Case Name: Central Bank Of India Ltd vs. Ram Narain
Author: Sameer M
1955 AIR 36,1955 SCR(1)697
Mr.Justice Mahajan Mehar Chand(CJ), Mukherjea, B.K Bose, Vivian, Jagannadhadas, B.Aiyyar, T.L. Venkatarama.
In Indian Penal Code, 1860 their was a provision to which punish Indian citizens who commits crime outside India. Under Section 4 of IPC says that The person who commits offence outside India or if the offence happened in ship or aircraft then flag decides which country criminal law is applicable or if the offence done by targeting computer resource located in India can be tried in Indian court.
In this particular case, A person who citizen of India commits an offence outside India during committing that offence he is not an Indian citizen, this case discuss about domicile and jurisdiction of Indian court.
Ram Narian(herein after referred to as Appellant) before partition stayed at Mailsi in Multan District Punjab now located in Pakistan, Appellant borrowed money from central bank of India, all happened before partition of british India into two separate states. When the disturbance started in August 1947 Central bank of India employees flew to India. On 6th November 1947 Ram Narain went to bank and stole 802 bales of cotton from bank godown, and then same month he sold bales of cotton and left Pakistan and moved to Bombay settled in Hodel in the district of Gurgaon.
Central Bank of India came to know about this act done by Ram Narian and approached District Court at Gurgaon and filed charges against him as per Section 454 and 380 of IPC, District Court passed verdict against him, appellant moved to Trail session Court they upheld verdict of District Magistrate court. So Appellant approached Supreme Court of India.
Appellant learned council argued that the appellant offence cannot be tried in India because Appellant was neither citizen of Indian nor offence committed inside India, so as per Section 4 of IPC appellant cannot be tried in Indian court because it does not attract jurisdiction as per Section 188 of Cr.P.C because during offence committed by appellant, he was domiciled and citizen of Pakistan and appellant acquired citizenship of India by migration, respondent counsel argued that the Appellant did not have intention to stay in Pakistan he moved his family and his intention shows that he wanted to move to India and he is not citizen of Pakistan from the start.
ISSUES AND FACTS OF LAW:
To what extent Indian jurisdiction apply?
Just an intention to move to India before partition, Does it makes him Indian citizen?
The Supreme Court held that in IPC no where domicile was defined clearly, as per the evidence and argument of respondent it clearly shows that after partition appellant didn’t have any intention to stay in Pakistan. But only with intention we can’t conclude anything unless intention accompanied with facts or conduct of appellant to get citizenship of India if proved. As per applicability of Section 4 of IPC it clearly says that criminal law of India is applicable to Indian citizen. Because the offence happened outside territory of India and appellant was not citizen of India while committing the offence, So appellant can’t be tried in Indian courts as per Section 4 of IPC, So Supreme Court passed verdict that Ram Narain trail is out of jurisdiction and quashed the proceedings.