Skip to main content

Territorial jurisdiction and extraterritorial jurisdiction of IPC with exceptions.

 Jurisdiction of Criminal Courts: 

The Jurisdiction of the Criminal Courts is: 

1. Territorial Jurisdiction (Sec-2) 

    a) Personal Jurisdiction 

    b) Intra-Territorial Jurisdiction 

2. Extra- Territorial Jurisdiction 

    a) Extension of the Code to the Extra- Territorial offences (Sec-4(1)) 

    b) Admiral Jurisdiction (Sec-4(2)) 

3. Certain Laws not to be affected by IPC (Sec-5) 

4. Exceptions. 

1. Territorial Jurisdiction: (sec-2) 

It means the power of the state to exercise the jurisdiction within its territory of India. According to sec-2, any person who is found guilty of committing an offence within the territory of India including the territorial waters is punishable. 

The territorial Jurisdiction is divided into 2 types: 

a) Personal Jurisdiction 

b) Intra- Territorial Jurisdiction

a) Personal Jurisdiction: 

According to Sec-2 of IPC1860, “Every person irrespective of his rank, nationality, caste shall be liable for the punishment for the offence committed within the territory of India”. It extends to the foreign nationals also as it makes no distinction between Indian citizen and a foreigner. Eg: Adultery is not an offence in America but an offence in India. 

b) Intra-Territorial Jurisdiction: 

No state allows the other states to exercise the jurisdiction over its territory. Such power of the state to extend the Jurisdiction over the offences committed within the territory is called “Intra- Territorial Jurisdiction”

2. Extra- Territorial Jurisdiction: 

(Sec-3) It means the power of the state to exercise the jurisdiction beyond the territory of India. Sec-3 provides the punishment for the offences committed beyond the territory of India but by law can be tried within India. Sec-3 of IPC provides that, an Indian citizen may be prosecuted in India for the wrong committed in foreign lands, if it is an offence under any of the Indian enactment. Eg: If an Indian commits adultery in America, which is not an offence in America but an offence in India, he may be prosecuted in India. Eg: A who is the citizen of India, commits a murder in Uganda. He can be convicted for murder in any place of India. 

In                 Remia 

                    V 

                Sub-Inspector of police, Tanur 

In this case, an Indian citizen murdered another Indian citizen in a foreign country. The police refused to register an FIR on the grounds that the offence was committed outside India. The court held that the refusal was illegal and directed to register the complaint under sec-3 of IPC.

a) Extension of the code to Extra-Territorial offences (Sec-4): 

Sec-4 provides the extension of the code to Extra-Territorial offences, which are as follows: 

1) Any citizen of India in any place within and beyond India. 

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

Suppose A committed a murder in India and fled to Pakistan to escape from the punishment. If the state of Pakistan gives him shelter and protects him, such protection and shelter is called “Asylum”. So, A is said to be Asylum. If A is handed over to India by the Pakistan, such handing over of the accused is called “Extradition.” 

b) Admiral Jurisdiction (Sec-4(2)): 

Admiral court is a special court designed to deal with the mercantile and maritime cases. Mercantile cases means, the cases between the merchants or traders. Maritime cases means, Cases pertaining to the offences committed on High Seas including Piracy (robbery committed on ship).

Sec-4 of IPC gives the power to extend their jurisdiction over: 

1) Offences committed on Indian ships on high seas. 

2) Offences committed on foreign ships in Indian Territorial Waters. 

3) Piracy.

3. Certain laws not to be affected by IPC (Sec-5): As per Sec-5, nothing in this act shall affect the provisions of the act for mutiny and for the desertion of the officers, soldiers etc.

 4. Exceptions: The following persons are exempted from the Jurisdiction of the criminal courts they are:

 a) Foreign Soveigns, 

b) Ambassadors, 

c) Alien Enemies, 

d) Foreign Army 

e) Warship 

f) President and Governor. 

Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Republic Day 26 Jan 2021 Celebration at ETA GARDEN Apartment

 Republic Day 26 Jan 2021 Celebration at ETA GARDEN Apartment I, Trilok Chand Gupta Joint Secretary of ETA Garden have celebrated and raised our country Flag at our pavilion. It's been published in the News Paper for welcoming people for Flag Hoisting.
Post a Comment
Read more

Winding Up Companies rules Section 272

Winding Up: 1) Winding up of a company is a process through which the life of the company comes into an end. 2) In this process the management of the company is taken away from the hands of the Directors of the company. 3) An administrator called a liquidator is appointed and he takes the control of the company, collects the assets, liabilities are discharged (i.e. all the creditors) and finally distributes if any surplus among the members. 4) At the end of the winding up, the company is left with no assets and liabilities and thus gets formally dissolved. Compulsory Winding up: 1) The winding up process done by the tribunal is known a compulsory winding up of a company. 2) It is also known as Tribunal Winding up. 3) Chapter XX, Part – 1of the CA 2013 deals with the compulsory winding up. Grounds for winding up by Tribunal: 1) Special Resolution 2) Acts against sovereignty 3) Default in filing the statements 4) Fraudulent Conduct 5) Just and Equitable. Person who can file a Petition to...
Post a Comment
Read more

Insanity (Section 84)

  Insanity (Sec-84) Act of a person of unsound mind is given under Sec-84 as, “Nothing is an offence which is done by a person who, at the time of doing it, by reason of unsoundness of mind, is incapable of knowing the nature of the act or that what he is doing is either wrong or contrary to law” The law of Insanity was introduced by a leading case of McNaughton. In R V Mc. Naughten Facts: Daniel Mc. Naughten the accused, murdered Mr. Drummond, the private secretary of Sir. Robert Peel, the Prime Minister of England, by confusion that Mr. Drummond was Sir. Robert Peel. He was tried for murder. On behalf of the accused, the defense counsel pleaded that, the accused due to the insanity, he was not able to know that he was violating the laws of God and man. It was established that the accused lost his power of control of mind, while committing the offence, a medical report was also produced to that effect. Judgment: The court acquitted Mc. Naughten on the grounds of Insanity. Mc. Naug...
Post a Comment
Read more