Offences Committed Outside India: Previous Sanction Of Central Govt U/S 188 CrPC Not Required At The Stage Of Cogizance But Trial Can't Be Commenced Without It: SC

The Supreme Court observed that the trial of the criminal case against an Indian citizen for offences committed outside India cannot commence without sanction of the Central Government under Section 188 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

But such previous sanction is not required at the stage of cognizance, the bench comprising Justices L. Nageswara Rao and Aniruddha Bose said.

In this case, the contention of the accused before the High court in his petition under Section 482 CrPC was that the alleged offences were committed in the USA and in accordance with Section 188 of the Cr.P.C., sanction from the Central Government is required even for initiation of investigation of the crime. The High Court, rejected this contention and dismissed the petition.

In appeal, the bench noted that in Thota Venkateswarlu vs. State of A.P. Tr. Principal Secretary 2011 (9) SCC 527 it was held that previous sanction of the Central Government under Section 188 Cr.P.C. for offences committed by a citizen of India outside the country is not required at the stage of cognizance and therefore it is not inclined to interfere with the order passed by the High Court.

While dismissing the SLP, the court clarified that the accused is at liberty to raise the ground pertaining to sanction before the commencement of the trial.

Know the Law: Section 188 CrPC

Section 188 CrPC deals with offence committed outside India.

When an offence is committed outside India- (a) by a citizen of India, whether on the high seas or elsewhere; or (b) 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: Provided that, notwithstanding anything in any of the preceding sections of this Chapter, no such offence shall be inquired into or tried in India except with the previous sanction of the Central Government.

In Ajay Aggarwal vs. Union of India & Ors. [(1993) 3 SCC 609], it was held that obtaining the previous sanction of the Central Government was not a condition precedent for taking cognizance of offences, since sanction could be obtained before trial begins.

"Although the decision in Ajay Aggarwal's case (supra) was rendered in the background of a conspiracy alleged to have been hatched by the accused, the ratio of the decision is confined to what has been observed hereinabove in the interpretation of Section 188 Cr.P.C. 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.... Accordingly, 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." the court said in Thota Venkateswarlu (Supra)

Case: NERELLA CHIRANJEEVI ARUN KUMAR vs. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH  ; SLP(Crl) 3978/2021
Coram: Justice L. Nageswara Rao and Aniruddha Bose
Citation: LL 2021 SC 350

Click here to Read/Download Order