SARASAMMA Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is accused No.3 in Sessions Case No.81 of 1989 on the file of the Additional Sessions Court, Mavelikkara. Originally crime 22/84 was registered by the Mavelikkara police station regarding the suspicious death of an unidentified person. Later Crime Branch took over the investigation of this case and it was revealed that one Chacko, son of Joseph was allegedly murdered by one Sukumara Kurup, who was then employed at Abu Dhabi, and his associates, three in number. During the course of investigation one of the accused, namely, Sahu tuned an approver and he was given pardon. Principal accused Sukumara Kurup is absconding and his whereabouts could not be traced out by the investigating agency. When the final report was laid, the petitioner herein was implicated as accused No.3 alleging that she committed an offence punishable under S.120B I.P.C. The petitioner alleges that there is total absence of evidence sought to be let in by the prosecution to connect the petitioner with any of the offences mentioned in the final report. It is contended that the petitioner has been employed in Abu Dhabi and she was residing there when the alleged offences were committed. The petitioner, also alleges that the order of committal passed against the petitioner is vitiated by grave illegality. It is further stated that the petitioner was committed to the Court of Sessions to stand a trial for the offence of criminal conspiracy alleged to have been committed by her at a place in Abu Dhabi, a foreign country and not anywhere in India and as per proviso to S.188 Cr.P.C. no offence committed outside India by a citizen of India shall be enquired into or tried in India except with the previous sanction of the Central Government and the petitioner submits that this offence was enquired into and an order of committal was passed by the Judicial II Class Magistrate's Court, Mavelikkara without obtaining the previous sanction from the Central Government arid therefore the whole proceedings are vitiated and liable to be quashed under S.482 Cr.P.C.

(2.) I heard the learned Public Prosecutor. The prayer of the petitioner is opposed and it is pointed out that sanction was accorded by the Central Government as early as on 29-8-90 and therefore the proceedings are not vitiated. It is also submitted that there is evidence to connect the accused petitioner to the crime and therefore provisions Of S.482 Cr.P.C. may not be invoked.

(3.) The charge against the petitioner is that she entered into a criminal conspiracy with the now absconding accused Sukumara Kurup and thereby committed the offence punishable under S.120B I.P.C. The gist of allegation is that Sukumara Kurup had insured his life for fabulous amount and he wanted to cheat the insurance company by producing a false death certificate to the effect that Sukumara Kurup was no more, to enable his legal heirs to receive the amount from the insurance company. According to the charge framed against the petitioner herein the alleged conspiracy took place 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. The proviso to S.188 Cr.P.C. further states that no such offence shall be inquired into or tried in India except with the previous sanction of the Central Government. As the allegations in the final report and the charge are to the effect that the offence was allegedly committed by the petitioner outside India, a previous sanction of the Central Government is required for enquiry or trial. In the instant case final report was filed on 16-5-1989 and it appears that the Judicial Magistrate of II Class committed the case to the Sessions Court and charge was framed on 26-10-1990. The copy of the order of committal is not produced before this Court. The learned Public Prosecutor pointed out that sanction under the proviso to S.188 Cr.P.C. was granted by the Central Government on 29-8-90, even though the same was produced before the court below belatedly. The contention of the petitioner is that the whole committal proceedings was vitiated for want of sanction under S.188 Cr.P.C. This contention cannot be accepted.