APPLICATION OF IPC OR JURISDICTION

OF IPC

Sections 2-4 of IPC deals with Jurisdiction of IPC

TERRITORIAL JURISDICTION UNDER
IPC
TERRITORIAL OR INTRA-TERRITORIAL
JURISDICTION OF IPC (SEC. 2)

2. Punishment of offences committed within

India.—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 he shall be guilty within India.
 “WITHIN INDIA”

• The words “within India" defines the territorial jurisdiction of the Penal Code. It states the territory within
which the Code shall be applicable. The territory of India includes the territories as defined by Article 1(3)
of the Constitution. Of India as well as the territorial waters of India:
• Article 1(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.
• This is Geographical Territory
 MARITIME TERRITORY

Maritime Belt OR Territorial Waters

• The term territorial waters is sometimes used informally to refer to any area
of water over which a state has jurisdiction, including internal waters, the
territorial sea, the contiguous zone, the exclusive economic zone and
potentially the continental shelf. In a narrower sense, the term is used as a
synonym for the territorial sea.
SCHEMATIC MAP OF MARITIME ZONES
MARITIME ZONES
 MARITIME BELT OR TERRITORIAL
WATERS OF INDIA

• United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) 1982

• The Territorial Waters, Continental Shelf, Exclusive Economic Zone and
Other Maritime Zones Act, 1976
• The territorial waters of India extend into the sea upto a distance of twelve
nautical miles measured from the appropriate base line. Territorial waters
means that portion of the sea lying along and washing its coast, which is
commonly called its maritime territory. The laws of the State, therefore, apply
to that part of the sea also. Any offence committed within the territorial waters
are, therefore, triable and punishable under the provisions of the Penal Code.
• 12 nautical miles = 22.2 km (1 nm = 1.852 km)
 KASTYA RAMA V. STATE, (1871)

• In Kastya Rama v. State, (1871) 8 BHC, 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 accused pleaded that their act could not come within the purview
of the Indian Penal Code. The Bombay High Court held that the act of fishers
of village ‘B’ was within the purview of the Indian Penal Code because the
place of the offence was within three miles from the shores and was covered
within the territory of India.
 EVERY PERSON

• The words ‘every person’ includes not only citizens but even non-citizens
• Ignorance of law is no defence
• A foreigner will be held liable even though the offence which he is committed
is not punishable in his own country
 IGNORANCE OF LAW IS NO DEFENCE
M H GEORGE V. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
1965

• A German national was on his way from Zurich to Manila on a Swiss aircraft that arrived in Bombay
while in transit. He remained within the aircraft and did not come out. He did not file a declaration
under the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1947, regarding the gold he was carrying. During the
checking, the customs found the gold on the aircraft. The accused was booked under the Foreign
Exchange Regulation Act, 1947. The cause of action arose in India. The accused pleaded that he was
unaware of such Indian Law. Is accused liable under IPC. Whether he is liable?
• Yes, He is liable under IPC. According to Section 2 of IPC “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 he shall be guilty within India”. It is not necessary for Indian law to be published
outside India so that foreigners can know about them. Thus Ignorance about the Law or any change in
it cannot be pleaded. This situation relates to Mayer Hans George v. the State of Maharashtra (AIR
1965 SC 722) case.
 R V. ESOP, (1836)

• In R v. Esop, (1836) 173 E.R. 203 case, where the person charged with
violating a published law is a stranger to the jurisdiction (India) and claims in
defence that the act in question was not an offence under the law of that
person’s home jurisdiction (Baghdad). The Court rejected this defence and
convicted him for the offence.
 MOBARIK ALI V. THE STATE OF
BOMBAY 1957

• In Mobarik Ali v. The State of Bombay, AIR 1957 SC 857 case, Mobarik Ali, a rice merchant
in Karachi, promised to supply 2000 tons of rice and received the maximum amount from a
rice merchant in Goa. While staying in Karachi he made false representations through letters,
telephone conversations and telegrams to the rice merchant in Goa and did not supply the rice.
He fled to England and settled in London. His partners Santran, A. A. Rowji, and S. A. Rowji
absconded. The Indian authorities made an application to the Metropolitan Magistrate, Bow
Street, London. who ordered the arrest of the appellant. He was brought to Bombay where he
was prosecuted for cheating. The Supreme Court observed that the basis of jurisdiction under
S. 2 is the locality where the offence is committed and that the corporeal presence of the
offender in India is immaterial. The Supreme Court held that the offence was committed by the
accused at Bombay even though he was not physically present there.
• Doctrine of Constructive Presence
 EXCEPTIONS TO THE PHRASE
‘EVERY PERSON’

• High Dignitaries of the State

• Foreign Sovereign
• Ambassador and Diplomats
• Alien Enemy
• Foreign Army
• Warships
• Corporations (Legal Person)
 ‘AND NOT OTHERWISE’

• The use of the words ‘and not otherwise’ in S.2 unambiguously shows that all
former laws punishing any offence which is made punishable by the Code,
have been repealed.
 ‘CONTRARY TO THE PROVISIONS
THEREOF’

• It implies that to be amenable to the jurisdiction of this Code, a person has to

violate provisions of the Code, of which he shall be guilty within India.
 CONCLUDING REMARKS

Essentials for Section 2 IPC

• An offence must be committed by any person
• The person should have committed some act or omission as per the provisions of this Code.
• The person will be guilty of the offences committed within India.
• The person will be liable only under this Code and not otherwise.
• The person should not be from persons in the exempted list
Under Section 2 of the Code, persons like the President, Governors of States, foreign sovereigns,
foreign ambassadors, diplomatic representatives, alien enemies, foreign army, and warships are
exempted from the purview of the Code.