Introduction 

• This is a landmark judgment where the Supreme Court laid down the the law on the applicability of Indian Penal Code, 1860. 
• The judgment was delivered by Justice B. Jagannadhadas, Justice Syed Jaffer Imam and Justice P. Govinda Menon 

Facts 

• The plaintiff conducted business in Goa of import and export under the name Colonial Limitada. 
• Rosario Carvalho (friend of plaintiff) introduced him to Jasawalla who was operating as an agent in Bombay. 
• The agent introduced the complainant to a dealer from Karachi. 
• Through communications between Jasawalla and the complainant and the appellant a deal was arranged to buy 1200 tons of rice to be sent from Karachi to Goa. 
• 25% of the amount was paid in advance and 50% upon rice shipment. 
• Based on various representations made by the appellant a sum totaling Rs. 2,30,000 and Rs. 2,36,900 were paid. 
• The rice was however not transported and all the telegram contacts were fake and fraudulent. 
• The Presidency Magistrate found the appellant guilty on three counts of cheatings in accordance with Section 420 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC).

Issue Involved

• Whether a person who is not an Indian citizen would be subject to IPC? 
• Whether a person who committed an offence outside India would be held accountable? 

Observations 

• The Court held that anyone who violates the requirements of Penal Code will be held accountable under Section 2 of the IPC. 
• Section 2 of IPC provides that every person shall be liable to punishment under this Code and not otherwise for every act or omission contrary to the provisions thereof, of which he shall be guilty within India. 
• The Court held that Section 3 and Section 4 of IPC which provides for extraterritorial jurisdiction and extension applies to this case. 
• The use of the phrase " every person " in s. 2 as contrasted with the use of the phrase "any person " in s. 3 as well as s. 4 (2) of the Code is indicative of the idea that to the extent that the guilt for an offence committed within India can be attributed to a person, every such person without exception is liable for punishment under the Code. 
• The plain meaning of the phrase " every person " is that it comprehends all persons without limitation and irrespective of nationality, allegiance, rank, status, caste, colour or creed. 
• The Court held that the appellant should be held liable whether he was an Indian citizen or not at the time of offence. 
• The Court, therefore, convicted the appellant

Conclusion 

• The Court in this case laid down the law on the applicability of IPC. 
• While Section 2 of IPC provides for intra territorial jurisdiction, Section 3 and 4 provide for extra territorial jurisdiction.  
• Thus, any person who commits an offence within the territories of India would be liable for the offence under IPC.