Datasets:

jbp123

/

cvfinal

like 0

jurisdiction over the person of the offender.28.

[s 2.3] Territorial jurisdiction.—

The territory of India is defined under Article 1 of the Constitution of India. Article 1 of

the Constitution of India deals only with the geographical territory while Article 297

deals with 'maritime territory'.

Article 297(3) authorises the Parliament to specify from time to time the limits of

various maritime zones such as, territorial waters, continental shelf, etc. Clauses (1)

and (2) of the said Article make a declaration that all lands, minerals and other things

of value and all other resources shall vest in the Union of India.29. Section 18 of the IPC,

1860 defines India as the territory of India excluding the state of Jammu and Kashmir.

These territorial limits would include the territorial waters of India.30. Under the General

Clauses Act, 1897, India is defined to mean all territories for the time being comprised

in the territory of India as defined in the Constitution of India. Under the provisions of

Article 297 of the Constitution of India, all lands, minerals and other things of value

underlying the ocean within the territorial waters or the continental shelf or the

exclusive economic zone of India vest in the Union. The Constitution of India does not

itself define the terms territorial waters, continental shelf, and exclusive economic

zone. Clause (3) of Article 297 states that their limits shall be such as may be specified

by Parliament. In 1976, Parliament implemented the amendments to the Constitution

of India by passing the Maritime Zones Act, 1976.31. Insofar the Republic of India is

concerned, the limit of the territorial waters was initially understood to be three nautical

miles. It had been extended subsequently; up to six nautical miles by a Presidential

proclamation dated 22 March 1952 and to 12 nautical miles by another proclamation

dated 30 September 1967. By The Territorial Waters, Continental Shelf, Exclusive

Economic Zone and Other Maritime Zones Act, 80 of 1976, it was statutorily fixed at 12

nautical miles. Section 3 of the Act stipulates that the sovereignty of India extends to

the territorial waters, the limit of which is 12 nautical miles. Section 5 of the Territorial

Waters Act, 1976 defines the contiguous zone of India as an area beyond and adjacent

to territorial waters to a distance of 24 nautical miles from the nearest point of the

baseline. Section 7 of the Act defines the Exclusive economic zone of India as an area

beyond and adjacent to territorial waters up to a limit of 200 nautical miles.32.

[s 2.4] Jurisdiction beyond Territorial Waters

In the case of British India Steam Navigation Co Ltd v Shanmughavilas Cashew

Industries,33. the Supreme Court examined the effective operation of the statutes of a

country in relation to foreigners and foreign ships.

In general, a statute extends territorially, unless the contrary is stated, throughout the

country and will extend to the territorial waters, and such places as intention to that effect is

shown. A statute extends to all persons within the country if that intention is shown. The

Indian Parliament, therefore, has no authority to legislate for foreign vessels or foreigners in

them on the high seas. Thus a foreign ship on the high seas, or her foreign owners or their

agents in a foreign country, are not deprived of rights by our statutory enactment expressed

in general terms unless it provides that a foreign ship entering an Indian port or territorial

waters and thus coming within the territorial jurisdiction is to be covered. Without anything

more Indian statutes are ineffective against foreign property and foreigners outside the

jurisdiction.

It is this principle which is reflected in section 2(2) of the Merchant Shipping Act,

1958.34.

Earlier in Aban Loyd Chiles Offshore Ltd v UOI,35. it was held that India has been given

only certain limited sovereign rights and such limited sovereign rights conferred on

India in respect of continental shelf and exclusive economic zone cannot be equated to

extending the sovereignty of India over the continental shelf and exclusive economic

zone as in the case of territorial waters.

1. MC Verghese v Ponnan, AIR 1970 SC 1876 [LNIND 1968 SC 339] : (1969) 1 SCC 37 [LNIND

1968 SC 339] : 1970 Cr LJ 1651 .

2. Mobarik Ali v State of Bombay, AIR 1957 SC 857 [LNIND 1957 SC 81] : 1957 Cr LJ 1346 (SC).

11. The original words "the said territories" have successively been amended by the A.O. 1937,

the A.O. 1948, the A.O. 1950 and Act 3 of 1951, section 3 and Sch (w.e.f. 3-4-1951), to read as

above.

12. The words and figures "on or after the said first day of May, 1861" rep. by Act 12 of 1891,

section 2 and Sch I.

13. Republic of Italy through Ambassador v UOI, (2013) 4 SCC 721 : 2013 (1) Scale 462

[LNINDORD 2013 SC 9114] .

14. Mobarik Ali v State of Bombay, AIR 1957 SC 857 [LNIND 1957 SC 81] : 1957 Cr LJ 1346 (SC).

See also State of Maharashtra v Mayer Hans George, 1965 (1) SCR 123 [LNIND 1964 SC 415] :

AIR 1965 SC 722 [LNIND 1964 SC 208] : 1965 (1) Cr LJ 641 .

15. Lee Kun Hee v State of UP, (2012) 3 SCC 132 [LNIND 2012 SC 89] : AIR 2012 SC 1007

[LNINDORD 2012 SC 443] : 2012 Cr LJ 1551 .

16. Standard Chartered Bank v Directorate of Enforcement, (2005) 4 SCC 530 [LNIND 2005 SC

476] : AIR 2005 SC 2622 [LNIND 2005 SC 476] : 2005 SCC (Cr) 961; Asstt Commr v Velliappa

Textiles Ltd, 2003 (11) SCC 405 [LNIND 2003 SC 794] : 2004 SCC (Cr) 1214) Overruled.

17. Standard Chartered Bank v Directorate of Enforcement, AIR 2006 SC 1301 [LNIND 2006 SC

145] : (2006) 4 SCC 278 [LNIND 2006 SC 145] : (2006) 2 SCC (Cr) 221. See also CBI v Blue Sky

Tie-up Pvt Ltd, (2011) 6 Scale 436 : AIR 2012 (SCW) 1098 : 2012 Cr LJ 1216 . Also see Aneeta

Hada v Godfather Travels & Tours, (2012) 5 SCC 66 : 2012 Cr LJ 2525 : AIR 2012 SC 2795 [LNIND

2012 SC 260] .

18. CBI v Blue Sky Tie-up Pvt Ltd, (2011) 6 Scale 436 : AIR 2012 (SCW) 1098 : 2012 Cr LJ 1216 .

Also see Aneeta Hada v Godfather Travels & Tours, (2012) 5 SCC 66 : 2012 Cr LJ 2525 : AIR 2012

SC 2795 [LNIND 2012 SC 260] in which it is held that directors cannot be prosecuted without the

Company being arraigned as an accused–138 NI Act.

19. Keki Hormusji Gharda v Mehervan Rustom Irani, (2009) 6 SCC 475 [LNIND 2009 SC 1276] :

2009 Cr LJ 3733 : AIR 2009 SC 2594 [LNIND 2009 SC 1276] .

20. Maksud Saiyed v State of Gujarat, (2008) 5 SCC 668 [LNIND 2007 SC 1090] : JT 2007 (11) SC

276 [LNIND 2007 SC 1090] : (2008) 2 SCC (Cr) 692.

21. SK Alagh v State of UP, AIR 2008 SC 1731 [LNIND 2008 SC 368] : (2008) 5 SCC 662 [LNIND

2008 SC 368] : 2008 Cr LJ 2256 : (2008) 2 SCC (Cr) 686.

22. Per Brett, LJ in The Parlement Belge, (1880) 5 PD 197 , 207.

23. Article 31 (1) of Diplomatic Relations (Vienna Convention) Act, 1972.

24. Article 31 (1) of Diplomatic Relations (Vienna Convention) Act, 1972.

25. United Nations (Privileges and Immunities) Act, Act No. XLV of 1947.

26. Chung Chi Cheung, (1939) AC 160 .

27. Lee Kun Hee v State of UP, (2012) 3 SCC 132 [LNIND 2012 SC 89] : AIR 2012 SC 1007

[LNINDORD 2012 SC 443] : 2012 Cr LJ 1551 ; Mobarik Ali v State of Bombay, AIR 1957 SC 857

[LNIND 1957 SC 81] : 1957 Cr LJ 1346 (SC) : 1958 SCR 328 [LNIND 1957 SC 81] .

28. Kubic Dariusz v UOI, AIR 1990 SC 605 [LNIND 1990 SC 25] : (1990) 1 SCC 568 [LNIND 1990

SC 25] : 1990 Cr LJ 796 .

29. Republic of Italy through Ambassador v UOI, (2013) 4 SCC 721 : 2013 (1) Scale 462

[LNINDORD 2013 SC 9114] .

30. BK Wadeyar v Daulatram Rameshwarlal, AIR 1961 SC 311 [LNIND 1960 SC 493] : 1961 (1)

SCR 924 [LNIND 1960 SC 493] .

31. Aban Loyd Chiles Offshore Ltd v UOI, JT 2008 (5) SC 256 [LNIND 2008 SC 897] : 2008 (6)