Giri, J.

These Criminal Miscellaneous cases have come up on a reference made by a learned Judge of this Court under Section 3 of the High court Act. Learned Judge felt that the principal issue which came up for consideration in both these cases requires an authoritative pronouncement by a Bench of this Court. The said issue can be encapsulated as "whether the police can investigate an offence committed outside India by an Indian citizen and whether a jurisdictional Magistrate can order such investigation to be conducted by the police under Section 156 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, in respect of an offence which is alleged to have been committed by an Indian citizen outside India without obtaining prior sanction from the Central Government as contemplated by Section 188 of the Code of Criminal Procedure." There are two authoritative pronouncements by this Court, one by a Division Bench which specifically considered this issue namely Muhammed v. State of Kerala (1994 (1) KLT, 464) and the other by a Full Bench of this court which in turn affirmed the view taken by the Division Bench in Muhammed namely Samarudeen v. Asst.Director of Enforcement (1999 (2) KLT 794 [FB]) These two judgments have been referred to by the learned Judge in the order of reference. But it seems that an issue was raised as to whether the view taken by the Division Bench in Mohammed and by the Full Bench in Samarudeen requires re-consideration in the light of the observations made by the Supreme Court in Central Bureau of Investigation v. State of Rajasthan and Others (AIR 1996 SC 2402)

2. Since the controversy turns around Section 188 of the Cr.P.C, it will be appropriate to extract the same. Section 188 of the Code of Criminal Procedure reads as follows:-Offence committed outside India - When an offence is committed outside India -

(a). by a citizen of India, whether on the high seas or elsewhere; or

(b). by a person, not being such citizen, on any ship or aircraft registered in India, he may be dealt with in respect of such offence as if it had been committed at any place within India at which he may be found:

Provided that, notwithstanding anything in any of the preceding sections of this Chapter, no such offence shall be inquired into or tried in India except wit the previous sanction of the Central Government.

3. The substantive provision relatable to Section 188 of the Cr.P.C is that which is contained in Section 4 of the IPC, which reads as follows:-

Extension of Code to extra-territorial offences -The provisions of the Code apply also to any offence committed by -

(1). Any citizen of India in any place without and beyond India;

(2). Any person on any ship or aircraft registered in India wherever it may be.

4. The first part of Section 188 of the Code affirms extra territorial jurisdiction of the Code, in so far as the citizens of India are concerned, i.e., when an offence is committed outside India by an Indian citizen, he is to be "dealt with" in respect of such offence as if it had been committed at a place within India where he may be found. The dispute raised as to whether the words "dealt with", occurring in the first part of Section 188, will take in the power to investigate the offence as well was settled by the authoritative pronouncement of the Supreme Court in Delhi Administration v. Ram Singh (AIR 1962 SC 63), which was referred to by the Division Bench in Muhammeds case. A learned Judge of this Court in Asst. Collector v. Pavunni (1988 (2) KLT 194) took a view that if the alleged offences are committed outside India, a Magistrate cannot direct an investigation by the police under Section 156(3), except with an order of sanction by the Central Government as contemplated by Section 188 of the Cr.P.C. In other words, the view taken was that the investigation into an offence alleged to have been committed outside India by an Indian citizen, requires sanction by the Central Government.

5. A different view was taken by an anot