Offences Committed Outside India: Central Govt. May Accord Sanction Even After Cognizance Of Offence Is Taken: SC [Read Judgment]

The Supreme Court has held that the Central Government may accord sanction under the proviso to Section 188 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, even after cognizance of offence is taken.

Proviso to Section 188 CrPC provides that no offence which is committed outside India shall be inquired into or tried in India except with the previous sanction of the Central Government.

Taking note that the offences alleged against the accused is said to have been committed in Australia, the Bombay High Court had stayed the criminal proceedings in the case. In appeal filed against the said order, the bench of Justice Rohinton Fali Nariman and Justice S. Ravindra Bhat said:

Our judgment reported in Thota Venkateswarlu v. State of A.P. and Another' [2011 (9) SCC 527] makes it clear that the Central Government may accord sanction under the proviso to Section 188 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, even after cognizance of offence is taken. In this view of the matter, there was no need to stay further investigation in the FIR.

Thota Venkateswarlu v. State of A.P.

In this case, the Supreme Court had considered the issue whether in respect of a series of offences arising out of the same transaction, some of which were committed within India and some outside India, such offences could be tried together, without the previous sanction of the Central Government, as envisaged in the proviso to Section 188 Cr.P.C. It held thus:

• The language of Section 188 Cr.P.C. is quite clear that when an offence is committed outside India by a citizen of India, he may be dealt with in respect of such offences as if they had been committed in India. The proviso, however, indicates that such offences could be inquired into or tried only after having obtained the previous sanction of the Central Government.
• The proviso to Section 188, which has been extracted hereinbefore, is a fetter on the powers of the investigating authority to inquire into or try any offence mentioned in the earlier part of the Section, except with the previous sanction of the Central Government. The fetters, however, are imposed only when the stage of trial is reached, which clearly indicates that no sanction in terms of Section 188 is required till commencement of the trial. It is only after the decision to try the offender in India was felt necessary that the previous sanction of the Central Government would be required before the trial could commence.
• Upto the stage of taking cognizance, no previous sanction would be required from the Central Government in terms of the proviso to Section 188 Cr.P.C. However, the trial cannot proceed beyond the cognizance stage without the previous sanction of the Central Government. The Magistrate is, therefore, free to proceed against the accused in respect of offences having been committed in India and to complete the trial and pass judgment therein, without being inhibited by the other alleged offences for which sanction would be required. 

Case name: GAURI ROHAN BEDEKAR vs. SUJATA SANJAY BEDEKAR 
Case no.: CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 394 OF 2020
Coram: Justices Rohinton Fali Nariman and S. Ravindra Bhat
Counsel: Advocates Shankey Agrawal and Arvind S. Avhad

Click here to Read/Download Order

Read Order