Judgement of the Day.Mobarik Ali Ahmed v. The State of Maharashtra

Mobarik Ali Ahmed v. The State of Maharashtra

CITATION –1957 AIR 857


The appellant, a Pakistani national was doing business in Karachi and was convicted of the

offence of cheating under s. 420 of the Indian Penal Code.  The prosecution case was that with a

dishonest intention he made false representations to the complainant at Bombay through letters, 

telegrams and telephone talks, that he had a ready stock of rice,  that he had reserved shipping

space and on receipt of money he would be in a position to ship the rice forthwith, and that the

complainant who was anxious to import rice urgently sent the amount to the appellant on the

belief of such representations so that he could import rice.

The appellant contended that the conviction was invalid on the grounds inter alia that he was a

Pakistani national who, during the entire period of the commission of the offence, never stepped

into India and was only at Karachi and that he could not be tried by an Indian Court nor be

punishable under the Indian Penal  Code. Also, that he was brought over from England, where he

happened to be,  by virtue of extradition proceedings in connection with another offence the trial

for which was then pending in the Sessions Court at Bombay, and that he could not be validly

tried and convicted for a different offence like the present, and that the charge being one under

s.420 read with s.34 of the IPC for alleged conjoint acts of him along with three others and no

one was present before the Court of those three, and he himself not having been in Bombay at

the time, the conviction was unsustainable.


The Judgment was given by Justice Jagannadhadas held –

Firstly, that  the  facts,  all  the ingredients constituting  the  offence of cheating under S. 420  of 

the Indian Penal Code has occurred in Bombay, the offence was committed  there  and  that,

though the appellant  was not corporeally  present in India at the time of the  commission of  the

offence, his conviction under the Indian Penal Code was valid in view of the terms of s. 2 of the


Secondly, that,  as the appellant was surrendered to the  Indian authorities under the Fugitive

Offenders  Act,  1881,   and there was no provision in that Act preventing arrest in India for the

purpose of a trial in respect of a  fresh offence, his conviction following upon his trial was valid.

Thirdly, that the conviction of the appellant of the offence of S.420  was valid, though the charge

was one under S. 420 read with s. 34, as the actual findings in the case, could support a

conviction under S. 420 itself.

Recent Posts

See All