IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Crl.MC.No. 2565 of 2010()
1. RIYAS SALIM, AGED 25 YEARS,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. THE C.I. OF POLICE,
... Respondent
2. STATE OF KERALA,
3. UNION OF INDIA,
For Petitioner :SRI.V.SETHUNATH
For Respondent :SHRI.K.HARILAL, CGC
The Hon'ble MR. Justice M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR
Dated :08/09/2010
O R D E R
M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR,J.
===========================
CRL.M.C.No. 2565 OF 2010
===========================
Dated this the 8th day of September,2010
ORDER
This petition is filed under section 482 of
the Code of Criminal Procedure by the accused
in Crime 645/2010 of Pathanamthitta Police
Station registered for the offence under
section 408 of Indian Penal Code on Annexure 2
F.I.R. The case of the petitioner is that the
case is registered based on the information
furnished by a third party, who has no personal
information and hence has no locus standi. It
is also contended that as the offence is
alleged to have committed outside India without
the previous sanction of the Central Government
as provided under section 188 of Code of
Criminal Procedure, the case cannot be
registered or investigated.
2. Learned counsel appearing for the
Crl.M.C.2565/2010 2
petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor were
heard.
3. The argument of the learned counsel
appearing for the petitioner is that the first
informant has no direct knowledge with regard to
the allegations raised therein and therefore he has
no locus standi to file a complaint and based on
such complaint, no case can be registered. It is
also argued that in any case the case can be
investigated only by the Central Government and not
by the State Government. Learned counsel also
argued that when admittedly no sanction was
obtained from the Central Government, no
investigation could be conducted. Learned counsel
argued that in view of Section 34A of Extradition
Act, subsequent to the amended Section 188 of Code
of Criminal Procedure, the case could be registered
only as provided under 34A of Extradition Act.
4. Learned counsel appearing for the Central
Government submitted that under Annexure 2 the case
has been registered based on the statement
Crl.M.C.2565/2010 3
forwarded and by that statement law has only been
set in motion and being a cognizable offence the
case can be registered and investigated. It is
also submitted that the sanction is necessary only
for taking cognizance of the offence and not for
investigation.
5. I cannot agree with argument of the
learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that
previous sanction of the Central Government is
necessary to register a case or to investigate the
case. Section 188 of Code of Criminal Procedure
provides for investigation of cases committed
outside India. Under the section when an offence
is committed outside India by a citizen of India,
whether on the high seas or elsewhere or 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. The proviso mandates that
notwithstanding anything in any of the preceding
Crl.M.C.2565/2010 4
sections of Chapter XIII, no such offence shall be
inquired into or tried in India except with the
previous sanction of the Central Government.
Therefore previous sanction of Central Government
is necessary only for any “inquiry or trial” and
not for investigation as held by the Full Bench of
this Court in Samaruddin v. Asst.Director of
Enforcement (1999(3) ILR 333). Section 188 does
not provide that such a case is to be investigated
by the Central Government as canvassed by learned
counsel. The police is competent to investigate
the case. I find no no merit in the petition. It
is dismissed.
M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR
JUDGE
tpl/-
M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, J.
———————
W.P.(C).NO. /06
———————
JUDGMENT
SEPTEMBER,2006