CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA versus RAM NARAIN

Citation: [1955] 1 S.C.R. 697 · Decided: 12-10-1954 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: MEHR CHAND MAHAJAN · Disposal: Dismissed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

-
-
S.C.R. 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
697 
which 
declares that none 
of the 
provlSlons of the 
specified Acts shall be deemed to be void or ever to have 
become void on the ground of the alleged violation of 
the rights 
indicated and "notwithstanding any judg-
ment, decree or order of any court or tribunal." That 
intention is also . emphasised by the positive declaration 
that "each of the said Acts or 
Regulations shall, subject 
to the power of any competent Legislature to repeal or 
amend it, continue in force." 
Vve are, therefore, clearly of the opinion that the 
challenge 
to 
the validity of the Bombay Taluqdari 
Tenure Abolition Act, 1949 on the ground put forward 
was 
not 
open. 
The 
appeals 
must, 
therefore, 
be 
dismissed with costs. 
Costs one set. 
Appeals dismissed. 
CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA 
v. 
RAM NARAIN. 
MEHR CHAND MAHAJAN C.J., MuKHERJEA, 
V1v1AN BosE, JAGANNADHADAS 
and VENKATARAMA AYYAR JJ.] 
Offence committed by a person in Pakistan-Migration to India 
and acquiring 
domicil 
therein-Courts in 
lndia-/urisdiction-
Trial-Indian Penal Code 
(Act XLV of 1860) 
s. 4-Criminal 
Procedure Code (Act V of 1898), s. 188-Whether apply under the 
circumstances-Domicil, definition of. 
A person accused of an offence under the Indian Penal Code 
and committed in a 
district which 
after the partition of 
India 
became part of 
Pakistan cannot be tried for that offence by a 
Criminal Court in India after his migration to India and acquiring 
thereafter the status of a citizen of India. 
The fact that after the 
comm1ss10n 
of an 
offence a person 
becomes domiciled in another country, or acquires citizenship of 
time when that person was neither the national of that country 
retrospectively for trying offences committed and completed at a 
time when that person was neither the national of that country 
nor was he domiciled there. 
According to section 4 of the Indian Penal Code and section 
J 88 of the Code of Criminal Procedure if at the time of the commis-
sion of the offence the person committing it is a citizen of India 
then even if the offence is committed outside India he is subject to. 
1954 
Dhirubha 
Devsingh Gohil' 
v. 
The State of 
Bomb/!Y. 
Jagannadhodasj.. 
1954 
October 12' 
1954 
Central Bank of 
India Ltd. 
v. 
Ram Narain. 
698 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1955] 
the jurisdiction of the Courts in India, as qua citizens the jurisdic· 
tion of Courts is not lost by reason of the venue of an offence. · If, 
however, at the time of the commission of the offence the accused 
person is not a citizen of India these . sections have no applicati~n 
at all. 
The term "domicil" does not admit of an absolute definition. 
The simplest definition of don1icif is : That place is properly the 
domicil of a person in \vhich his habitation is fixed \Vithout any 
present intention of removing therefron1. 
The 
fact is that 
the 
tenn domicil can be illustrated but cannot be defined. 
Craignish v. Craignish (11892] 3 Ch. 180, 192) referred to. 
CRIMINAL 
APPELLATE 
JURISDICTION : 
Criminal 
Appeal No. 90 of 1952. 
Appeal under article 134(1) (c) of the Constitution 
of India from the 
Judgment and 
Order, dated 28th 
November, 1954, of the Punjab High Court in Criminal 
Revision No. 865 of 1951, arising out of the Judgment, 
dated 2nd August, 1951, of the Court of Additional 
Sessions Judge, Rohtak, Gurgaon, in Criminal Revision 
No. 4 of 1951. 
M. C. Seta!vad, 
Attorney-General 
Chand and Rajinder 
Narain, 
with 
appellant. 
for 
India 
him) for 
(Tek 
the 
Copa! Singh and K. L. Mehta for the 
respondent. 
S. M. Sikri, 
Advocate'General for 
the 
State of 
Punjab (Jinder Lal and P. G. Gokhale, with him) for 
the Intervener (The State of Punjab). 
1954. October 12. The Judgment of the Court was 
delivered by 
MEHR CHAND MAHAJAN C. J.-This appeal, by leave 
of the High Court of Judicature at Simla, raises a novel 
and interesting question of law, viz., whether a person 
accused of an offence under the Indian Penal . Code 
and committed' in a district which after the 
part1t10n 
of 
India became 
Pakistan, 
could 
be 
tried for that 
offence by a Criminal Court in India after his migration 
to that 
country, and 
thereafter 
acquiring the status 
of a citizen. 
The material facts relevant to this enquiry are these : 
The respondent, Ram Narain, acting on behalf of his 
firm, Ram Narain Joginder Nath, carrying on business 
at Mailsi in Multan District, was allowed a cash credit 
limit of rupees three lakhs by the Mail
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.