MUHAMMAD RAFI Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These Criminal Miscellaneous cases have come up on a reference made by a learned Judge of this Court under Section 3 of the High Court Act. Learned Judge felt that the principal issue which came up for consideration in both these cases requires an authoritative pronouncement by a Bench of this Court. The said issue can be encapsulated as "whether the police can investigate an offence committed outside India by an Indian citizen and whether a jurisdictional Magistrate can order such investigation to be conducted by the police under Section 156 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, in respect of an offence which is alleged to have been committed by an Indian citizen outside India without obtaining prior sanction from the Central Government as contemplated by Section 188 of the Code of Criminal Procedure". There are two authoritative pronouncements by this Court, one by a Division Bench which specifically considered this issue namely Muhammed v. State of Kerala 1994 (1) KLT 464 and the other by a Full Bench of this Court which in turn affirmed the view taken by the Division Bench in Muhammed namely Samarudeen v. Asst. Director of Enforcement 1999(2) KLT 794 (FB) These two judgments have been referred to by the learned Judge in the order of reference. But it seems that an issue was raised as to whether the view taken by the Division Bench in Mohammed and by the Full Bench in Samarudeen requires re-consideration in the light of the observations made by the Supreme Court in Central Bureau of Investigation v. State of Rajasthan and Ors. .

(2.) Since the controversy turns around Section 188 of the Cr. P.C., it will be appropriate to extract the same. Section 188 of the Code of Criminal Procedure reads as follows:

(3.) The substantive provision relatable to Section 188 of the Cr. P.C. is that which is contained in Section 4 of the IPC, which reads as follows: