iminal Appeal No 400 of 1993
From the Judgment land order dated 36
1992 of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in Criminal Revision No 443 of 1990
P Chadambaram Mukul Rohtagi Ms Bina Gupta and Ms Monika Mohil for the Appellants
NN Goswamy YD Mahajan and ND Garg for the Respondent
The Judgments of the Court were delivered by K RAMASWAMYJ Special leave granted
The appellant accused No 2 in p
CBI No 402 dated February 18 1985 FIR No RC No 2 to 41983 dated March 41983 and PS SPECBICTU E INew Delhi Dist
Delhi and four other namely VP Anand Baldev Raj Sharma Bansi La and Ranjit KumarMarwah are accused in the said case
It is the prosecution case that the accused hatched a conspiracy at Chandigarh to cheat Punjab National Bank for short PNB 
In furtherance thereof VP Anand floated three New Link Enterprises and Ms Moonlight Industries in the name of Baldev Raj Sharms his employee and Ms Guru Nanak Industries in the name of Bansi Lal yet another employee
He opened current accounts in their respective names in the PNB at Chandigarh
In furtherance of the conspiracy and in confabulation with VP Anand the appellant Ajay Aggarwal a non resident Indian at Dubai who is running Ms Sales International Dubai agreed to and got credit facility by way of Foreign Letters of Credit Nos
4069 p 4070 p and 4084 p issued proforma invoices of the said concern and addresses to PNB through Guru Nanak Industries and New Link Enterprises
Ranjit Marwah the 5th accused Manager of PNB In charge of foreign exchange department confabulated with the accused issued Foreign Letter of Credit in violation of import policy
The Bills of Lading were addressed to PNB at Chandigarh
The cable confirmation of PNB was sent to M s Sales International by PNB Chandigarh for confirmation of discrepancy
The appellant had confirmed correctness thereof in the name of VP Anand
Placing reliance thereon authority letter was issued by PNB Chandigarh and cables were sent subsequent thereto to remit the amounts to Emirates National Bank Ltd through Irving Trust Company
VP Anand was present on September 16 1981 at Dubai and at his instance the Emirats National Bank Dubai informed the 551 PNB Chandigarh that the discrepancy in the document adeptable to VP Anand and claimed to have inspected the goods on board in vessel MV Atefeh
On receipt of the information from the Sales International Dubai full amount in US Dollars 4 39200 was credited against all the three Letters of Credit on discount basis
During investigation it was found that Vessel MV Atefeh was a nonexistent one and three Foreicn Letters of Credit were fabricated on the basis of false and forged shipping documents submitted by the appellant Ajay Aggarwal to the Emirates National Bank Dubai
Thus the PN B was cheated of an amount of Rs 4030329
Accordingly charge sheet was laid against the appellant
and others for offences punishable under sections 120B read with Sections 420 Cheating 468 Forgery and 471 using as genuine Forged documents IPC
The Chief Judicial Magistrate Chandigarh by his order dated January 11 1990 discharged all the accused of the offences on the ground that conspiracy and the acts done in furtherance thereof had taken place outside India and therefore the sanction under section 188 Criminal Procedure Code 1973 for short the Code  is mandatory
Since no such sanction was produced the prosecution is not maintainable
On revision the High Court of Punjab and Haryana in Criminal Revision No 443 of 1990 by order dated June 3 1992 held that the conspiracy had taken place at Chandigarh
The overt acts committed in pursuance of that conspiracy at Dubai constituted offences under sections 420 467 and 471 IPC are all triable at Chandigarh without previous sanction of the central Govt
The order of discharge therefore was set aside and the appellant and other accused were directed to be present through their counsel in person in the Trial Court on July 171992 to enable the court to take further proceedings in accordance with law
This appeal has been filed by the appellant alone under article 136 of the constitution
Sri Chidambaram learned Senior counsel contended that the appellant was not a privy to the conspiracy
He was an NIR businessman at Dubai
He never visited Chandigarh
Even assuming for the sake of argument that conspiracy had taken place and all act committed in furtherance thereof were also at Dubai
The transaction through bank is only bank to bank transaction
Even assuming that some of the offences were committed in India since as per the prosecution case itself that part of the conspiracy and related offences were committed at Dubai by operation of Section 188 read with the proviso thereto with a non obstanti clause absence of sanction by the Central Govt
knocks of the bottom of the jurisdiction of the courts in India to take cognisance of or to enquire into of try the accused
He placed strong reliance on 1
Fakhrulla khan and Ors
vs Emperor AIR 1935 Mad 326 In re ML Verghese AIR 1947 MAD
352 kailash Sharma vs State 1973 Crl
Law Journal 1021 and K Satwant Singh vs State of Punjab  Sri Goswami the learned senior counsel for the respondents contended that the conspiracy to cheat
PNB was hatched at Chandigarh
All the accused committed 552 overt acts in furtherance
All the accused committed overt acts in furtherance on the conspiracy at Chandigarh and therefore the sanction of the Central Govt
is not necessary
The High Court had rightly recorded those findings
There is no need to obtain sanction under section 188 of the Code
The diverse contentions give rise to the primary question whether the sanction of the Central Govt
as required under proviso to section 188 of the Code is necessary
Section 188 of the Code reads thus 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 asif 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
Section 3 IPC prescribes punishment of offences committed beyond but which by law may be tried with India It provided that any person liable by any Indian law to be tried for an offence committed beyond India shall be dealt with according to the provisions of this Code for any act committed beyond India in the same manner as if such act had been committed within India
Section 4 extends its territorial operation postulating that IPC shall apply to any offence committed by 1 any citizen of India in any place without any beyond India 2 any person on any ship or aircraft registered in India wherever it may be
Explanation in this section the word offence  includes every act committed outside India which if committed in India would be punishable under this Code 553 Illustration A who is a citizen of India commits a Murder in Uganda
He can be tried and convicted of murder in any place in India in which he may be found
The Code of Criminal Procedure extends to whole of India except the State of Jammu  Kashmir and except chapters 8 10 and 11 the other provisions of the Code shall not apply to the State of Nagaland and to the tribal area
However the State Govt has been empowered by a notification to apply all other provisions of the Code or any of them to the whole or part of the State of Nagaland and such other tribal areas with supplemental incidental or consequential modifications as may be specified in the notification
Therefore the Code also has territorial operation
The Code is to consolidate and amend the law relating to criminal procedure
Section 188 was suitably amended pursuant to the recommendation made by the Law Commission
Chapter VIII deals with jurisdiction of the courts in inquiries and trials
Section 177 postulates that every offence shall ordinarily be inquired into and tried by a Court within whose local jurisdiction it was committed but exceptions have been engrafted in subsequent sections in the Chapter
Section 179 provides venue for trial or enquiry at the place where the act is done or consequences ensued
So inquiry or trial may be had by a Court within whose local jurisdiction such thing has been done or such consequence has ensued
Section 188 by fiction dealt offences conumitted by a citizen of India or a foreigner outside India or on high seas or elsewhere or on any ship or aircraft registered in India
Such person was directed to be dealt with in respect of such offences as if be had committed at any place within India at which he may be found
But the proviso thereto puts and embargo that notwithstanding anything in any of the preceding sections of this Chapter have been done such offences shall not be inquired into or tried in India except with the previous sanction of the Central Govt
Judicial power of a State extends to the punishment of all offences against the municipal laws of the State by whomsoever committed within the territory
It also has the power to punish all such offences wherever committed by its citizen
The general principle of international law is that every person be it a citizen or foreigner who is found within a foreign State is subjected to and is punishable by its law
Otherwise the criminal law could not be administered according to any civilised system of jurisprudence
Sections 177 to 186 deal with the venue or the place of the enquiry or trial of crimes
Section 177 reiterates the well established common law rule that the proper and ordinary situs for the trial of a crime is the area of jurisdiction in which the acts occurred and are alleged to constitute the crime
But this rule is subject to several well recognised exceptions and some of those exceptions have been engrafted in subsequent sections in the chapter of the Code
554 Therefore the provisions in Chapter VIII are elastic and not peremptory
In consequence there with Sections 218 to 223 of the code would also deal with exceptions engrafted in the Code
Therefore they do permit enquiry or trial of a particular offence along with other offences at a common trial in one court so that the court having jurisdiction to try an offence gets jurisdiction to try other offence committed or consequences thereof has ensued
The procedure is hand maid to substantive justice namely to bring the offenders to justice to meet out punishment under IPC or special law as the case may be in accordance with the procedure prescribed under the Code or special procedure under that Act constituting the offence
The question is whether prior sanction of the Central Govt
Is necessary for the offence of conspiracy under proviso to section 188 of the Code to take cognizance of an offence punishable under section 120 B etc
IPC or to proceed with trial
In Chapter VA conspiracy was brought on statute by the Amendment Act 1913 8 of 1913
Section 120 A of the IPC defines conspiracy  to mean that when two or more persons agree to do or cause to be done an ilegal act or an act which is not illegal by illegal means such an agreement is designated as criminal conspiracy
No agreement except an agreement to commit an offence shall amount to a criminal conspiracy unless some act besides the agreement is done by one or more parties to such agreement in furtherance thereof
Section 120 B of the IPC prescribes punishment for criminal conspiracy
It is not necessary that each conspirator must know all the details or the scheme nor be a participant at every stage
It is necessary that they should agree for design or object of the conspiracy
Conspiracy is conceived as having three elements 1 agreement 2 between two or more persons by whom the agreement is effected  and 3 a criminal object which may be either the ultimate aim of the agreement or may constitute the means or one of the means by which that aim is to be accomplished
It is immaterial whether this is found in the ultimate objects
The common law definition of criminal conspiracy was stated first by Lord Denman in jones case that an indictment for conspiracy must charge a conspiracy to do an unlawful act by unlawful means and was elaborated by Willies J on behalf of the judges while referring the question to the House of Lords in Mulcahy vs Reg and the House of Lords in unanimous decision reiterated in Quinn vs Leathem  at 528 as under A conspiracy consists not merely in the intention of two or more but in the agreement
of two or more to do in unlawful act or to do a lawful act by unlawful means
So long as such a design rests in intention only it is not indictable When two agree to carry it into 555 effect the very plot is an act in itself and the act of each of the parties promise against promise actus contra actum capable of being enforced if lawful punishable of for a criminal object or for the use of criminal means
This Court in B G Barsay vs The State of Bombay 1962 2 SCR at 229 held The list of the offence is an agreement to break the law
The parties to such an agreement will be guilty of criminal conspiracy though the illegal act agreed to be done has not been done
So too it is an ingredient of the offence that all the parties should agree to do a single illegal act
It may comprise the commission of a number of acts
Under section 43 of the Indian Penal Code an act would be illegal if fit is an offence or if it is prohibited by law
In Yashpal vs State of Punjab the rule was laid as follows The very agreement concert or league is the ingredient of the offence
It is not necessary that all the conspirators must know each and every detail of the conspiracy as long as they are co participators in the main object of the conspiracy
There may be so many devices and techniques adopted to achieve the common goal of the conspiracy and there may be division of performances in the chain of actions with one object to achieve the real end of which every collaborator must be aware and in which each one of them must be interested
There must be unity of object or purpose but there may be plurality of means sometimes even unknown to one another amongst the conspirators
In achieving the goal several offences may be committed by some of the conspirators even unknown to the others
The only relevant factor is that all means adopted and illegal acts done must be and purported to be in furtherance of the object of the conspiracy even though there may be sometimes misfire or over shooting by some of the conspirators
In Mohammed Usman
Mohammad Hussain Manivar  Anr
vs State of Maharashtra   it was held that for an offence under section 120B IPC the prosecution need not necessarily prove that the conspirators expressly 556 agreed to do or cause to be done the illegal act
the agreement may be proved by necessary implication
In Noor Mohammed Yusuf Momin vs State of Maharashtra   it was held that section 120 B IPC makes the criminal conspiracy as a substantive offence which offence postulates an agreement between two or more persons to do or cause to be done an act by illegal means
If the offence itself is to commit an offence no further steps are needed to be proved to carry the agreement into effect
In R K Dalmia  Anr
vs The Delhi Administration It 963 1 SCR 253 it was further held that it is not necessary that each member of a conspiracy must know all the details of the conspiracy
In Shivanarayan Laxminarayan  Ors
State of Mahrashtra  Ors  this court emphasized that a conspiracy is always hatched in secrecy and it is impossible to adduce direct evidence of the same
The offence can be only proved largely from the inferences drawn from acts or illegal omission committed by the conspirators in pursuance of a common design
The question then is whether conspiracy is continuing offence
Conspiracy to commit crime it self is punishable as a substantive offence and every individual offence committed pursuant to the conspiracy is separate and distinct offence to which individual offenders are liable to punishment independent of the conspiracy
Yet in our considered view the agreement does not come to an end with its making but would endure till it is accomplished or abandoned or proved abortive
Being a continuing offence if any acts or omissions which constitutes an offence are done in India or outside its territory the conspirators continuing to be parties to the conspiracy and since part of the acts were done in India they would obviate the need to obtain sanction of the Central Govt
all of them need not be present in India nor continue to remain in India
In lennart Schussler  Anr
vs Director of Enforcement  Anr   a Constitution Bench of this Court was to consider the question of conspiracy in the setting of the facts stated thus A 2 was the Managing Director of the Rayala Corporation Ltd Which manufactures Halda Typewriters
A 1 was an Export Manager of ASSAB
A 1 and A2 conspired that A2 would purchase material on behalf of his Company from ASSAB instead of Ms Atvidaberos which provided raw material
A2 was to over invoice the value of the goods by 40 per cent of true value and that he should be paid the difference of 40 per cent on account of the aforesaid over invoicing by crediting it to A2 s personal account at Stockholm in a Swedish Bank and requested A 1 to help him in opening the account in Swenska Handles Banken Sweden and to have further 557 deposits to his personal account from ASSAB
A 1 agreed to act as requested by A2 and A2 made arrangements with ASSAB to intimate to A 1 the various amounts credited to A2 s account and asked A 1 to keep a watch over the correctness of the account and  to further intimate to him the account position from time to time through unofficial channels and whenever A 1 come to India
A 1 agreed to comply with this request
This agreement was entered into between the parties in the year 1963 at Stockholm and again in Madras in the year 1965
The question was whether Sec
120 B of the Indian Penal Code was attracted to these facts
Per majority Jaganmohan Reddy J held that the gist of the offence defined in section 120 A IPC which is itself punishable as a substantive offence is the very agreement between two or more persons to do or cause to be done an illegal act or legal act by illegal means subject however to the proviso that where the agreement is not an agreement to commit an offence the agreement does not amount to a conspiracy unless it is followed up by an overt act done by one or more persons in pursuance of such an agreement
There must be a meeting of minds in the doing of the illegal act or the doing of a legal act by illegal means
in furtherance of the conspiracy certain persons are induced to do an unlawful act without the knowledge of the conspiracy or the plot they cannot be held to be conspirators though they may be guilty of an offence pertaining to the specific unlawful act
The offence of conspiracy is complete when two or more conspirators have agreed to do or cause to be done an act which is itself an offence in which case no overt act need be established
It was contended in that regard that several acts which constitute to make an offence under section 120 B may be split up in parts and the criminal liability of A 1 must only be judged with regard to the part played by him
He merely agreed to help A2 to open an account in the Swedish Bank having the amounts lying to the credit of A2 with Atvidaberg to that account and to help A2 by keeping a watch over the account
Therefore it does not amount to a criminal conspiracy
While negating the argument this court held thus It appears to us that this is not a justifiable contention because what has to be seen is whether the agreement between A 1 and A2 is a conspiracy to do or continue to do something which is illegal and if it is it is immaterial whether the agreement to do any of the acts in furtherance of the commission of the offence do not strictly amount to an offence
the entire agreement must be viewed as a whole and it has to be ascertained as to what in fact the conspirators intended to do or the object they wanted to achieve
558 Thus this court though not in the context of jurisdictional issue held that the agreement not illegal at its inception would become illegal by subsequent conduct and an agreement to do an illegal act or to do a legal act by illegal means must be viewed as a whole and not in isolation
It was also implied that the agreement shall continuing till the object is achieved
The agreement does not get terminated by merely entering into an agreement but it continues to subsist till the object is either achieved or terminated or abandoned
In Abdul Kader vs State AIR 1964 Bombay 133 a conspiracy was formed in South Africa by appellants to cheat persons by dishonestly inducing them to deliver money in the Indian currency by using forced documents and the acts of cheating were committed in India
When the accused were charged with the offence of conspiracy it was contended that the conspiracy was entered into and was completed in South Africa and therefore the Indian Courts had no jurisdiction to try the accused for the offence of conspiracy
The Division Bench held that though the conspiracy was entered in a foreign country and was completed as soon as the agreement was made yet it was treated to be a continuous offence and the persons continued to be parties to the conspiracy when they committed acts in India
Accordingly it was held that the Indian Courts had jurisdiction to try the offence of conspiracy
In US vs Kissal   Holmes J held that conspiracy is a continuous offence and stated is a perversion of natural thought and of natural language to call such continuous co operation of a cinema to graphic series of distinct conspiracies rather than to call it a single one a conspiracy is a partnership in criminal purposes
That as such it may have continuation in time
is shown by the rule that overt act by one partner may be the act of all without any new agreement specifically directed to that act
In Ford vs U section  at 620 to 622 Tuft CJ held that conspiracy is a continuing offence
In Director of public Prosecutions vs Door and Ors
1973 Appeal Cases 807 HL the five respondents hatched a plan abroad ie Belgium and Morocco and worked out the details to import cannabis into the United States via England In pursuance thereof two vans with cannabis concealed in them were shipped from Morocco to Southampton the other van was traced at Liverspool from where the vans were to have been shipped to America and the cannabis in it was found
They were charged among other offences with conspiracy to import dangerous drugs
At the trial the respondents contended that the Courts in England had no jurisdiction to try them on the count of conspiracy since the conspiracy had been entered into abroad
While rejecting the contention Lord Wilberforce held at page 817 The present case involves international elements the accused are 559 aliens and the conspiracy was initiated abroad but there can be no question here of any breach of any rules of international law if the are prosecuted in this country
Under the objective territorial principle  use the terminology of the Harward Research in Inter national Law or the principle of University For the prevention of the trade in narcotics falls within this descriptionor both the courts of this country have a clear right if not a duty to prosecute in accordance with our municipal law
The position as it is under the international law it not however determinative of the question whether unde r our municipal law the acts committed amount to a crime
That has to be decided on different principles
If conspiracy to import drugs were a statutory offence the question whether foreign conspiracies were included would be decided upon the terms of the statute
Since it is if at all a common law offence this question must be decided upon principle and authority In my opinion the key to a decision for or against the offence charged can be found in an answer to the question why the common law treats certain actions as crimes
And one answer must certainly be because the actions in question are a threat to the Queen s peace or as we would now perhaps say to society
Judged by this test there is every reason for and none that I can see against the prosecution
Con spiracies are intended to be carried into effect and one reason why in addition to individual prosecution of each participant conspiracy charges are brought is because criminal action organised and executed in concert is more dangerous than an individual breach of law
Why then restrain from prosecution where the relevant concert was initially formed outside the United Kingoom
The truth is that in the normal case of a conspiracy carried out or partly carried out in this country the location of the formation of the agreement is irrelevant the attack upon the laws of this country is identical wherever the conspirators happened to commit the conspiracy is a complex formed indeed but not separately completed at the first meeting of the plotters
Viscount Dilhorne at page 823 laid the rule that a conspiracy does not end with the making of the agreement
It will continue so long as there are two or more parties to it intending to carry out the design
It would be highly unreal to say that the conspiracy to carry out the Gunpower plot was completed when the conspirators met and agreed to the plot at Catesby
561 in my view be considered contrary to the rules of international comity for the forces of law and order in England to protect the Queen s peace by arresting them and putting them in trial for conspiracy whether they are British subjects or foreigners and whether or not conspiracy is a crime under the law of the country in which the conspiracy was born
At page 835 it was held that the respondents conspired together in England notwithstanding the fact that they were abroad when they entered into the agreement which was the essence of the conspiracy
That agreement was and remained a continuing agreement and they continued to conspire until the offence they were conspiring to commit was in fact committed
Accordingly it was held that the conspiracy though entered into abroad was committed in England and the courts in England and jurisdiction
The ratio emphasizes that acts done in furtherance of continuing conspiracy constitute part of the cause of action and performance of it gives jurisdiction for English Courts to try the accused
In Trecy vs Director of Public Prosecutions 1971 Appeal Cases 537 at 563 to H L
the facts of the case were that the appellant therein posted in the Isle of Wright a letter written by him and addressed to Mrs X in West Germany demanding money with menaces
The letter was received by Mrs X in West Germany
The appellant was charged with black mail indictable section 21 of the Theft Act 1968
While denying the offence it was contended that the courts in England were devoted of jurisdiction
Over ruling the said objection Lord Diplock at page 562 observed The State is under a correlative duty to those who owe obedience to its laws to protect their interests and one of the purposes of criminal law is to afford such protection by determining by threat of punishment conducted by other persons which is calculated to hand to those interests
Comity gives no right to a State to insist that any person may with immunity do physical acts in its own territory which have harmful consequences to persons within the territory of another state
It may be under no obligation in comity to punish those acts itself but it has no ground from complaint in international law if the State in which the harmful consequences had their effect punishes when they do enter its territories persons who did such acts
Prof Williams Glanville in his article Venue and the Ambit of Criminal Law at 528 stated thus 562 Sometimes the problem of determining the place of the crime is assisted by the doctrine of the continuing crime
Some crimes are regarded as being of a continuing nature and they may accordingly be prosecuted in any jurisdiction in which they are partly committed the partial commission being in the eye of the law a total commission 
In the context of conspiracy under the caption inchoate crimes It was stated The general principle seems to be that jurisdiction over an inchoate crime appertains to the State that would have had jurisdiction had the crime been consummated
Commenting upon the ratio laid down in Board of Trade vs Owen 1957 Appeal Cases 602 he stated at page 534 thus The seems to follow owen as logical corollary that our courts will assume jurisdiction to punish a conspiracy entered into abroad to commit a crime here
Although the general principle is that crime committed abroad do not become punishable here merely because their evil effects occur here there may be an exception for inchoate crimes aimed against persons in this country
Since conspiracy is the widest and vaguest of the inchoate crimes it seems clearly that the rule for conspiracy must apply to more limited crimes of incitement and attempt also
At page 535 he further stated that the rule of inchoate crimes is therefore an exception from the general principle of territorial jurisdiction
The crime is wholly committed in the State A yet is justiciable also in State B
At page 535 he elucidated that certain exceptions are recognised or suggested
Lord Tucker in own s case supra illustrated that a conspiracy D 2 England to violate the laws of a foreign country might be justiciable here if the preferments the conspiracy charged would produce a public mischief within the State or injure a person here by causing him damage abroad
At page 536 be stated that as another exception from the rule in Board of Trade vs Owen supra it seems from the earlier decision that a conspiracy entered into here will be punishable if the conspirators contem plates that the illegality may be performed either within British jurisdiction or abroad even though in the event the illegality is performed abroad
His statement of law now receives acceptance by House of Lords in Doot s case
563 In Halsbury s Law of England third edition vol
10 page 327 para 602 while dealing with continuing offence it was stated as under A criminal enterprise may consist of continuing act which is done in more places than one or of a series of acts which are done in several places
In such cases though there is one criminal enterprise there may be several crimes and a crime is committed in each place where a complete criminal act is performed although the act may be only a part of the enterprise
It was further elucidated in para 603 that What constitutes a complete criminal act is determined by the nature of the crime
Thus as regards continuing acts in the case of sending by post or otherwise a libellous or threatening letter or a letter to provoke a breach of the peace a crime is committed both where the letter is posted or otherwise sent and also where it is received and the venue may be laid in either place
Archbold in Criminal Pleadings Evidence and Practice 42nd edition 1985 Chapter 23 in para 28 32 at p 2281 Wright on Conspiracies and Agreements at pages 73 74 Smith on Crimes at page 239 and Russel on Crime 12th edition page 613 stated that conspiracy is a continuing offence and liable to prosecution at the place of making the agreement and also in the country where the acts are committed
Thus an agreement between two or more persons to do an illegal act or legal acts by illegal means is criminal conspiracy
If the agreement is not an agreement to commit an offence it does not amount to conspiracy unless it is followed up by an overt act done by one or more persons in furtherance of the agreement
The offence is complete as soon as there is meeting of minds and unity of purpose between the conspirators to do that illegal act or legal act by illegal means
Conspiracy itself is a substantive offence and is distinct from the offence to commit which the conspiracy is entered into
It is undoubted that the general conspiracy is distinct from number of separate offences committed while executing the offence of conspiracy
Each act constitutes separate offence punishable independent of the conspiracy
The law had developed several or different models or technics to broach the scope of conspiracy
One such model is that of a chain where each party performs even without knowledge of other a role that aids succeeding parties in accomplishing the criminal objectives of the conspiracy
An illustration of a single conspiracy its parts bound together as links in a chain is 564 the process of procuring and distributing narcotics or an illegal foreign drug for sale in different parts of the lobe
In such a case smugglers middlemen and retailers are privies to a single conspiracy to smuggle and distribute narcotics
The smugglers knew that the middlemen must sell to retailers  and the retailers knew that the middlemen must buy of importers of someone or another
Thus the conspirators at one end of the chain knew that the unlawful business would not and could not stop with their buyers and those at the other end knew that it had not begun with their settlers
The accused embarked upon a venture in all parts of which each was a participant and an abettor in the sense that the success of the part with which he was immediately concerned was dependent upon the success of the whole
It should also be considered as a spoke in the hub
There is a rim to bind all the spokes to gather in a single conspiracy
It is not material that a rim is found only when there is proof that each spoke was aware of one another s existence but that all promoted in furtherance of some single illegal objective
The traditional concept of single agreement can also accommodate the situation where a well defined group conspires to commit multiple crimes so long as all these crimes are the objects of the same agreement or continuous conspiratorial relationship and the conspiracy continues to subsist though it was entered in the first instance
Take for instance that three persons hatched a conspiracy in country A  to kill D  in country B  with explosive substance
As far as conspiracy is concerned it is complete in country A  one of them pursuant thereto carried the explosive substance and hands it over to third one in the country B  who implants at a place where D  frequents and got exploded with remote control D  may be killed or escape or may be diffused
The conspiracy continues till it is executed in country B  or frustrated
Therefore it is a continuing act and all are liable for conspiracy in country B  though first two are liable to murder with aid of section 120 B and the last one is liable under section 302 or 307 IPC as the case may be
Conspiracy may be considered to be a march under a banner and a person may join or drop out in the march without the necessity of the change in the text on the banner
In the comity of International Law in these days committing offences on international scale is a common feature
The offence of conspiracy would be a useful weapon and there would exist no conflict in municipal laws and the doctrine of autrefoes convict or acquit would extend to such offences
The comity of nations are duty bound to apprehend the conspirators as soon as they set their feet on the country territorial limits and nip the offence in the bud
A conspiracy thus is a continuing offence and continues to subsist and committed wherever one of the conspirators does an act or series of acts
So long aits performance continues it is a continuing offence till it is executed or rescinded or frustrated by choice or necessity
A crime is complete as soon as the agreement is made but it is not a thing of the moment
It does not end with the making of the 565 agreement
It will continue so long as there are two or more parties to it intending to carry into effect the design
Its continuance is a threat to the society against which it was aimed at and would be dealt with as soon as that jurisdiction can properly claim the power to do so
The conspiracy designed or agreed abroad will have the same effect as in India when part of the acts pursuant to the agreement are agreed to be finalised or done attempted or even frustrated and vice versa
In K Satwant Singh vs The State of Punjab   a Constitution Bench of this Court was to consider as to when section 188 of the Code would be applicable to a case
The facts therein was that the appellant had cheated the Govt
of Burma whose office was at Shimla punishable under section 420 IPC
The accused contended that the part of the act was done at Kohlapur where payment was to be made and on that basis the court at Shimla had no jurisdiction to try the offence without prior sanction of the political agent
Considering that question this court held that if the offence of cheating was committed outside British India the sanction would be necessary but on facts it was held that It seems to us on the facts established in this case that no part of the offence of cheating was committed by the appellant outside British India
His false representation to the Govt
of Burma that money was due to him was at a place in British India which induced that govt
to order payment of his claims
In fact he was paid at Lahore at his own request by means of cheques on the Branch of the Imperial Bank of India at Lahore
The delivery of the property of the Govt
of Burma namely the money was made at Lahore a place in Brithsh India an d we cannot regard in the circumstances of the present case the posting of the cheques at Kohlapur either as delivery of property to the appellant at Kohlapur or payment of his claims at Kohlapur
The entire argument founded on the provisions of section 188 of the Code therefore fails
Far from helping the appellant the ratio establishes that if an offence was committed in India the need to obtain sanction under section 188 is obviated
In Purshottamdas Dalmia vs Stale of West Bengal   this court when the appellant was charged with offences punishable under sections 120B 466 and 477 the appellant contended that offence of conspiracy was entered into at Calcutta the offences of using the forged documents was committed at Madras
Therefore the court at Calcutta had no jurisdiction to try the offence under section 471 read with section 466 EPC even though committed in pursuance of the conspiracy and in course of the same transaction
This court held that the desirability of trying the offences of alit 566 he overt acts committed in pursuance of a conspiracy together is obvious and sections 177 and 239 of the Code leave no manner of doubt that the court which has the jurisdiction to try the offence of criminal conspiracy has also the jurisdiction to try all the overt acts committed in pursuance of it even though outside its territorial jurisdiction
In LN
Mukherjee vs The State of Madras   it was further held that the court having jurisdiction to try the offences committed in pursuance of the conspiracy has also the jurisdiction to try the offence of criminal conspiracy even though it was committed outside its territorial jurisdiction
This view was further reiterated in RK Dalmia vs Delhi Administration  at 273 and Banwari Lal Jhunjhunwala and Ors
vs Union of India and Anr
1963 supp
2 SCR 338
Therein it was held that the court trying an accused for offence of conspiracy is competent to try him for offences committed in pursuance of that conspiracy irrespective of the fact whether or not overt acts have been committed within its territorial jurisdiction
The charges framed therein under section 409 read with sections 120B 420 IPC and section 51 D read with section 52 of the Prevention of Corruption Act were upheld
Thus we hold that sanction under section 188 is not a condition precedent to take cognizance of the offence
If need be it could be obtained before trial begins
Conspiracy was initially hatched at Chandigarh and though itself is a completed offence being continuing offence even accepting appellant s case that he was at Dubai and part of conspiracy and overt acts in furtherance thereof had taken place at Dubai and partly at Chandigarh and in consequence thereof other offences had been ensued
Since the
offences have been committed during the continuing course of transaction culminated in cheating PNB at Chandigarh the need to obtain sanction for various offences under proviso to section 188 is obviated
Therefore there is no need to obtain sanction from Central Govt
The case may be different if the offences were committed out side India and are completed in themselves without conspiracy
Perhaps that question may be different for which we express no opinion on the facts of this case
The ratio in Fakhruila Khan has no application to the facts in this case
Therein the accused were charged for offences under section 420 419 467 and 468 and the offences were committed in native State Mysore
As a result the courts in British India ie Madras province had no jurisdiction to try the offence without prior sanction
Equally in Verghese s case the offences charged under section 409 IPC had also been taken place outside British India
Therefore it was held that the sanction under s 188 was necessary
The ratio in Kailash Sharma s case is not good at law
The appeal is accordingly dismissed
RM SAHAI J
While agreeing with Brother Ramaswamy J I propose to add a few words
Prosecution of the appellant under Section 120B read with Section 420 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code in brief IPC  was assailed for 567 absence of sanction under Section 188 of the Criminal Procedure Code in brief Cr P C 
Two submissions were advanced one that even though criminal conspiracy was itself an offence but if another offence was committed in pursuance of it outside India then sanction was necessary second an offence is constituted of a number of ingredients and even if one of them was committed outside the country Section 188 of the Cr
PC was attracted
Language of the section is plain and simple
It operates where an offence is committed by a citizen of India outside the country
Requirements are therefore one commission of an offence second by an Indian citizen and third that it should have been committed outside the country
Out of the three there is no dispute that the appellant is an Indian citizen
But so far the other two are concerned the allegations in the complaint are that the conspiracy to forge and cheat the bank was hatched by the appellant and others in India
Whether it was so or not cannot be gone into at this stage
What is the claim then Two fold one the appellant was in Dubai at the relevant time when the offence is alleged to have been committed
Second since the bills of lading and exchange were prepared and were submitted to the Emirates National Bank at Dubai and the Payment too was received at Emirates National Bank in Dubai the alleged offence of forgery and cheating were committed outside India
Is that so Can the offence of conspiracy or cheating or forgery on these allegations be said to have been committed outside the country Substantive law of extra territory in respect of criminal offences is provided for by Section 4 of the IPC and the procedure to inquire and try it is contained the Section 188 Cr
PC Effect of these sections is that an offence committed by an Indian citizen outside the country is deemed to have been committed in India
Proviso to Section 188 Cr
PC however provides the safeguard for the NRI to guard against any unwarranted harassment by directing 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
 Since the proviso begins with a non obstinate clause its observance is mandatory
But is would come into play only if the principal clause is applicable namely it is established that an offence as defined in clause n  of Section 2 of the Cr
PC has been committed and it has been committed outside the country
What has to be examined at this stage is if the claim of the appellant that the offence under Section 120B read with Section 420 and Section 471 of the IPC were committed outside the country
An offence is defined in the Cr
PC to mean an 568 act or omission made punishable by any law for the time being in force
None of the offences for which the appellant has been charged has residence as one of its ingredients
The jurisdiction to inquire or try vests under Section 177 in the Court in whose local jurisdiction the offence is committed
It is thus the commission of offence and not the residence of the accused which is decisive of jurisdiction
When two or more persons agree to do or cause to be done an illegal act or an act which is illegal by illegal means such agreement is designated a criminal conspiracy under Section 120A of the IPC
The ingredients of the offence is agreement and not the residence
meeting of minds of more than two persons is the primary requirement
Even if it is assumed that the appellant was at Dubai and he entered into an agreement with his counterpart sitting in India to do an illegal act in India the offence of conspiracy came into being when agreement was reached between the two
The two minds met when talks oral or in writing took place in India
Therefore the offence of conspiracy cannot be said to have been committed outside the country
In Mobarik Ali Ahmed vs The State of Bombay  this court while dealing with the question of jurisdiction of the Courts to try an offence of cheating committed by a foreign national held that the offence of cheating took place only when representation was made by the accused sitting in Karachi to the complaints sitting in Bombay
The argument founded on corporeal presence was rejected and it was observed What is therefore to be seen is whether there is any reason to think that a foreigner not corporeally present at the time of the commission of the commission of the offence does not fall within the range of persons punishable therefor under the Code
It appears to us that the answer must be in the negative unless there is any recognised legal principle on which such exclusion can be founded or the language of the Code compels such a construction
If a foreign national is amenable to jurisdiction under Section 179 of the Cr
PC a NRI cannot claim that the offence shall be deemed to have been committed outside the country merely because he was not physically present
Preparation of bill of lading at Dubai or payment at Dubai were not isolated acts
They were part of chain activities between the appellant and his associates with whom he entered into agreement to cheat the bank at Chandigarh
Any isolated act or omission committed at Dubai was insufficient to constitute an offence
The illegal act of dishonestly inducing the bank at Chandigarh was committed not by preparation of bill at Dubai but its presentation in pursuance of agreement to cheat
The submission thus founded was on residence or on preparation of bills of lading or encashment at Dubai are of no consequence
569 Nor is there any merit in the submission that even part of the offence would attract Section 189 as the section operates when offence is committed outside India
An offence is committed when all the ingredients are satisfied
The section having used the word offence it cannot be understood as part of the offence
Section 179 Cr
PC empowers a court to try an offence either at a place where the offence is committed or the consequences ensue
On the allegations in the complaint the act or omissions were committed in India
In any case the consequence of conspiracy cheating and forging having taken place at Chandigarh the offence was not committed outside the country therefore the provisions of Sec
188 Cr
PC were not attracted
ORDER For reasons given by us in our concurring but separate orders the appeal fails and is dismissed
Parties shall bear their own costs
Appeal dismissed


Summary:
These appeals impugned the constitutionality of the Uttar Pradesh Transport Service Development Act 1955 U P IX Of 1955 passed by the State Legislature after obtaining the assent of the President and the validity of the scheme of nationalisation framed and the notifications issued by the State Government under it
The appellants as permit holders under the  were plying buses on different routes in Uttar Pradesh along with buses owned by the State Government
The State Government issued a notification under section 3 Of the impugned Act directing that the said routes along with others should be exclusively served by the State buses and followed up that notification by others under ss 4 and 8 of the Act
The appellants moved the High Court under article 226 of the Constitution challenging the validity of the said Act and the notifications thereunder
The High Court rejected their petitions and thereafter came into force the Motor Vehicles Amendment Act 100 Of 1956 inserting Ch
IVA into the Act which provided for nationalisation of transport services
The contentions raised on behalf of the appellants were 1 that the passing of the Amending Act made the impugned Act wholly void under article 2541 Of the Constitution 2 that the scheme framed under the impugned Act fell within the purview of section 68B of the Amending Act and ceased to be operative and 3 that even assuming that the impugned Act was valid in so far as the scheme was concerned it violated article 31 as it stood before the Constitution Fourth Amendment Act 1955
A further contention on the basis of the proviso to article 2542 was that the impugned Act stood wholly repealed by the Amending Act section 68B of the latter excluding the operation of the General Clauses Act
It was contended inter alia on behalf of the State that the amendment of article 31 by the Constitution Fourth Amendment Act 1955 having removed before the scheme under the impugned Act had 9 yet been framed the constitutional limitation which that Article had imposed on the Legislature when it passed the impugned Act had the effect of validating that Act passed by it at a time when it was subject to the limitation
Held per curiam that the Uttar Pradesh Transport Service Development Act 1955 did not on the passing of the Motor Vehicles Amendment Act 1956 100 of 1956 become wholly void under article 2541 Of the Constitution but continued to be a valid and subsisting law supporting the scheme already framed under the UP Act
Even assuming that the Amending Act had the effect under article 2542 of repealing the State Act such repeal could not nullify the scheme already framed under that Act for the provisions of section 6 of the General Clauses Act would operate to save it
Nor could it be said having regard to the provisions of the impugned Act and particularly section II5 thereof that it offended article 31 of the Constitution as it stood before the Constitution Fourth Amendment Act 1955 by failing to provide for the payment of adequate compensation
Per Das CJ and Sinha J
There was no reason why the doctrine of eclipse as explained in Bhikaji Narain Dhakras vs The State of Madhya Pradesh   could not also apply to a post Constitution law that infringed a fundamental right conferred on citizens alone
Such a law though shadowed and rendered ineffective by the fundamental right so far as the citizens were concerned would remain effective so far as noncitizens were concerned
The moment the shadow was removed by a constitutional amendment the law would apply to citizens without re enactment
John M Wilkerson vs Charles A Rahrer    and Bhikaji Nayain Dhakras vs The State of Madhya Pradesh   referred to
The question whether a post Constitution law that infringed a fundamental right guaranteed to all persons citizens or noncitizens  would be subject to that doctrine should however be left open
Held per Bhagwati Subba Rao and Wanchoo jj that it was apparent from the provisions of articles 254 246 and 13 of the Constitution read together that the power of Parliament and the State Legislature to make laws with regard to any of the matters enumerated in the relevant list in the Seventh Schedule was subject to the provisions of the Constitution including article 13
There was a clear distinction between the two clauses of article I3
Under cl
1 pre Constitution law subsisted except to the extent of its inconsistency with the provisions of Part III whereas under Cl
2 any post Constitution law contravening those provisions was a nullity from its inception to the extent of such contravention
The words any law in the second line of 2 Cl
2 meant an
Act factually passed in spite of the prohibition contained therein and did not pre suppose that the law made was not a nullity
That prohibition went to the root and limited the State s power of legislation and law made in spite of it was a still born one
In construing the constitutional provisions relating to the powers of the legislature embodied in articles 245 and 132 of the Constitution no distinction should be made as between an affirmative and a negative provision for both are limitations on that power
K C Gajapati Narayan Deo vs The State of Orissa   referred to
A distinction well recognised in judicial decisions had however to be made in judging the effect of law made in transgression of the limits fixed by articles 245 and I32 between an Act that was void from its inception and one that though valid when made was rendered unconstitutional later on
On that distinction was based the principle that an after acquired power could not validate a statute and a law validly made could take effect when the obstruction was removed
A review of the relevant authorities and judicial decisions clearly established 1 that affirmative conferment of power to make laws subject wise and the negative prohibition from infringing any fundamental rights were but twoaspects of want of legislative power 2 that by expressly making the power to legislate on the entries in the Seventh Schedule subject to other provisions of the Constitution that power was subjected to the limitations laid down in Part III of the Constitution 3 that therefore a law in derogation or in excess of such power would be void ab initio either wholly or to the extent of the contravention and that 4 the doctrine of eclipse could be invoked only in the case of a law that was valid when made but was rendered invalid by a supervening constitutional inconsistency
Newberry vs United State  65 L Ed 9I3 John M Wilkerson vs Charyles A Rahrer 1891 140 U section 545   Carter vs Egg and Egg Pulp Marketing Board   Keshavan Madhava Menon vs The State of Bombay   Behram Khurshed Pesikaka vs The State Of Bombay 1955 1 SCR 589 Saghir Ahmed vs The State of U P   Ram Chandra Balai vs State of Orissa and Pannalal Binjraj vs Union of India   referred to and discussed
The tests of repugnancy between two statutes one passed by the Parliament and the other by the State Legislature were 1 whether there was a direct conflict between them 2 whether Parliament intended to lay down an exhaustive code in respect of the subject matter replacing the Act of the State Legislature and 3 whether both the laws occupied the same field
A comparison of the provisions of the two Acts indicated 11 that both were intended to operate in respect of the same subject matter and the same field but only in respect of the schemes initiated after the Amending Act had come into force the latter Act having no retrospective effect
The State Act must therefore yield place to the Central Act to that extent and become void only in respect of schemes framed under the Central Act
Keshavan Madhava Menon vs The State of Bombay 1951 SCR 228 applied