The main legal point established in the judgment is that the local police had no jurisdiction to investigate the offence alleged to have been committed outside India, and S.188 of the Cr.P.C. does not authorize the local police to investigate the crime committed outside the territorial limits of the court.

This O.P. is filed by the petitioner who was formerly residing in Saudi Arabia at Damam. He prays for a writ of mandamus to direct the first respondent, the Assistant Director of Enforcement, Trivandrum, to conduct investigation, enquiry and such other proceedings for violations of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act committed by respondents 4 and 5, and for prosecuting them for the violations. He also prays for the consequential relief of recovering 95,000 Riyals which were illegally converted and brought to India through unknown source and ultimately came to be deposited in the bank account of the fifth respondent. He prays that adjudication proceedings and prosecution should be launched against respondents 4 and 5. He also prays for a direction to respondents 2 and 3, the Director General of Police, and the Circle Inspector of Police to conduct investigation and complete it expeditiously and file a charge sheet before the concerned Magistrate on the basis of the complaint given by him. He further prays for a writ of mandamus directing the first respondent to consider and dispose of Ext. P5 petition.

2. The facts pertinent for decision of this Original Petition may be briefly stated as follows. The petitioner was employed as a salesman in Damam in Saudi Arabia. The fifth respondent is his paternal uncle. The fourth respondent is the unemployed son of the fifth respondent. The petitioner has been in Saudi Arabia for a sufficient long time. He was well employed and he was earning a very decent salary. On the request of the fifth respondent, he took the fourth respondent at his own expense to Saudi Arabia with a view to secure him employment. As he could not secure proper employment for the fourth respondent, the petitioner secured 95,000 Riyals with a view to start a hotel so that he can employ the services of the fourth respondent. As the fourth respondent was staying with the petitioner, he was fully aware of the fact that the petitioner is keeping 95,000 Riyals in the table drawer. The fourth respondent had a spare key for [he premises of the petitioner. During the month of Ramzan in April, 1992 all Muslim establishments would remain closed during the day time and they would be functioning from 8 p.m. to 12.30 P.M. in the night. The petitioner locked the table drawer and went to the work-spot. At about 1 A.M. when he returned to the house, he found that the outer door of the Hat was open, and after entering the premises he found mat the lock of the table drawer was broken and money was missing. As the fourth respondent had a spare key, the petitioner suspected the fourth respondent. He immediately wanted to report the matter to the police. He took the fourth respondent along with him in a car to go to the police station. The movements of the fourth respondent were suspicious. When they were going to the police station, the fourth respondent was driving the car. The fourth respondent created an accident by dashing the car against a parked vehicle, and it created an incident. The fourth respondent rah away. The petitioner made his best efforts to trace the fourth respondent. He could not trace him. His suspicion got continued and he had a feeling that the fourth respondent would have escaped to India. Immediately, the petitioner came to India and reached his native place on 11-4-1992. The fourth respondent came to India one week later, will) two bags of foreign articles, and 40 sovereigns of gold. The enquiries made by the petitioner revealed that the entire money stolen from the petitioner was arranged to reach India through lube money (through hawala transaction). The petitioner tiled complaints before respondents 2 and 3 for registering a criminal case against the fourth respondent and to recover the theft property which was stolen in Damam. It was found that respondents 4 and 5 were spending lavishly and investing money in various businesses. They do not have resources to spend so much money. When police starte