STATE Vs. PRAKASH KUMAR THAKUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision has suo-motu arisen from the order dated 09. 01. 2008 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bhopal in R. T. No. 305/2008, on the complaint of Prakash Kumar Thakur, under Section 2 of the Prevention of Insults to National Honour Act, 1971, against Sania Mirza, a rising star on tennis firmament, on the allegation that she by placing her feet on the table in the manner that thereby she insulted the National Flag fixed on the table, as displayed from her photographs published in the news papers. Taking cognizance on the said complaint, learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bhopal has issued notice of appearance to the accused. In the revision, jurisdiction of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bhopal to take cognizance of the said offence and issuance of notice to the accused, are under question.

(2.) LEARNED counsel for the respondent submits that the complaint has been filed under Section 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and no procedural lapse under Section 200 or Section 204 of the Code of Criminal procedure has taken place. He submits that in view of the provision of Section 188 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, when an offence is committed outside india by a citizen of India or by a person not being a citizen of India, he may be dealt with in respect of such an offence as if it had been committed in any place within India at which he may be found. Though a previous sanction of the central Government is required for the inquiry or trial of the above offence in india, but such sanction is not a condition precedent to take cognizance of the offence. Sanction can be obtained before commencement of the trial. He placed strong reliance on Ajay Aggarwal Vs. Union of India and others, (1993)-3-SCC609 in support of his contention.

(3.) FOR inquiry or trial of an offence, two things are essential. First, alleged facts should disclose commission of an offence prima-facie and second, the Court or Magistrate deciding about this question should be empowered by law to take cognizance of the matter. Magistrates assume jurisdiction in virtue of the empowering provision of Section 190 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, as in this case also, learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, has done, but this case is apart from the usual cases in as much as, in this case, admittedly, the offence is alleged to have been committed in a foreign country i. e. at Perth (Australia ). This made the provision of Section 188 of the Code of Criminal Procedure applicable to the present case which puts an embargo on the Courts and the magistrates to take cognizance of the offence committed abroad without previous sanction of the Central Government.