1. Home
  2. / Subject
  3. /Private International Law

CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA V. RAM NARAIN AIR 1955 SC 36

CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA V. RAM NARAIN

AIR 1955 SC 36

 

FACT

  • Ram Narain, representing his firm Ram Narain Joginder Nath, was granted a cash credit limit by the Central Bank of India Ltd. in Mailsi, Multan District, shortly before the partition of British India.
  • On August 15, 1947, the amount due to the bank from Ram Narain was over Rs. 1,40,000, with stocks pledged worth approximately Rs. 1,90,000.
  • Due to post-partition disturbances, bank officials left Mailsi, and it was discovered in January 1948 that 801 cotton bales pledged by Ram Narain were stolen and sold.
  • The East Punjab Government sanctioned Ram Narain's prosecution under sections 380 and 454 of the Indian Penal Code for offences committed in Pakistan in November 1947.
  • Ram Narain objected, arguing he was a Pakistani national at the time of the offence, making the sanction invalid.
  • The High Court of Punjab quashed the charges, holding that Ram Narain could not be tried in India for offences committed in Pakistan.
  • Present Appeal against HC orders.

 

ISSUE

  • Whether a person accused of an offence committed in a district that became part of Pakistan after the partition of India could be tried in an Indian court after migrating to India and acquiring citizenship.

 

RULE

  • Section 4, Indian Penal Code (IPC): Extends the applicability of the IPC to offences committed outside India by Indian citizens.
  • Section 188, Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC): Allows for the prosecution of Indian citizens for offences committed outside India, provided they are found within India.
  • Determination of domicile and citizenship at the time of the offence is crucial for jurisdiction.

 

HELD

  • The court emphasized that both the intention to reside permanently (animus) and actual residence (factum) are necessary to establish domicile.
  • Despite his intention to migrate to India, Ram Narain's domicile was still considered to be in Pakistan at the time of the offence.
  • The chaotic conditions post-partition and the resultant displacements made it difficult to ascertain a permanent intention to change domicile.
  • The court concluded that at the time of the commission of the offence, Ram Narain was domiciled in Pakistan. Consequently, the East Punjab Government lacked the jurisdiction to sanction his prosecution for offences committed in Pakistan. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed, upholding the High Court's decision that Ram Narain could not be tried in India for those offences.

 

COMMENTARIES NOTE

4. EXTENSION OF CODE TO EXTRA-TERRITORIAL OFFENCES.

  • As stated by HALSBURY: British subjects who commit offences abroad are in numerous instances by virtue of statutes amenable to English criminal jurisdiction. Exceptionally aliens also are liable to be tried in England—H ALSBURY’S Laws of England4th Edn., Vol. II, para 87, p. 62.
  • Appellant’s son was married to the complainant and appellant was undisputably a Mauritius citizen and her son and daughter-in-law were residing in Kuwait. A complaint petition was filed before the chief judicial magistrate Navsari by complainant alleging therein mental torture and physical harassment by her husband. Appellant (mother-in-law of complainant) who was also made a party filed an application for quashing of proceedings on the ground that cognizance taken by the magistrate was bad in law as she was a Mauritius citizen and alleged offence was committed in Kuwait where only cause of action had arisen. The High Court held that cognizance taken by the magistrate and process issued by him were in order. On appeal the Supreme Court held that the entire proceedings having been initiated illegally and without jurisdiction and actions taken by courts are liable to be nullified. The court also observed that even the principle of res judicatawill not apply to such cases.