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.