Mobarik Ali Ahmed vs. State of Bombay (1957): Extra-territorial Jurisdiction in Action
In the realm of criminal law, the question of jurisdiction – where a crime can be tried – is crucial. The landmark case of Mobarik Ali Ahmed vs. State of Bombay (1957) sheds light on extra-territorial jurisdiction, where a country asserts its legal authority over crimes committed outside its borders.
The Case:
Mobarik Ali Ahmed, a Pakistani national residing in Karachi, was accused of cheating an individual in Bombay (now Mumbai) through false representations made via letters, telegrams, and phone calls. He promised to supply rice but never delivered it after receiving the payment. The Bombay High Court convicted him under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) for cheating.
The Controversy:
Ahmed challenged the conviction, arguing that the Indian courts lacked jurisdiction as the crime (false representations) occurred in Pakistan.
The Ruling:
The Supreme Court of India upheld the conviction. Their reasoning hinged on the principle of “locality of the offence“:
- The offense of cheating was completed in Bombay when the victim, relying on the misrepresentations, parted with the money.
- Ahmed’s physical presence in India was not essential for him to be charged under the IPC.
Impact on Extra-territorial Jurisdiction:
This case established a significant precedent for extra-territorial jurisdiction in India. It clarified that for certain offenses, like cheating, the location where the consequences of the crime are felt (where the victim is deceived) determines jurisdiction, even if the initial act (false representation) occurred elsewhere.
