LexMOBARIK ALI AHMED versus THE STATE OF BOMBAY
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
1957
Virendra
v.
The State of
~Punjab
and
Another
Das C, J.
1957
September6
328
SUPREME COURT
REPORTS
[19581
section. It is surprising how in the same statute the
two sections came to be worded differently.
For reasons stated above petition No. 95 of 1957
(Virendra v. The State of Punjab) which impugns the
Notifications issued under s. 2(l)(a) must be dismissed
and petition No. 96 of 1957 (K. Narendra v. The State
of Punjab) which challenges s. 3 must be allowed.
In
the circumstances of these cases we make no order as
to the costs of these applications.
Petition No. 95 of 1957 dismissed.
Petition No. 96 of 1957 allowed.
MOBARIK ALI AHMED
v.
THE STATE OF BOMBAY
(JAGANNADHADAS, JAFER
GOVINDA MENON
IMAM
JJ.)
and
Criminal Law-Foreigner-Resident outside India-Offence
committed in India-Conviction by Indian Court under the Indian
Penal Code-Legality-Offender extradited and brought to India-
Arrest for a fresh offence and conviction-Validity-Charge under
s. 420 read with s. 34 of the Indian Penal Code-Conviction under
s. 420 a/one-Legality-Extradition Act, 1870 (44 & 34 Viet. c. 52),
s. 3 (2)-Fugitive Offenders Act, 1881 (44 & 45 Viet. c. 69), s. 8-
Indian Penal Code (Act XLV of 1860), ss. 2, 34, 420.
·
The appellant,
a Pakistani national doing business
in
Karachi, was convicted of the offence of cheating under s. 420 of
the Indian Penal Code. The prosecution case was that with a
dishonest intention he made false representations
to
the
ci>mplainant at Bombay through letters, telegrams and telephone
talks, that he had ready stock of rice, that he had reserved
shipping space and on receipt of money he would be in a position
to ship the rice forthwith, and that the complainant who was
anxious to import rice urgently sent the amount to the appellant
on the belief of such representations. It was contended for the
appellant that the conviction was sad on the grounds inter alia
{I) that he was a Pakistani national who, during the entire period
of the commission of the offence, never stepped into India and
was only at Karachi and that he could ·not be tried by an Indian
Court nor be punishable under the Indian Penal Code, (2) that he
S.C.R.
SUPREME COURT REPOR.'.fS
329
was brought over from England, where he happened to be, by
1957
virtue of
ex~radition .proceedings in
c<;mn~ctioa
wit~ another MobarikA/i Ahmid
offence the tnal for which was then pendmg m the Sess10ns Court
v.
at Bombay, and that he could not be validly tried and convicted
The"Btate of
for a different offence like the present, and (3) that the charge
Bomhay
being one under s. 420 read with s. 34 of the Indian Penal Code
for alleged conjoint acts of himself along with three others and
those three not being before the Court, and himself not having
, been in Bombay at the time, the conviction was unsustainable.
Held : (I) that, on the facts, all the ingredients constituting
the offence of' cheating under s. 420 of the Indian Penal Code
having occurred in Bombay, the offence was committed there and
that, though the appellant 'was not corporeally present in India
at the time of the commission of the offence, his conviction under
the Indian Penal Code was valid in view of the terms of s. 2 of
the Code;
(2) that, as the appellant was surrendered to the
Indian
authorities under the Fugitive Offenders Act, 1881, and there was
no provision in that Act preventing arrest in India for the
purpose of a trial in respcet of a fresh offence, his
conviction
following upon his trial was valid.
H. N. Rishbud v. The State of Delhi, (1955) 1 S.C.R. 1150,
relied on.
(3) that the conviction of the appellant of the offence
of
s. 420 was valid, though the charge was one under s. 420 read
with s. 34. as the actual findings in the case could support a con-
viction under s. 420 itself.
Willie (William Slaney) v. The State of Madhya Pradesh,
(1955) 2 S.C.R. 1140, relied on.
CRIMINAL
APPELLATE
JURISDICTION:
Criminal
Appeal No. 200of1956.
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and
order dated July 20, 1954, of the Bombay High Co11rt
in Criminal Appeal No. 1596 of 1953, arising out of
the judgment and order dated September 23, 1953, of
the
Court
of the
Additional
Chief Presidency
Magistrate, 3rd Court, Esplanade, Bombay, in Case
No. 31/W of 1953.
A. P. Gandhi and J.B. Dadachanji, for the appellant.
H. J: Umrigar and R. H. Dhebar, for the respondent..
1957. September 6. The folloExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.