This ppt is best for law students' project and their their understanding about Indian Intra territorial Jurisdiction along with its exception provided by Indian Constitution and International Law.

2.  Synopsis.
 Introduction.
 ‘Every Person’.
 Corporate criminal liability.
 Vicarious liability.
 Exempted persons :-
1. Governor and president of India
2. Foreign Sovereign
3. Ambassador
4. Alien Enemies.
5. Foreign Army.
6. Warships.
 ‘Within India.’
 Territory of India.
 Territorial jurisdiction -
1. Geographical territory.
2. Maritime territory.

3.  Section 2 of The Indian Penal Code, 1860.
 “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 shall be guilty within India.”
 This section deals with the intra territorial operation of the code. It makes the code universal in its application
to every person in any part of India for every act or omission contrary to the provisions of the code. It
prescribes no fixed time within which prosecution shall be launched.
 It is essential that the crime be committed within the territory of India.

4.  ‘Every person’-
 Every person is made liable to punishment, without distinction of nation, rank, caste or creed, provided the
offence with which he is charged has been committed in some part of India.
 A foreigner who enters the Indian territories and thus accepts the protection of India laws virtually gives
an assurance of his fidelity and obedience to them and submits himself to their operation.
 It is no defence on the part of the foreigner that he did not know he was doing wrong, the act not being an
offence in his own country.
 Yet, it is a matter to be considered in mitigation of punishment.
 Example :- A person was indicted for an unnatural offence committed on board of East India Ship, lying in
St. Katherine’s Dock. It was argued that he was a native of Baghdad where his act would not have
amounted to an offence, but it was held that, that was not a legal defence.

5.  Corporate criminal liability.
 A company is liable to be prosecuted and punished for criminal offences. Although, earlier a belief
was that the corporates cannot commit a crime, the generally accepted modern rule is that a
corporation may be subject to indictment and other criminal act even though the act may be
committed through the agent.
 Fine and imprisonment being a prescribed punishment by a majority in the Constitution bench,
which no corporate can defend claiming immunity from criminal prosecution on the ground that they
are incapable of possessing the necessary mens rea for the commission of criminal offence.
 Vicarious liability.
 Indian Penal Code, save in some cases, does not contemplate any vicarious liability on the part of a
person.
 The M.D. of a company or the Directors of the same can not be held liable or said to have committed the
criminal offence, just because they are holders of office.
 IPC does not attach any vicarious liability on the part of Directors or M.D. when the accused is the
Company.

6.  In the famous case of Mobarik Ali v. State of Bombay a national of Pakistan made certain false
representations from Karachi by letters, telegrams and telephones to the complainant at Bombay on
the belief of which the complainant paid a certain amount of money to the agent of the Pakistani at
Bombay.
 The Supreme Court held that the Pakistani national was subject to the jurisdiction of the Indian
Courts for having committed the offence of cheating and as the appellant had already surrendered to
the authorities of India under the provisions of the Fugitive Offenders Act, 1881 in connection with
another case, his conviction was valid under section 420, Indian Penal Code.

7. Exceptions
Even though section 2 fixed criminal liability on ‘every person’ here are some
persons who have been granted immunity from prosecution either by the
Constitution of India or by international law.
INTRA TERRITORIAL JURISDICTION

8. BY INDIAN CONSTITUTION
 Protection of President and the Governors
The President of India, along with the Governors/Rajpramukh of States are immune to judicial proceedings.
The privilege emanates from Article 361 of the Indian Constitution:
The exercise and performance of powers and duties of the President/Governor are outside judicial review.
The above is subject to exception of Article 61, viz., impeachment of the President. The Courts may thus
review charges of violation of the Constitution against the President.
The right of a person to sue the Government of India/State remains in intact.
Criminal proceedings, whether pending at the time of entering upon the office or thereafter, may not lie against
the President/Governor during their term.
Courts are prohibited to issue orders (called "processes") for the arrest or imprisonment of the
President/Governor during their term.
Civil proceedings may not lie against the President/Governor during his term. Such proceedings include actions
performed in his personal capacity before or after entering upon office.
The above immunity is available only for a period of 2 months after a mandatory notice explaining the nature
of offence is made to the President/Governor.
INTRA TERRITORIAL JURISDICTION

9. Rationale
The President represents the highest authority of the executive while the Supreme Court is the apex judicial
authority. The immunity ensures that both are supreme in their respective spheres thereby ensuring a balance of
power between the organs of the State. The President/Governor are thus made to function independent of any
overarching judicial interference.
The immunity has however been alleged to have been misused by former President Pratibha Patil.
INTRA TERRITORIAL JURISDICTION

10. Ms. Patil used Indian government's money to take useless foreign trips with her grandchildren. When they are
on travel, Presidents are supposed to meet foreign dignitaries and improve diplomatic relationships & cultural
exchange. In her foreign trips, her huge extended family travels at taxpayer's expense to tourist spots. 22 trips
and $40 million in travel expenses. Even when he traveled in India, she seemed to like beaches more than
people.
She has allegedly misused Indian government's money to build a mansion on a 260,000 sq.ft plot, in a land
belonging to war widows. This act (of using government money to build a retirement home post-Presidency)
was unprecedented.
She did a self-appraisal and announced 300% Salary hike for herself as well as vice-president.
INTRA TERRITORIAL JURISDICTION

11. International law gives immunity to the following from criminal prosecution:—
1. Foreign Sovereigns
Since a sovereign is the highest authority of his nation, he is not amenable to the jurisdiction of other
countries. He is totally independent and represents the dignity of his country.
As seen in case of :
The State Of Maharashtra vs Czechoslovakia Airlines
This claim for complete immunity or exemption on the basis of the accused being a department or a part of
the Government of Czechoslovakia, was opposed by the prosecution. It was contended that the Airlines is a
commercial concern and the General Manager of that concern was the employer within the definition of
Rule 2(1) of the Payment of Wages (Air Transport Services) Rules, 1968, so that the immunity from the
process of municipal Courts was not available.
INTRA TERRITORIAL JURISDICTION

12. The learned trial magistrate observed that there was no dispute that the State of Czechoslovakia is an
independent sovereign State recognised by the Government of India. He also observed that it was not in dispute
that the accused is an enterprise, wholly owned by the State of Czechoslovakia. According to the learned
Magistrate, the offence was not alleged to have been committed by the accused No. 2 in his individual capacity,
therefore, his responsibility was only that of a Manager or a representative of the accused No. 1. The learned
Magistrate upheld the contention of the accused that there was an absolute sovereign immunity under
International law. He relied upon the decision reported in R.N. Airline Corporation v. Monorama . According to
him., the same principle was accepted by the Bombay High Court in its decision in G.D.R. v. Dynamic Industrial
Etc. (1970) 73 Bom. L.R. 183. He discarded the contention that the principle of sovereign immunity should not
be applied to commercial transactions and actions like the present case, arising out of such transactions. He
therefore, discharged the summons issued against the accused and the complaint was dismissed. Aggrieved by
that decision, the State of Maharashtra has come in revision
INTRA TERRITORIAL JURISDICTION

13. 2. AMBASSADOR
An Ambassador is the representative of his own sovereign in another country. Consequently, he also
enjoys the immunity from prosecution like his sovereign.
Certain immunities and privileges have been granted to Ambassadors of other countries by the
United Nations Organization. Accordingly every country has passed separate Acts giving immunities
and privileges to the Ambassadors.
The Diplomatic Privileges Act, 1964 of England, the United Nations (Privileges and Immunities)
Act, 1947 (Act No. XLV of 1947) of India, etc., are examples. Therefore, Ambassadors are exempted
from the jurisdiction of the Indian Criminal Courts
INTRA TERRITORIAL JURISDICTION

14. AS IN CASE OF :
Republic Of Italy Thr. Ambassador ... vs Union Of India & Ors on 4 September, 2012
The privilege Daniele Mancini enjoys under the Vienna Convention, personally and as an Ambassador, is absolute.
The marines issue should be resolved politically was stated.
The Supreme Court’s order restraining the Italian Ambassador from leaving India and the possibility of contempt
proceedings against him are without any basis in law. Undoubtedly the Republic of Italy did file a writ petition
through the Ambassador and he did submit an affidavit stating that the marines would return to India. However,
those facts along with Italy’s Note Verbale that the marines will not be returning do not provide sufficient legal
grounds for action against the Italian Ambassador. While, therefore, holding that the State of Kerala has no
jurisdiction to investigate into the incident, the Supreme Court is also of the view that till such time as it is proved
that the provisions of Article 100 of the The United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS)
1982 apply to the facts of this case, it is the Union of India which has jurisdiction to proceed with the investigation
and trial of the Petitioner Nos. 2 and 3 in the Writ Petition
INTRA TERRITORIAL JURISDICTION

15. 3. Alien enemies
The military persons of alien enemies do not come under the jurisdiction of ordinary Criminal Courts, for the
acts done connecting with the war. However, if they commit theft, robbery, rape, etc., unconnected with war,
they shall be tried by the Indian Criminal Courts.
Ordinarily criminal courts have no jurisdiction over acts of war of alien enemies. But for other crimes of an
alien enemy which are not acts of war, criminal courts are empowered to take cognizance and punish.
INTRA TERRITORIAL JURISDICTION

16. 4. Foreign army
There are many instances when a foreign army is based on the soil of another country with the consent of the
host country. In such case the foreign army is not amenable to the original jurisdiction of the host nation.
The Foreign army personnel entered into the Indian territories with the permission of the Indian Government is
exempted from the jurisdiction of the criminal courts.
INTRA TERRITORIAL JURISDICTION

17. 5. Warships
Warships of a State enjoy immunity from criminal liability on the territory of another country on the
ground that the property of a sovereign, which includes his warships also, is not subject to the legal
process of another country.
The warships entered into the Indian Sea waters cannot be tried under the ordinary Indian Criminal
Courts. The Public International Law applies to such men-of-war.5
INTRA TERRITORIAL JURISDICTION

18. ‘Within India’.
If the offence is committed out of India it is not punishable under the Indian Penal Code, unless it has been
made so by means of special provisions.
In situations wherein the consequence of the criminal act ensues, would be relevant to determine the court of
competent jurisdiction.
Therefore, the courts within whose local jurisdiction, the repercussion or effect of the criminal act occurs,
would have the jurisdiction in the matter.
INTRA TERRITORIAL JURISDICTION

19. Territory of India.
The Territory of India is defined in various ways.
I. Geographical Territory.
II. Maritime Territory.
INTRA TERRITORIAL JURISDICTION

20. Territorial jurisdiction – The jurisdiction of India is defined under Art 1 of the Constitution of India as
follows;
The Art 1 of the Constitution of India defines the geographical territory as follows:
1) Name and Territory of the Union.
(1) India, that is Bharat, shall be a Union of States.
(2) The States and the territories thereof shall be as specified in the First Schedule.
(3) The territory of India shall comprise –
(a) The territories of the States;
(b) The Union territories specified in the First Schedule; and
(c) Such other territories as may be acquired.
INTRA TERRITORIAL JURISDICTION

21. Maritime jurisdiction.
Article 297 deals with the ‘maritime territory.’
Clauses (1) and (2) of the said article make a declaration that all lands, minerals and other things of value
and all the other resources shall vest in the Union of India.
Clause (3) authorises the Parliament to specify from time to time the limits of various maritime zones such
as territorial waters, continental shelf, etc.
Section 18 of IPC defines territory of India excluding Jammu and Kashmir. These territorial limits would
include the territorial waters of India
The sovereignty of India extends to the territorial waters, the limit of which is 12 nautical miles.
In other words, Land + The portion of sea washing its coasts upto 12 nautical miles into the sea = “Maritime
Territory” of a state.
Example :- If an offence is committed within the belt of 12 miles in the sea water near Mumbai, the
appropriate court of Mumbai will have the jurisdiction to try the case
INTRA TERRITORIAL JURISDICTION

22. As in case of:
Kastya Rama vs. State (1871) 8 BHC)
Brief Facts:
The fishers of village-A lawfully fixed fishing stakes in the sea within three miles from the shores. The fishers of
village-B, annoyed with their act, removed all the fishing stakes. On prosecution, the accused pleaded that their
act could not come within the purview of the Indian Penal Code.
Judgment:
The Bombay High Court held that the act of fishers of village-B was within the purview of the Indian Penal Code,
and particularly their act would be “Mischief” defined in the Code, and the place of offence was within three
miles from the shores, and were covered within the territory of India.
INTRA TERRITORIAL JURISDICTION