Skip to main content

Requirement of the Previous Sanction if offence is committed outside India

Image

On 24/03/2022, A Full bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Criminal Appeal No. 852 of 2018, titled Sartaj Khan Vs. State of Uttarakhand has observed and held that there is no requirement of according previous sanction under Section 188 of the Cr.P.C. if offence is partly committed outside India and partly within India, wherein, it was alleged by the prosecution that the appellant/accused imported a minor girl from Nepal to India by enticing and alluring her for the purpose of illicit human trafficking.

The appellant/accused was charged and tried for having committed the offences punishable under Sections 363, 366-B, 370(4), 506 of IPC, and Section 8 of the POCSO Act. The Trial Court having acquitted the appellant of the charges leveled against him, the State of Uttarakhand preferred the Government Appeal challenging the acquittal. The High Court set aside the order of acquittal and convicted the appellant of the offences punishable under Sections 363, 366-B, 370(4), and 506 of the IPC, and under Section 8 of the POCSO Act.  

Being aggrieved, the appellant/accused preferred an appeal to the Hon’ble Supreme Court on three grounds:-


  1. No previous sanction was accorded by the Prosecution for initiating trial against the appellant/accused under section 188 of Cr.P.C.

  2. No allurement was extended by the appellant/accused and victim had traveled more than 650 KMs on her own.

  3. No offence under Section 370(4) of IPC made out since the age of the victim was definitely beyond 18 years.   


Hon’ble Supreme Court’s Opinion and Judgment:-

  1. Section 188 of Cr.P.C. gets attracted when the entirety of the offence is committed outside India, and the grant of sanction would enable such offence to be inquired into or tried in India.  

“As the facts and circumstances of the case indicate, a part of the offence was definitely committed on the soil of this country and as such going by the normal principles the offence could be looked into and tried by Indian courts. Since the offence was not committed in its entirety, outside India, the matter would not come within the scope of Section 188 of the Code and there was no necessity of any sanction as mandated by the proviso to Section 188.”

  1. It has been established with the assistance of evidence on record that the victim was lured into coming to India.

“It is true that the victim had traveled on her own from Kathmandu to Atariya. However, the evidence on record completely establishes that she was lured into coming to India. The offences alleged against the appellant were thus rightly invoked and fully substantiated.” 

  1. The evidence on record successfully establishes that the victim was below 18 years of age. 

“the evidence on record is absolutely clear that the age of the victim was below 18 years of age. The medical board had not only done the radiological tests but had also undertaken dental test on the basis of which her age was found to be below 18 years.”
Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Advocates Vs. CAs/CSs/CMAs

This article deals with the exclusive right to practise law and tribunal representation and the principles relating to a Harmonious Construction of the Advocates Act, 1961 and the Companies Act, 2013 Introduction  The ongoing controversy concerning the right of non-advocate professionals, namely Chartered Accountants(CAs), Company Secretaries(CSs), and Cost and Management Accountants(CMAs), to appear and argue matters before the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) and the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) raises fundamental questions touching the statutory monopoly over the practice of law in India. This post examines the competing statutory claims under the Advocates Act, 1961 and Section 432 of the Companies Act, 2013, applies the doctrine of harmonious construction, and concludes that Section 432 does not, and constitutionally cannot, confer any independent or parallel right to practise law upon non-advocates before tribunals. Background of the Dispute Recently, t...
Post a Comment
Read more

Requirements for Criminal Liability under Sections 406 and 420 IPC

The Supreme Court of India’s judgment in Ashok Kumar Jain v. The State of Gujarat and Another (2025 INSC 614), delivered on May 1, 2025, is a significant exposition on the exercise of inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC), to quash a First Information Report (FIR) in cases where allegations of criminal breach of trust and cheating under Sections 406 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) are deemed to be a misuse of criminal process for civil disputes. The judgment meticulously analyzes the alleged offenses' legal ingredients, the commercial transaction's factual matrix, and the documentary evidence, ultimately concluding that the FIR represents an abuse of the legal process. Factual Background The case arises from a commercial transaction between the appellant, Ashok Kumar Jain, a director of Maayu Import and Export Ltd., a Sri Lankan company, and the second respondent, a proprietor of Ansh Prints, a textile business in Surat, Gujara...
Post a Comment
Read more

Inter-State Arrests and the Cost of Ignoring Due Process

The Delhi High Court’s judgment authored by Dr. Justice Murlidhar, as he then was, in Sandeep Kumar v. State (NCT of Delhi), WP (Crl.) 2189/2018, neutral citation: 2019:DHC:6920-DB , is a clear reminder that problems in policing often arise not because the law is unclear, but because basic legal safeguards are ignored. The case shows how easily police action can cross constitutional limits when procedure is treated as a technicality rather than a duty. When a Complaint Turns into Illegal Detention   The case arose from an interfaith marriage between two adults who married of their own free will. The woman’s family opposed the marriage, and soon an FIR alleging kidnapping under Section 366 IPC was lodged in Uttar Pradesh. Acting on this, UP Police travelled to Delhi, entered the JNU campus, and took both the husband and wife back to Ghaziabad. None of the basic legal steps was followed. The local Delhi Police were not informed. No proper diary entries were made. The husband was not ...
Post a Comment
Read more