The main legal point established in the judgment is that under Section 188 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the Indian police have jurisdiction to investigate offences committed abroad by Indian citizens, and no sanction of the Central Government is necessary for such investigation.

(Per A.R. Lakshmanan, Ag. C.J.)

The unsuccessful petitioner is the appellant in this appeal. The Original Petition was filed for the following reliefs:

(a) to direct the first respondent to conduct investigation, enquiry and such other proceeding under the provisions of Foreign Exchange Regulation Act and to charge and prosecute respondents 4 and 5 for violation of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act;

(b) to direct the first respondent to recover the illegally converted 95,000 Riyals which had arrived in India through unknown sources and reached the bank accounts of 5th respondent and to give the same to the petitioner and also to initiate prosecution and adjudication proceedings as provided under the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act against respondents 4 and 5;

(c) to direct the respondents 1 and 2 to conduct investigation, to complete the same and to file the charge report before the concerned Magistrate Court ort the basis of the complaint filed by the petitioner against respondents 4 and 5 and also to arrest them and also to recover the amounts including the converted properties from respondents 4 and 5 under the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure and also to make arrangements for giving the same to the petitioner; and (d) to compel the first respondent to consider and dispose of Ext.P-.5 petition.

2. The facts, in brief, are as follows: The appellant and respondents 4 and 5 are related to each other. The appellant was working as a Salesman at Damam in Saudi Arabia in a firm drawing attractive salary and other perks. The appellant took the fourth respondent to Damam by arranging a free visa. During his stay in Damam, the forth respondent was living under the care and protection at the expense of the appellant. The fourth respondent was having access to all the personal belongings of the appellant. On 1-4-1992, the appellant found that the outer door of the flat, where He was residing, found open and that the lock of the table drawer was broken and amounts kept in it were missing. The appellant was sure that the fourth respondent had committed theft of 95,000 Saudi Riyals kept in the table drawer. Anticipating criminal action, the fourth respondent escaped to India. The fourth respondent came to his native place one week after the arrival of the appellant. He brought two bags of foreign articles and 40 sovereigns of gold. The enquiries made by the appellant revealed that the entire amounts stolen from him was arranged to reach India through improper channels.

3. The appellant filed complaints before respondents 2 and 3 against the fourth respondent to recover the theft articles and to release the same to the appellant. When the police started investigation, the fourth respondent approached this Court. The police authorities submitted before this Court that no case had been registered against the fourth respondent. Based on that submission, the petition was closed. In order to prevent the police from conducting further investigation and trying to recover the stolen amount, respondents 4 and 5 filed O.P.No. 2338 of 1994 before this Court. This Court passed an interim order directing respondents 1 and 2 not to compel respondents 4 and 5 to pay the amount claimed. However, at the instance of the appellant, that order was modified. The Original Petition was disposed of by this Court on 10-8-1994 directing the second respondent to proceed with the investigation of the crime, if any, registered against respondents 4 and 5. However, it is contended by the appellant that no steps for completing the investigation have been taken by respondents 1 and 2 and that respondents 4 and 5 are at large and they are conducting business using the money stolen from the appellant.

4. The illegal conversion of the theft foreign currency and arranging its entry into India, the appellant contends, is an offence attracting Section 9 of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act (FERA) and, therefore, the first respondent is competent to conduct an