DR.

RAM MANOHAR LOHIYA NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITY, LUCKNOW

FINAL PROJECT
INDIAN PENAL CODE
“ Territorial And Extra-Territorial Jurisdiction Under The Indian
Penal Code 1860”

SUBMITTED TO SUBMITTED BY
MR. MALAY PANDEY ADITYA SINGH
ASST. PROFESSOR BA. LLB.(Hons),4th Semester
FACULTY OF LAW ROLL NO 10
RMLNLU , LUCKNOW RMLNLU, LUCKNOW
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

First and foremost , I would like to thank Mr. Malay Pandey , Faculty of
Law,RMLNLU, for alloting me this topic to work on. He has been very kind in
providing inputs for this work , by the way of suggestions.

I would also like to thank my parents , dear colleagues and friends in the
university who have helped me with ideas about this work. I would also like to
thank all the authors , writers , columnists , and thinkers whose ideas have been used
in this project. Last but not the least , i would like to thank the university
administration , for equippiung the university with such good library and I.T. facility
without which this work would not have been possible.

Aditya Singh

Semester 4 , BA. LLb(Hons)

Roll No - 10
CONTENTS

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT....................................................................................................................... 2
CONTENTS........................................................................................................................................ 3
I. INTRODUCTION...................................................................... ……………………………………………………..
II. TYPES OF JURISDICTION............................................................................................................... 4
1) TERRITORIAL JURISDICTION ..........................................................................................................
2) EXTRA-TERRITORIAL JURISDICTION.............................................................................................. 5

III. JURISDICTION UNDER IPC ........................................................................................................... 7

4) SECTION -2 ................................................................................................................................... 7
5) SECTION -3 ................................................................................................................................... 8
6) SECTION -2 ........................................................................................................................ …………9
IV. CASE LAWS……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………....9

CONCLUSION................................................................................................................................... 10

Bibliography .................................................................................................................................... 11
INTRODUCTION

Jurisdiction word came from two Latin words (Ius,Iuris+Dicere) , “Ius,Iuris” means law and
“Dicare” means To speak. Jurisdiction is the practical authority granted to a legal body to
administer to justice or to a political leader to deal with and make pronouncements on legal
matters and, by implication, to administer justice within a defined area of responsibility. In the
other words Jurisdiction is power or right of a legal or political agency to exercise its authority
over a person, subject matter, or territory.

Jurisdiction over a person relates to the authority to try him or her as a defendant. Jurisdiction
over a subject matter relates to authority derived from the country's constitution or laws to
consider a particular case. Jurisdiction over a territory relates to the geographic area over which a
court has the authority to decide cases. Concurrent jurisdiction exists where two courts have
simultaneous responsibility for the same case.

II. TYPES OF JURISDICTION

Jurisdiction is divided into two types –

1. Civil Court Jurisdiction Section- 9 of CPC deals with the jurisdiction of civil courts in India. It
says that the courts shall (subject to the provisions herein contained) have jurisdiction to try all
suits of a civil nature excepting suits of which their cognizance is either expressly or impliedly
barred.1

Explanation I- a suit in which the right to property or to an office is contested is a suit or a civil
nature, notwithstanding that such right may depend entirely on the decision of questions as to
religious rites or ceremonies.

2. Criminal Court Jurisdiction 1 Section-177 -189 of Cr.Pc deals with the jurisdiction of
criminal court in india. It says that the courts shall (subject to the provisions herein contained)

1
www.advocatekhoj.com/library/bareacts/indianpenalcode/index.php?Title=Indian%20Penal%20Code,%201860
have jurisdiction to try all suits of a criminal nature excepting inquiries and trials. On the
different ground of case, the criminal court jurisdiction divided into –

2.1.Personal Jurisdiction

2.2.Territorial Jurisdiction

III. JURISDICTION UNDER INDIAN PENAL CODE

Section-2 of The Indian Penal Code deals with the intra-territorial operation of the Code and
Section 3and 4 deals with offences committed beyond the territorial limits of India. It refers to
offences committed within India and declares that every person shall be liable to punishment
under Code of which he shall be guilty within the territory of India. The section asserts the
principle of criminal liability on the basis of the locality and place of the offence committed.
Criminal jurisdiction depends upon the locality of the offence committed, and not upon the
nationality or locality of offender. The territory of India for the purposes of application of its law
would comprise not only its land, its internal waters, such as rivers, lakes and canals, also portion
of sea lying along and washing its coast, commonly called maritime territory. The territorial
waters of India extend into the sea to a distance of twelve maritime miles from the appropriate
base line. The territory of a State also includes its ships, aircrafts, whether armed or unarmed,
and the private ships of its subjects on the high seas or in foreign tidal waters, and foreign private
ships while within its ports.

Every Person meaning –the Section makes “every Person” irrespective of his nationality or
allegiance, or his rank, status, caste, color, or creed, liable to punishment under The Indian Penal
Code for an offence committed within India. The words “every Person” it includes not only
citizens, but non-citizens and even foreigners visiting the country2 .

In other words Section-11 of the IPC defined the term “person” in a wider meaning to the term
to include both natural person(a human being ,whether a man or a woman) and artificial person,
such as, a company, or association, or a body of persons or an idol which is a legal person.
Corporations are indictable for offences of quasi-criminal nature, such as non-repair of the
highway, bridges, nuisance, trespass, forgery, etc. for which fine is either the sole punishment or
an alternative punishment to imprisonment. But a corporation would not be criminally liable for
offences such as murder, robbery, offences against the state, punishment prescribed by law. An
unborn child in the mother’s womb is a `person` for the purposes of section 11 of the code.

2
indiankanoon.org/doc/84475 7 4.1
A Foreigner, who enters in India, by accepting the allegiance and protection of Indian laws, is as
much liable for committing an offence under the code as a resident is. A Foreigner, can neither
take the plea of ignorance of the law, nor that He was unaware of the criminal nature of act in
question since it was not an offence in his country. Thus a foreigner who initiates an offence
outside India that takes effect on Indian Territory is liable under the Indian penal code.

TERRITORIAL

Section 2 of the Penal Code deals with offences Committed in intra-territorial operation limits of
India. It refers to offences committed by anyone. The code declared that every person shall be
liable to punishment under the Code for every act or omission.

EXEMPTION FROM CRIMINAL PROSECUTION

According to section 2 of the Penal Code “every person” is liable to punishment under the code
for an offence, but there are certain exceptions to the to the general rule of criminal liability,
which are based on the principle of expediency, on convention or on an agreement or
understanding between nations. For instance, the law provides immunity from criminal
prosecution to high dignitaries, the heads of foreign governments, ambassadors, diplomatic
agents, consuls.3

4.2. Territorial Waters Jurisdiction: It is universally recognized that every State has jurisdiction
over the waters adjacent to its land-boundaries called the maritime belt or territorial waters.

EXTRA-TERRITORIAL

Section 3 and 4 of the Penal Code give extra-territorial operation to the code. Thus a person may
be held liable under the penal code for committing offences beyond the territory of India. Section
3 gives criminal Jurisdiction to the courts to try for an offence committed by a person beyond the
territory of India provided such a person is subject to the Indian law.

5.1. EXTENTION OF CODE TO EXTRA-JURISDICTION OFFENCE

This Provisions of this code apply also to any offence committed by

3
. K.D. Gaur/The Indian Penal Code 1860/universal
1) Any citizen of India in any place without and beyond India. 2) Any person on any ship or
aircraft registered in India whenever it may be; 3) Any person in any place without and beyond
India committing offence targeting a computer resource located in India

5.2CRIME COMMITTED OUTSIDE INDIA EXTRA-TERRITORIAL OPERATION OF

THE CODE

Section 4, clause (1) of the penal code extends the operation of the code to an offence committed
by a citizen of India in any place without and beyond India and clause (2) extends to an offence
committed by any person on any ship, or aircraft registered in India. Clause (3) has been added
in section 4 of the penal code by the Information Technology (amendment) act, 2008 with a view
to make offences targeting a computers resource located in India from aboard punishable under
the Indian penal Code.

5.3. ADMIRALTY JURISDICTION

Section 4 of clause (2) of the penal code gives admiralty jurisdiction to the Indian courts and the
power to try offences committed on any ship, or aircraft registered in India, wherever it might be.
A person committing a crime on board, whether an Indian citizen or foreigner , is amenable to
the Indian courts, if the vessel is flying an Indian flag and is registered in India. It may be noted
that the Indian Penal Code (Amendment) Bill, 1972.

IV. CASE LAWS

MOBARAK ALI AHMED VS. STATE OF BOMBAY

In this case the apex court held that corporeal (physical) non-presence of the accused at the
material time in India is of no significance, where all the ingredients of the offence occur within
the territory of India. Pakistani citizen, while staying at Karachi, made false representations to
the complainant at Bombay through letters, telephone calls and telegrams and induced the
complainant to part with money amounting to over rupees five and half 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 9
Bombay as a result of extradition proceedings, where he was prosecuted and convicted under
section 420 read with section 414 of the Penal Code for cheating that have occurred in Bombay
by the Trial Court. His conviction was confirmed by the high court.4

4
K.D Gaur/The Indian Penal Code 1860/universal.
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA Vs. MAYER HANS GEORGE

In this case, he respondent, a German smuggler, left Zurich by plane on 27th November 1962
with 34 kilos of gold concealed on his person to be delivered in Manila. The plane arrived in
Bombay on the 28th but the respondent did not come out of the plane. The Customs Authorities
examined the manifest of the aircraft to see if any gold was consigned by any passenger, and not
finding any entry they entered the plane, searched the respondent, recovered the gold and
charged him with an offence under ss. 8(1) and 23(1-A) of The Foreign Exchange Regulation act
(7 of 1947) read with a notification dated 8th November 1962 of the Reserve Bank of India
which was published in the Gazette of India on 24th November.

The respondent was convicted by the Magistrate, but acquitted by the High Court on appeal. In
the appeal by the State to the Supreme Court, the respondent sought to support the judgment of
the High Court by contending that Mens rea was an essential ingredient of the offence charged
and as, it was not disputed by the prosecution that the respondent was not aware of the
notification of the Reserve Bank, he could not be found guilty. the notification being merely
subordinate or delegated legislation could be deemed to be in force only when it was brought to
the notice of persons affected by it and the second proviso in the notification requiring
disclosure in the manifest was not applicable to gold carried on the person of a passenger.

SABU MATHEW GEORGE VS. UNION OF INDIA

In this case, 2008, Sabu Matthew George, an activist, filed a writ petition to ban advertisements
relating to pre-natal sex determination from search engines in India. According to the petitioner,
the display of these results violated Section 22 of the Pre-Natal Diagnostic Techniques
(Regulation and Prevention of Misuse Act), 1994. From 2014-2015, the Supreme Court ordered
the respondents to block these advertisements several times.

Finally, on November 16th 2016, the Supreme Court ordered the respondents, Google, Microsoft
and Yahoo to „auto-block‟ advertisements relating to sex selective determination. They also
ordered the creation of a „nodal agency‟ that would provide search engines with the details of
websites to block.
FATIMA BIBI AHEMED PATEL VS. STATE OF GUJRAT

In this case the supreme court held that the quote has no application for and offence committed
by a foreigner outside India even though we acquire citizenship letter on. Appellant Fatima bibi
was a citizen of mauritius and her son and daughter-in-law were residing at kuwait. Appellant
had been visiting India on Visas and staying in the India with her relative in Gujarat. son of
appellant Hanif Ahmed Patel was married to the complainant respondent on 2-4- 2002.

The relation between the appellant son and daughter in law became strained and a complaint
petition was filed before the chief judicial magistrate, Navsari(Gujarat) by complainant
respondent (daughter- in- law)Alleging physical and mental torture by her husband under Section
498A and 506(2) IPC and against the appeal and that she used to instigate her son accordingly.5

R. VS. SALIMULLAH

In this case Calcutta Court observed Reference has been made to Section 4 of the Indian Penal
Code. It is possible to give the section a construction which is not inconsistent with the English
statute but in any case it could not assume that the Indian Legislature had jurisdiction in the 5
matter, affecting the specific statute of Parliament". This reasoning becomes unsupportable in
view of the plenary powers of the Indian Legislature today. Besides, as a matter of
construction60 the provisions of the Penal Code should be applied to the exclusion of any other
law in the cases of citizens of India wherever they may be and the high seas are not to be
differentiated from any other part of the world outside India.

QUEEN VS. KEYN

In this case the captain of German streamer the "Franconia" was convicted by a lower British
Court of manslaughter. For the death of a passenger caused by a collision that took place within
three miles of the British Coast. The high court dismissed the case on the ground that although
the exercise by the state, jurisdiction over the marine league was evidenced by the practice of
nations and by the statements of writers of authority, parliament had not yet actually extended
the criminal jurisdiction of the courts over the territorial waters in question. However,
consequent on the decision in R. v. Keynis the Territorial Waters Jurisdiction Act was passed by
British Parliament declaring that all offences committed in territorial waters of the Queen's
dominions were triable by the local courts. This Act which is applicable to India defines
5
www.indiakanoon.com.
territorial waters as any part of the sea within one marine league (3 miles) of the coast. Section 7
of the Act defines an 'offence' as follows: " 'offence' as used in this Act means any act, neglect or
default of such description as would, if committed within the body of a county in England be
punishable on indictment according to the law of England for the time being in force". There has
not been any Indian case decided under this Act. The following problems arise for consideration

CONCLUSION

JURISDICTION is the important for all offence, Crime had done in the territory or beyond
territory accused liable for the punishment. Many crime held in the society like cheating, fraud,
rapes, murder, dacoity, kidnaping, harassment, breach of contract, etc.

Crime arise in the society and society made law to control on it. At the present time the crime
raised very fast in whole world. The parliament made the new law and old judgement also
overruled by the court for better jurisdiction. As per second done a crime in the society. To
control the crime, punishment of different crimes decided under the section of the Indian Penal
code. Territorial and Extra-territorial jurisdiction is very wide concept for the crime. Government
made the new law under territorial and extra-territorial jurisdiction for future regulation of the
law.
BIBLIOGRAPHY

BOOKS

1. Ratanlal & Dhirajlal, The Indian Penal Code, LexisNexis, New Delhi, 2014.

2. T. Bhattacharyya, The Indian Penal Code, Central Law Agency, Allahabad, 2014.

3. K.D. Gaur, A Textbook on The Indian penal Code, Universal Law Publishing Co. Pvt. Ltd., 2007.

4. Prof. S.N. Mishra, Indian Penal Code, Central Law Publication(20th Ed.), 2016.

5. Essays on Indian Penal Code, The Indian Law Institute, New Delhi,

6. Indian Penal Code, 1860.

WEBSITES

 www.legalservicesindia.com
 www.manupatrafast.com.
 www.scconline.in.
 www.indiankanoon.org