The main legal point established in the judgment is the extra territorial jurisdiction of the Kerala Police to investigate offences committed by Indian citizens outside India, as provided under Sec. 4 IPC and Sec. 188 Cr.P.C.

The question that arise in this case relates to the jurisdiction of the Kerala Police to conduct investigation against petitioner, an Indian citizen, in respect of some offences alleged to have been committed by him in the United Arab Emirates. That question arises in the context of Sec. 4 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 4 and 188 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

2. Petition alleges that petitioner was employed in Fursan Travel and Tourism, Riyad, U.A.E., since September, 1993. The job was on a contract basis for a period of one year and extended by three months. After that period the contract was not renewed and the employment was terminated. Petitioner had to return to this country in December, 1994. A complaint was presented before the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Kottayam by one Mohammed Haneefa alleging that petitioner had misappropriated 1077 Riyals (Rs. 8,41,488/-) and Mohammed Haneefa had to pay the amount to the employer of petitioner since petitioner was employed there on the recommendation of Mohammed Haneefa. It was also alleged that two other persons had misappropriated other amounts. On the basis of that complaint, a copy of which is Annexure-I, the Sub-Inspector of Police. Mundakayam registered Crime No. 72 of 1995 under Sections 408, 420 and 34 IPC and the first information report was lodged before J.F.C.M.- I, Kanjirappally. A copy of the FIR is Annexure-II. Petitioner seeks quashing of Annexures I and II on the ground that the Kerala Police has no jurisdiction to investigate into the crime committed in a foreign country and the averments in the complaint do not disclose any offence.

3. Heard counsel for petitioner and Director General of Prosecutions.

4. In support of his contention that the Kerala Police has no jurisdiction to investigate the crime, learned counsel for petitioner relied on the decision of a learned Judge of this Court in Samarudeen v. Asst. Director of Enforcement. (1995 (1) KLT 468). Disagreeing with an earlier Division Bench decision (Muhammed v. State of Kerala, 1994 (1) KLT 464) which affirmed the decision of another learned Single Judge, it was held that Sec. 188 of the Code does not clothe the local police with jurisdiction to investigate the crime Incidentally, it is seen observed that the earlier decisions are not binding precedents since they were rendered overlooking the provisions contained in Chapter XII of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

5. The main aspect to be considered is whether this Court is bound by the decision of the Division Bench or whether the decision is Samarudeen's case (supra) has to be followed. The decision in Samarudeen's case, according to Director General of Prosecutions, is rendered per incuriam and is not binding since that is against the law laid down by the Division Bench in Muhammad's case, 1994 (1) KLT 464. To understand to correct legal position it is only appropriate to refer to the decisions of the Supreme Court regarding the binding nature of the precedents.

6. As early as 1965, the Supreme Court in Shri Bhagwan v. Ram Chand, (AIR 1965 SC 1767 : 1965 ALL LJ 353) held that it is hardly necessary to emphasise that considerations of judicial propriety and docorum require that if a learned Single Judge hearing a matter is inclined to take the view that the earlier decisions of the High Court, whether of a Division Bench or of a single Judge, need to be reconsidered, he should not embark upon that enquiry sitting as a Single Judge, but should refer the matter to a Division Bench or, in a proper case, place the relevant papers before the Chief Justice to enable him to constitute a larger bench to examine the question. It is observed that this is the proper and traditional way to deal with such matters and it is founded on healthy principles of judicial decorum and propriety.

7. In V.R.G. & G.O.M.C. Co. v. State of A.P. (AIR 1972 SC 51 : 1972 Tax LR 1601) the Supreme Court expressed dissatisfaction in a co-ordinate Bench of the