RAM NARAIN Vs. CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition by Ram Narain raises a rather interesting question of Jurisdiction. The relevant facts are as follows: Ram Narain was a resident and native of Multan District now in Punjab, Pakistan, and there he had dealings with the respondent the Central Bank of India Limited, to the local branch of which it is alleged he owed a considerable sum of money at the time of the partition. It is alleged that after the disturbances began in August 1947 and after the employees of the respondent bank at Mailsi in Multan District had ceased to be able to protect the property of the bank, Ram Narain, who had himself somehow managed to stay there and to preserve his life, broke into a godown of the bank on the 6th November, 1947 and stole 802 bales of cotton which he had pledged with the bank and which were lying with the bank as security for the money advanced to him. It is not in dispute that later in November 1947 Ram Narain left Pakistan and came to Bombay and ultimately settled in Hodel in the district of Gurgaon. The bank somehow learnt of the alleged theft of the bales of cotton and in February 1950 applied to the Punjab Government under Section 188, Criminal P. C., for his prosecution for the alleged offences committed by him in this State. Sanction was accorded on the 12th February 1950 for the prosecution of Ram Narain in India on charges under Sections 454 and 380, Indian Penal Code. The case against him was instituted by a complaint in April, 1950 in the Court of the District Magistrate at Gurgaon, where at the outset Ram Narain intimated his intention of challenging the jurisdiction of the Court on the ground that the offence was committed in Pakistan & that at the time of the offence he was a national of Pakistan & not a national of India. The objection however, was not pressed to a decision at the outset, since Ram Narain was apparently content at this stage to wait for the prosecution to produce evidence to show that he was a British subject domiciled in India and that Section 188, Criminal P. C., had any application. Prosecution evidence was then recorded and charges were framed under Sections 454 and 380, Indian Penal Code, regarding his alleged breaking into the bank's godown and stealing 802 bales of cotton. From the charges it is quite clear that no offence or portion of any offence was alleged to have been committed by the accused outside what is now Pakistan, it was at that stage that Ram Narain invited a decision by the Court on the question of its jurisdiction to try him. His objection was rejected by the learned District Magistrate and a revision petition filed by him was also rejected by the learned Additional Sessions Judge.

(2.) 'Prima facie' it would appear that since the two separate dominions were created by the India Independence Act, 1947, as from the 15th of August. of that year, and the whole of the offences committed by the accused were completed at Mailsi, the case arising out of the offences would ordinarily be triable only in the district of Multan. On behalf of the bank, however, reliance is placed on the provisions of Section 4 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 183 of the Criminal P. C., both as they stood in 1947 and as since amended. The relevant portion of Section 4 of the Penal Code before amendment read:

(3.) In my opinion it is quite clear that until he actually left Pakistan and came to India he cannot possibly be said to have become a national or a citizen of India. In fact his Indian citizenship did not commence until the Constitution came into force, and unless and until he had actually migrated to India he could not even be regarded a potential or prospective citizen of India.