Mobarik Ali Ahmed v. The State of Bombay (1957)
Quick Summary
This case explains how the Indian Penal Code (IPC) applies to “every person” for offences committed within India, and how its reach can extend beyond India in specific situations. The Court upheld a cheating conviction based on a bogus rice supply arrangement, making it clear that nationality does not shield a wrongdoer from IPC when the offence is tied to India.
Issues
- Does IPC apply to a person who is not an Indian citizen?
- Can a person be liable when part of the offence happens outside India?
Rules
Anyone who commits an offence within India is punishable under IPC. “Every person” means no exceptions for nationality or status.
IPC can cover acts done outside India when the law provides a connection to India (e.g., offences with effects or links to India).
Facts (Timeline)
Timeline visualThe complainant ran an import–export business in Goa under “Colonial Limitada”.
A friend, Rosario Carvalho, introduced him to Jasawalla, an agent in Bombay, who linked him to a Karachi dealer for rice.
A deal was set for 1,200 tons of rice from Karachi to Goa. 25% was paid in advance; 50% on shipment.
Relying on the appellant’s representations, payments of ₹2,30,000 and ₹2,36,900 were made.
No rice arrived. The telegram contacts turned out to be fake. The scheme was fraudulent.
The Presidency Magistrate convicted the appellant for cheating under Section 420 read with Section 34 IPC.
Arguments
Appellant
- Not an Indian citizen; IPC should not cover him.
- Key steps happened outside India; Indian courts lack power.
- No clear link to India to trigger IPC jurisdiction.
Respondent (State)
- Section 2 uses “every person” — includes foreigners.
- Parts of the offence and deception were connected to India.
- Sections 3 & 4 extend IPC beyond India when a legal link exists.
Judgment
Judgment visualThe Supreme Court upheld liability. It read “every person” in Section 2 in its plain sense — all persons, regardless of nationality, are liable for offences committed within India. The Court also recognized that Sections 3 and 4 allow IPC to operate beyond India when the statute links the conduct to India. Therefore, the cheating conviction stood.
Ratio Decidendi
“Every person” in Section 2 covers all, without limits of nationality or status. Where the offence is within India, IPC punishes it. Sections 3 and 4 enable extra-territorial application when the law provides the necessary Indian connection.
Why It Matters
- Makes the IPC people-neutral — applies to citizens and foreigners alike.
- Clarifies how cross-border scams can still face Indian criminal law.
- Guides courts on reading “every person” and using Sections 3 & 4.
Key Takeaways
Mnemonic + 3-Step Hook
Mnemonic: “EVEryone, 2 India; EXtra, 3-4 India.”
- “Everyone” → Section 2: All persons liable for offences in India.
- “Extra” → Sections 3–4: Reach beyond borders with Indian link.
- Apply to facts: Fraud tied to India → IPC applies.
IRAC Outline
Issue
Can a non-citizen be punished under IPC, and does IPC reach acts partly outside India?
Rule
Section 2 (every person, within India); Sections 3–4 (extra-territorial application).
Application
Fraud scheme tied to India; deception and payments linked to Indian territory and persons.
Conclusion
IPC applies. Conviction for cheating maintained.
Glossary
- Every person
- A wide phrase in Section 2 IPC that includes citizens and non-citizens.
- Extra-territorial
- Law applying to acts beyond national borders when the statute allows.
- Section 420 IPC
- Cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property.
- Section 34 IPC
- Acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention.
FAQs
Popular & Recent Post
Comment
Nothing for now