A) ABSTRACT / HEADNOTE

The judgment in Mobarik Ali Ahmed v. The State of Bombay delivered in 1957 by the Supreme Court of India is a landmark decision elucidating the extraterritorial applicability of Indian criminal law, particularly the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC). The appellant, a Pakistani national operating from Karachi, was accused of cheating a complainant based in Bombay by misrepresenting the availability of rice for shipment and fraudulently inducing payment. The appellant had never been physically present in India during the commission of the alleged acts but was convicted under Section 420 IPC based on acts conducted through cross-border correspondence and representations.

The case primarily revolves around complex issues of criminal jurisdiction, the territorial application of penal law, the interpretation of Section 2 of the IPC, and the scope of criminal liability for acts committed from abroad that have consequences within India. The Supreme Court held that criminal liability could be imposed upon a person for acts committed outside India if the essential ingredients of the offence occurred within India. It further clarified that the term “every person” under Section 2 IPC includes foreigners, and the jurisdiction extends to any person whose culpable acts result in consequences within the territory of India. The Court also discussed the Fugitive Offenders Act, 1881, in determining the legality of the appellant’s trial for a different offence after extradition. This case continues to serve as a vital precedent in transnational criminal jurisprudence and clarifies the interplay between international law, domestic jurisdiction, and extradition.

Keywords: Extraterritorial Jurisdiction, Section 2 IPC, Fugitive Offenders Act, Cheating, Foreign Nationals, Criminal Law, Territorial Nexus, Section 420 IPC.

B) CASE DETAILS

i) Judgement Cause Title:
Mobarik Ali Ahmed v. The State of Bombay

ii) Case Number:
Criminal Appeal No. 200 of 1956

iii) Judgement Date:
September 6, 1957

iv) Court:
Supreme Court of India

v) Quorum:
Justice Jagannadhadas, Justice Jafer Imam, and Justice Govinda Menon

vi) Author:
Justice Jagannadhadas

vii) Citation:
(1957) SCR 328

viii) Legal Provisions Involved:
Section 2, Section 34, Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860;
Section 179 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898;
Section 8 of the Fugitive Offenders Act, 1881;
Section 3(2) of the Extradition Act, 1870 (UK);
Articles 5, 7, and 9 of the Constitution of India

ix) Judgments overruled by the Case (if any):
None expressly overruled

x) Case is Related to which Law Subjects:
Criminal Law, Private International Law, Constitutional Law, Jurisdictional Law

C) INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND OF JUDGEMENT

This case arose in the context of a private complaint filed by a Goan businessman who accused Mobarik Ali Ahmed, a Pakistani businessman, of defrauding him of over ₹5 lakhs in the early 1950s. At a time when Goa faced an acute scarcity of rice, the complainant sought to import rice and entered into negotiations through commission agents in Bombay. The entire deal was executed via letters, telegrams, and telephone communications with Ahmed, who was situated in Karachi. Despite receiving substantial payments in Indian currency, the promised rice was never shipped, prompting criminal proceedings under Section 420 IPC. The central legal challenge presented was whether an Indian court could exercise jurisdiction over a foreign national not physically present in India when the crime was committed. The case further tested the application of Section 2 IPC and the extent to which India could prosecute offences committed outside its geographical borders if consequences of the act took place within India.

D) FACTS OF THE CASE

The complainant, a businessman from Goa and director of Colonial Limitada, was in urgent need of rice due to local scarcity. A mutual associate, Jasawalla, a commission agent in Bombay, facilitated communication with the appellant, Mobarik Ali Ahmed, a Karachi-based trader operating under “Atlas Industrial and Trading Corporation” and “Ifthiar Ahmed & Co.” Ahmed agreed to sell 1,200 tons of rice and later enhanced the quantity to 2,000 tons based on advance payments in Indian currency, totaling ₹5.48 lakhs. The appellant assured shipment via telegrams, letters, and phone calls, suggesting rice stocks and shipping space were available.

However, after receiving payments in three tranches on July 23, August 28, and August 29 of 1951, the appellant failed to ship any rice. Subsequent correspondence showed constant shifting of positions, fresh demands like bank guarantees, and excuses like export controls and vessel unavailability. Finally, the complainant flew to Karachi only to be denied access to verify the goods and was later deported by Pakistani authorities under suspicious circumstances. The persistent avoidance, contradictory messages, and failure to honor the agreement led to prosecution under Section 420 read with Section 34 IPC, though only Ahmed was eventually tried due to the others being absconders.

E) LEGAL ISSUES RAISED

i) Whether a foreign national not present in India can be tried for an offence committed in India under Section 420 IPC?
ii) Whether the trial was invalid since the appellant was extradited for a different offence and tried for a fresh one without the consent of extradition authorities?
iii) Whether conviction under Section 420 IPC is sustainable when the charge was under Section 420 read with Section 34 IPC, and co-accused were absconding?
iv) Whether the letters, telegrams, and evidence used to prove misrepresentation were legally admissible?

F) PETITIONER/ APPELLANT’S ARGUMENTS

i) The counsels for Petitioner / Appellant submitted that:

• The appellant was a Pakistani national and never physically entered India during the offence. Hence, Section 2 IPC could not apply to him and Indian courts had no jurisdiction.

• The trial violated the rule of speciality since he was extradited from England for a different offence, and his prosecution for cheating was legally impermissible under the Fugitive Offenders Act, 1881 and UK Extradition Act, 1870.

• The telegrams and letters were inadmissible due to lack of valid proof of origin and receipt. Many documents were unsigned or not directly traceable to the appellant.

• The charge framed under Section 420/34 IPC became invalid when co-accused were not tried. Hence, conviction of the appellant alone was unsustainable.

G) RESPONDENT’S ARGUMENTS

i) The counsels for Respondent submitted that:

• Even if the appellant was outside India, the entire offence was committed in Bombay, as the misrepresentation was received, and money was paid in India, establishing territorial nexus.

• Section 2 IPC applies to “every person” without exception and includes foreigners whose actions result in an offence committed within Indian territory.

• The trial did not violate the extradition conditions because the Fugitive Offenders Act, 1881 contained no restriction against fresh prosecutions after extradition.

• The documents, including telegrams, were proven through oral evidence, internal consistency, and by Sequeira, an employee of the appellant, affirming receipt and authorship.

• As per Willie (William Slaney) v. State of Madhya Pradesh (AIR 1956 SC 116), conviction under Section 420 IPC is valid even if the charge includes Section 34, provided no prejudice is caused.

B) RELATED LEGAL PROVISIONS

i) Indian Penal Code, 1860:

• Section 2 – Liability of every person for offences committed within India

• Section 420 – Cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property

• Section 34 – Acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention

ii) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898:

• Section 179 – Offence triable where act is done or consequence ensues

iii) Fugitive Offenders Act, 1881 – Section 8

iv) Extradition Act, 1870 (UK) – Section 3(2)

v) Constitution of India:

• Article 5, Article 7, Article 9, and Article 361(2)

H) JUDGEMENT

a. RATIO DECIDENDI

i) The Supreme Court held that:

• All essential elements of the offence of cheating occurred in Bombay. Though the appellant acted from Karachi, he used telephones, telegrams, and letters to induce payments in Bombay.

• Section 2 IPC applies to “every person” without exception. Foreign nationals can be tried in India if the consequence of their action ensues within Indian territory.

• The Fugitive Offenders Act, 1881 did not prohibit prosecution for a different offence after extradition.

• Conviction under Section 420 IPC alone was sustainable, even though the charge mentioned Section 34 IPC. There was no prejudice to the accused.

b. OBITER DICTA 

i) The Court observed:

• Nationality is irrelevant to determine criminal jurisdiction; what matters is locality of the offence.

• The term “every person” in Section 2 IPC includes foreign nationals, unless specifically exempted.

• International principles, as laid down in the S.S. Lotus case (PCIJ), support jurisdiction based on effects doctrine.

c. GUIDELINES 

• Indian Penal Code can apply to foreigners for offences with consequences in India.

• Prosecution for a different offence than the one for which extradition was granted does not automatically vitiate the trial if no legal restriction is found.

• The interpretation of criminal statutes must align with the effect and nature of the act, not the nationality of the offender.

I) CONCLUSION & COMMENTS

This case established a crucial precedent that foreign nationals operating from outside India are amenable to Indian criminal jurisdiction if their acts lead to the commission of offences within India. The Supreme Court’s bold interpretation of Section 2 IPC ensures that culpable persons cannot escape criminal liability merely due to territorial boundaries. It fortifies the doctrine of effects-based jurisdiction, often seen in international criminal law. The Court’s reasoning combines statutory interpretation with international norms to bridge jurisdictional gaps in transnational crimes. The judgment enhances accountability in cross-border frauds and affirms the sovereignty of Indian courts in dealing with crimes impacting Indian citizens or interests.

J) REFERENCES

a. Important Cases Referred
i. H. N. Rishbud v. The State of Delhi, (1955) 1 SCR 1150
ii. Willie (William Slaney) v. The State of Madhya Pradesh, (1955) 2 SCR 1140
iii. S.S. Lotus Case, PCIJ Series A No. 10 (1927)
iv. The Queen v. Keyn (Franconia’s case) (1876) 2 Ex D 63
v. Lumbhardar Zutshi v. The King, AIR 1950 PC 26

b. Important Statutes Referred
i. Indian Penal Code, 1860, Sections 2, 34, 420
ii. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, Section 179
iii. Fugitive Offenders Act, 1881, Section 8
iv. Extradition Act, 1870 (UK), Section 3(2)
v. Constitution of India, Articles 5, 7, 9, 361(2)