STATE Vs. MOTAB DEWAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This criminal reference has been made by Mr. A.K. Saran Sessions Judge of Champaran, against the order of the Sub-divisional Magistrate of Bettiah, dated 10-10-1953, and the order of the Munsif Magistrate of the same place dated 26-4-1954. The learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate of Bettiah had taken cognizance of the offence by his order dated 10-10-1953,, and the learned Munsif Magistrate thereafter had com mitted the members of the opposite party to stand their trial before the court of Session by his order dated 26-4-1954.

(2.) The facts of the case are these. The members of the opposite party, namely, Motab Dewan and Walayat Dewan, who are residents of village Purainee, within the jurisdiction of police station Sikta in the district of Champaran, are stated to have committed dacoity on 13-2-1953, in the bed of river Sikta which lies in the territory of Nepal. The first information was lodged on 14-2-1953 at Parsa Police station lying within the Nepal territory. The case was then duly investigated by the Suba court in Nepal attached to Birganj in Nepal. The Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipo tentiary of India at the court of Nepal addressed a letter to the District Magistrae of Champaran giving a certificate purporting to be under Section 188, Criminal P. C. to the effect that the members of the opposite party should be tried in India on the ground that they were Indian nationals. On the strength of this certificate, the Sub-Divisional Magistrate of Bettiah took cognizance of the offence. Thereafter, the District Magistrate transferred the case to the Munsif Magistrate of Bettiah who committed the members of the opposite party to stand their trial before the Court of Session. 2. The point that has been raised by the learned Sessions Judge in his letter of reference in this : that the Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary of India in Nepal is not a political agent, and the certificate granted by him under Section 188, Criminal P. C. would not be sufficient to confer jurisdiction on the courts in India, and thus the orders of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate and the Munsif Magistrate were without jurisdiction, and they must, therefore, be set aside. The learned Sessions Judge has relied upon a decision of this court reported in -- 'Shaikh Babujan v. State', AIR 1954 Pat 475 (A).

(3.) Before deciding the point at issue, it is necessary to refer to Section 188, Criminal P. C. which is as follows : Section 188. When an offence is committed by--(a) any citizen of India in any place without and beyond India; or (b) any person on any ship or aircraft registered in India, whether it may be, 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 : Provided that notwithstanding anything in any of the preceding sections of this Chapters no charge as to any such offence shall be inquired into in India unless the Political Agents, if there is one, for the territory in which the offence is alleged to have been committed, certifies that, in his opinion, the charge ought to be inquired into in India; and, where there is no Political Agent, the sanction of the State Government shall be required".