Indian courts can take notice of conviction of Indian national for offence abroad, rules Bombay HC
Article 20(2) of the Constitution of India says, no person shall be prosecuted and punished for the same offence more than once and Section 300 of Criminal Procedure Code says, a person once convicted or acquitted should not be tried for the same offence
Bombay High Court. Express Photo
A full bench of the Bombay High Court on Thursday held that the courts in India can take notice of the conviction of an Indian by a foreign Court for the offence committed overseas while exercising their judicial and/or quasi judicial powers. The court, however, said that a conviction abroad will not ipso facto be binding on the Indian courts adjudicating matters against the same person.
The bench comprising Justice BR Gavai, Justice KR Sriram, and Justice BP Colabawalla were considering two questions – whether the conviction of an Indian by a foreign Court for the offence committed in that country can be taken notice of by the Courts or authorities in India while exercising their judicial or quasi judicial powers and whether such a conviction would be binding on the Courts and authorities in India while exercising these powers.
Answering the first question in the affirmative, the bench observed, “We are of the considered view that, if we accept the argument that judgment and order of conviction and acquittal passed by the foreign Court cannot at all be looked into by Indian Courts is accepted, it would have devastating result, of depriving a person of his right under Article 20(2) and under Section 300 of Cr.P.C.”
Article 20(2) of the Constitution of India says, no person shall be prosecuted and punished for the same offence more than once and Section 300 of Criminal Procedure Code says, a person once convicted or acquitted should not be tried for the same offence.
The question stemmed from a petition filed by Prabodh Mehta, a former trustee of Lilavati Hospital. The petition was related to his removal from the position of a trustee following an order of Joint Charity Commissioner (JCC) who had acted against Mehta on grounds that he was convicted for an offence of moral turpitude in Belgium. The JCC order was upheld by the City Civil court in 2013. the complaint before the JCC was filed by trustee Charuben Mehta.
The court, in an illustration, took the case of an Indian citizen, who, while residing in a foreign nation commits a crime involving moral turpitude and is sentenced for that offence by a foreign court and returns to India after undergoing his sentence. The court used the example of such a person returning to India and wanting to contest elections, for which conviction for an offence involving moral turpitude is a disqualification. The Bench observed, “If the argument of the Appellant that the judgment and order of conviction cannot be looked into is to be accepted, not only it would be contrary to public policy of not permitting a person convicted for offence involving moral turpitude to contest elections, it would also be against the breach of the comity which should exist between the countries.”
Relying upon an Apex Court judgment, lawyer Aabad Ponda, appearing for Charuben, told court, “The principle that “crime is local” cannot be stretched to such an extent that the judgment and order of conviction by foreign Court cannot even be looked into by the Courts in India.”
The bench, however, said, “…while exercising their judicial and quasi judicial powers, it cannot be said that the same will be ipso facto binding on such Courts and authorities.” The bench further held, “We are of the considered view that, no hard and fast rule can be laid for that purpose. The Courts and authorities, while exercising their judicial and quasi judicial powers will have to take a call on the facts and circumstances of each case and take a decision as to what is the effect of such judgment and order of conviction.”
Share
