Date of judgement
4/8/2021
Judges
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE L. NAGESWARA RAO
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIRUDDHA BOSE
Parties
Petitioner - NERELLA CHIRANJEEVI ARUN KUMAR
Respondent - THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH & ANR.
Subject
- Whether the trial of a criminal case against an Indian citizen for crimes committed outside of India can begin without the approval of the Central Government?
Overview
- In this instance, the accused argued before the High Court, in his appeal under Section 482 CrPC, that the alleged crimes were committed in the United States and that, under Section 188 of the Cr.P.C., sanction from the Central Government is required even for the beginning of a criminal inquiry.
- The High Court dismissed the petition after rejecting this claim.
- While dismissing the SLP, the Court stated that the accused has the right to raise the issue of sanction prior to the start of the trial.
- The Bench noted that in Thota Venkateswarlu vs. State of A.P. Tr. Principal Secretary [2011 (9) SCC 527], it was held that prior Central Government sanction under Section 188 Cr.P.C. for offences committed by an Indian citizen outside the country is not required at the stage of cognizance, and thus it is not inclined to interfere with the High Court's order.
- Legal provisions
- Section 188 CrPC - Section 188 of CrPC deals with offences committed outside India: (a) by a citizen of India, whether on the high seas or elsewhere; or (b) by a person, not being such citizen, on any ship or aircraft registered in India.
Judgement analysis
- It was held in Ajay Aggarwal vs. Union of India & Ors. [(1993) 3 SCC 609] that obtaining prior Central Government sanction was not a condition precedent for taking cognizance of offences, because sanction might be obtained before the trial began.
- Despite the fact that the judgement in Ajay Aggarwal's case (above) was made in the context of an alleged conspiracy formed by the accused, the ratio of the decision is limited to what has already been stated in the interpretation of Section 188 Cr.P.C.
- The proviso to Section 188, which has been extracted herein, limits the rights of the investigating authority to inquire into or try any of the offences listed in the earlier part of the Section, unless the Central Government has given its prior approval.
- The fetters, on the other hand, are enforced only when the trial stage has been reached, indicating that no sanction under Section 188 is required until the trial has begun. The previous sanction of the trial could only begin when the decision to try the perpetrator in India was deemed necessary.
- As a result, under the proviso to Section 188 Cr.P.C., no prior authorization from the Central Government is required till the stage of taking cognizance. The trial, however, cannot go beyond the stage of cognizance without the approval of the Central Government.
- The Magistrate is so free to continue against the accused in relation to acts committed in India, to conclude the trial and issue judgement in that case, without being hampered by the other alleged offences, for which sanction would be required.
Conclusion
The Court said, “We do not believe it is appropriate to interfere with the High Court's order in light of the aforementioned conclusions recorded by this Court in Thota Venkateswarlu. The Petition for Special Leave is denied. If there are any pending applications, they will be dismissed. It goes without saying that the petitioner has the right to raise the issue of sanction prior to the start of the trial.”
Click here to download the original copy of the judgement
