the IPC.