Sanction under Section 188 CrPC necessary only if entire offence is committed outside India: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court recently held that sanction of the Central government under Section 188 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) for prosecuting an offence committed outside India, is necessary only if the entirety of offence was committed outside India [Sartaj Khan v. State of Uttarakhand]..A three-Judge Bench of Justices Uday Umesh Lalit, S Ravindra Bhat and PS Narasimha ruled that if an offence was not committed in its entirety outside India, the matter would not come within the scope of Section 188 of CrPC and consequently, there would be no necessity of any sanction as mandated by Section 188. Section 188 CrPC provides for prosecution of offences committed outside the territory of India by an Indian citizen. Previous sanction of the Central government is necessary for the same."In terms of Section 188, even if an offence is committed outside India, (a) by a citizen whether on the high seas or anywhere else or (b) by a non-citizen on a ship or aircraft registered in India, the offence can still be tried in India provided the conditions mentioned in said Section are satisfied. The Section gets attracted when the entirety of the offence is committed outside India; and the grant of sanction would enable such offence to be enquired into or tried in India," the Court held.The Court was hearing an appeal against the order of the Uttarakhand High Court which had convicted the appellant under Sections 363 [Punishment for kidnapping], 366-B [importation of girl from foreign country], 370(4) [trafficking of person] and 506 [punishment for criminal intimidation] of IPC and also under Section 8 of the Prevention of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act 2012..The appellant was accused of enticing and trafficking a Nepali minor girl for the purpose of exploitation. The appellant was also accused of pressing the breast of the minor victim, to which she had objected.Subsequently, after police authorities apprehended the accused, a First Information Report (FIR) was registered. The trial court, however, acquitted the appellant of all the charges.The High Court in appeal set aside the order of the trial court and convicted the appellant under the above-mentioned provisions.Aggrieved, the appellant preferred the present appeal..Advocate Jitendra Mohan Sharma, appearing for the appellant, argued that requirements under Section 188 of CrPC were not satisfied and no sanction in terms of said provision was placed on record; and therefore, in the absence of such sanction, the appellant could not have been tried..Rejecting the submission of the appellant, the top Court noted that since the offence by the appellant was not committed in its entirety, outside India, the instant matter would not come within the scope of Section 188 of IPC and therefore, there existed no necessity of any sanction..Hence, the Supreme Court upheld the order of the High Court and dismissed the appeal..Advocate Jatin Kumar Bhatia appeared for the respondent..[Read Judgment]