IMPORTANT POINT
What is barred under the proviso to Section 188 Cr.P.C. is the inquiry or trial of an offence committed by a citizen of India outside India. Taking cognizance of such an offence is not barred under the proviso to Section 188 Cr.P.C.-It is not discernible either from the charge-sheet filed by the police or from the charge framed by the court below, whether the offence of forgery was committed in India or outside India.

ORDER :

This is a petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing the proceedings against the petitioner in the case C.C.No.280/2014 on the file of the Court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Thiruvananthapuram.

2. The prosecution case is as follows: The petitioner/first accused lost his passport when he was abroad. In order to somehow reach India, he got possession of the passport issued in the name of one Abdul Salam, with the help of the second accused in the case. The petitioner removed the photo from the aforesaid passport and affixed his own photograph in it. Using such fake passport, he travelled from Riyadh airport and reached Thiruvananthapuram airport. At the time of immigration checking at Thiruvananthapuram airport, the forgery committed by the petitioner was detected. A case was registered against him for the offences punishable under Sections 465, 468, 471 and 419 read with 34 I.P.C. and Section 12(1)(b) and (d) of the Passports Act. After completing the investigation, Annexure-A charge-sheet was filed against him for the offences mentioned above.

3. The petitioner has prayed for quashing the proceedings against him on the ground that no previous sanction from the Central Government has been obtained for taking cognizance of the offences and that the trial of the case conducted without such sanction is bad in law.

4. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor.

5. The proviso to Section 188 Cr.P.C. states that, when an offence is committed outside India by a citizen of India, no such offence shall be inquired into or tried in India except with the previous sanction of the Central Government.

6. What is barred under the proviso to Section 188 Cr.P.C. is the inquiry or trial of an offence committed by a citizen of India outside India. Taking cognizance of such an offence is not barred under the proviso to Section 188 Cr.P.C.

7. In the instant case, it is not discernible either from the charge-sheet filed by the police or from the charge framed by the court below, whether the offence of forgery was committed in India or outside India.

8. However, prima facie, there are materials to show that the offence of cheating by personation, which is punishable under Section 419 I.P.C and also the offence punishable under Section 471 I.P.C have been committed by the petitioner in India, while he was at Thiruvananthapuram airport.

9. When atleast two of the offences alleged against the petitioner have been committed by him in India and when such offences form part of the same transaction of which the other offences also form part, in my view, no previous sanction from the Central Government is necessary for conducting the trial of the case. In Ajay Agarwal v. Union of India, AIR 1993 SC 1637, the Apex Court has held that when offences have been committed during the continuing course of a transaction which culminated in India, no sanction from the Central Government is necessary for the trial of the case.

10. In the aforesaid circumstances, I find that there is no merit in the contention of the petitioner that the trial for the offences is bad in law for want of previous sanction from the Central Government. There is no sufficient ground to quash the proceedings against the petitioner in the case.

Consequently, the petition is dismissed.