IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR FRIDAY, THE 8TH JANUARY 2010 / 18TH POUSHA 1931 Crl.MC.No. 3693 of 2009() ------------------------------------- C.C.NO.239/2008 OF JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT V, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. ..................... PETITIONER(S): ACCUSED: ----------------------------------------- NARENDRANATHAN NAIR, S/O.VASUDEVAN NAIR, AGED 68 YEARS, SREEVAS HOUSE, BEHIND TELEPHONE EXCHANGE, KEECHERYMEL KARA, CHENGANNUR VILLAGE. BY ADVS. MR.SASTHAMANGALAM S. AJITHKUMAR, MR. P.M.SANEER, RESPONDENT(S): --------------------------- THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MR. P.A. SALIM THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08/01/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Kss M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR,J. ------------------------------------------ Crl.M.C.NO.3693 OF 2009 ------------------------------------------ Dated 8th January 2010 O R D E R Petitioner is the accused in C.C.239/2008 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate-V, Thiruvananthapuram taken cognizance for the offence under Sections 468 and 471 of Indian Penal Code on Annexure-A final report submitted by Sub Inspector, Gandhi Nagar police station. Prosecution case is that during 2001-2002 Bindu Nair, daughter of the petitioner was the student of Changanassery Hindu college and as per registration No.310381 she had appeared for B.Sc examination and had passed the course and making use of the marklists issued to Bindu Nair for the years 2001-2002 and 2003, Crmc 3693/09 2 petitioner committed forgery by altering the name of his daughter and substituting the name of the petitioner therein and also substituting his name in the provisional degree certificate issued to Bindu Nair from M.G University and produced them as genuine before a foreign company at USA and thereby committed the offences under Sections 468 and 471 of Indian Penal Code. Petition is filed under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure to quash the cognizance taken contending that according to the prosecution, copies of the alleged original certificates were sent from India to USA in favour of the petitioner and from USA petitioner forged the mark list and provisional certificate by altering the name of the daughter and produced them before the company at USA as if they are genuine certificates Crmc 3693/09 3 issued to him and therefore, alleged commission of forgery and their production as genuine were committed outside India and therefore, as provided under Section 188 of Code of Criminal Procedure, without sanction of Central Government learned Magistrate is not competent to take cognizance of the offences and therefore, the cognizance taken is to be quashed. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned Public Prosecutor were heard. 4. Learned counsel pointed out that Annexure-A final report along with the statement recorded under Section 161 of Code of Criminal Procedure show that according to the prosecution copies of the mark list and the provisional certificate obtained by the Crmc 3693/09 4 daughter of the petitioner were sent from Kerala to the petitioner, who was residing at USA and after receiving the photocopies petitioner substituted his name in the place of the name of his daughter and produced them before the company at USA and therefore, even if the prosecution case is to be accepted all the offences were committed outside India and therefore, without obtaining sanction from the Central Government as provided under Section 188 of Code of Criminal Procedure no cognizance could be taken. 5. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that prosecution case is that copies of the mark lists as well as the provisional certificate were sent from Kerala by the daughter to the father to USA and petitioner on getting them at USA forged the certificates Crmc 3693/09 5 by substituting his name and produced them before the company in USA as if they are genuine documents. Learned Public Prosecutor did not dispute the fact that Section 188 of Code of Criminal Procedure will apply. 5. Section 188 of Code of Criminal Procedure deals with the enquiry or trial of an offence committed outside India. When an offence is committed outside India by a citizen of India, whether on the high seas or elsewhere , 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. But the proviso mandated that notwithstanding anything in any of the preceding section of Chapter XIII, no such offence shall be inquired into or tried in India except with the previous sanction of the Crmc 3693/09 6 Central Government. Therefore when even according to the prosecution case the offences were committed in USA, outside India, Magistrate could not have taken cognizance of the offence without previous sanction of the Central Government. As there is no case for the prosecution that any sanction was obtained from the Central Government to prosecute the petitioner for the offences involved in this case, cognizance taken is bad. Petition is allowed. Cognizance taken by Judicial First Class Magistrate-V Thiruvananthapuram on Annexure-A final report for the offence under Sections 468 and 471 of Code of Criminal Procedure as C.C.239/2008 is quashed. But it is made clear that after obtaining sanction from the Central Government, as provided under the proviso to Section 188, Crmc 3693/09 7 petitioner could be prosecuted. M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, JUDGE. uj.