IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR WEDNESDAY, THE 8TH SEPTEMBER 2010 / 17TH BHADRA 1932 Crl.MC.No. 2565 of 2010(E) ------------------------------------- (CRIME NO.645/2010 OF PATHANAMTHITTA POLICE STATION) ............... PETITIONER/ACCUSED/FUGITIVE CRIMINAL: ----------------------------------------------------------------- RIYAS SALIM, AGED 25 YEARS, S/O.P.T.SALIM, C.V.M.PURAYIDAM, VETTIPPURAM, PATHANAMTHITTA VILLAGE & DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.V.SETHUNATH. RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT/STATE: --------------------------------------------------------- 1. THE C.I. OF POLICE, PATHANAMTHITTA POLICE STATION. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY HOME SECRETARY, GOVT. OF KERALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, THROUGH THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 3. UNION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY THE HOME SECRETARY, NEW DELHI, THROUGH THE ASST. SOLICITOR OF INDIA, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. R1 & R2 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. P.A. SALIM, R3 BY SHRI.K.HARILAL, C.G.C. THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08/09/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: prv. 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