top of page
Search

Territorial Jurisdiction of IPC Under Section 1: When Acts Committed Partly Outside India Attract Indian Penal Law

  • Writer: Umang
    Umang
  • 3 days ago
  • 18 min read
Territorial Jurisdiction of IPC Under Section 1:


Table of Contents



A fraudster sitting in Singapore sends fraudulent communications to Indian investors, collects their money, and never enters Indian territory. A murder is planned in Dubai and executed in Mumbai. An Indian citizen assaults a fellow-passenger on a flight registered in India somewhere over the Indian Ocean. A hacker in Ukraine targets the computer servers of an Indian bank. In each of these cases the same question arises: does Indian penal law reach the offender?


The answer lies in the opening provisions of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 — Sections 1 through 4 — which together define where the IPC runs, over whom it runs, and to what extent Indian courts can exercise jurisdiction over offences that connect to India's territory or its citizens, even when some or all of the criminal act occurred beyond India's borders. The Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, which replaced the IPC with effect from 1 July 2024, carries these provisions forward in Section 1, with a handful of precise but significant changes that broaden and clarify the jurisdictional reach of Indian penal law in the digital age.



The Foundational Principle: Locality of Offence, Not Nationality


The IPC's approach to jurisdiction begins from a simple principle: the exercise of criminal jurisdiction depends on the locality of the offence and not on the nationality of the alleged offender (Mobarik Ali Ahmed v State of Bombay AIR 1957 SC 857). Where a crime is committed in India, Indian law applies — regardless of who the offender is. Where the crime is committed outside India, special rules apply to determine whether Indian law reaches it.


Every Person, Irrespective of Nationality


The IPC extends to every 'person' who commits an offence within India. The phrase 'every person' means every person irrespective of rank, nationality, caste, or creed — all are liable for punishment under the IPC if found guilty (Mobarik Ali Ahmed v State of Bombay AIR 1957 SC 857). The commission of a crime gives the court of the place where it is committed jurisdiction over the person of the offender (Kubic Dariusz v Union of India AIR 1990 SC 605). A foreigner is criminally liable for acts or omissions committed within India; his foreign nationality provides no shield.


Penal statutes must be interpreted in such a manner that even if the authors of crime are in the territory of another state at the time of commission of offence, it will be regarded as committed within the national territory if one of the constituent elements of the offence, and more especially its effects, has taken place in that territory (Mobarik Ali Ahmed v State of Bombay AIR 1957 SC 857). This principle — that effects felt in India can ground Indian jurisdiction — is of the greatest importance in fraud, cheating, and cyber crime cases where the perpetrator never physically enters India.


Foreigners and Physical Presence


A foreigner who commits an offence within India is liable for prosecution under Indian law even if he was not physically present in India at the time of commission of the offence (Mobarik Ali Ahmed v State of Bombay AIR 1957 SC 857). Such an application does not give any extra-territorial operation to the IPC — it is simply an instance of territorial jurisdiction applied to an offence whose locality is in India, even though the offender was not bodily present there.


A foreigner will be criminally liable for committing an offence in India even though he may be ignorant of Indian law, though ignorance may be pleaded in mitigation of sentence (Nazar Mohammad v State AIR 1953 Punj 227). A statute creating an offence and imposing a penalty for it must be construed as applying only to those who by virtue of residence or, in some cases, citizenship or nationality, are regarded as subject to the jurisdiction of the State which has enacted it (Naim Molwan v Attorney General, Palestine AIR 1948 PC 186).


Territorial Waters and the Twelve-Nautical-Mile Rule


The territory of a State is not limited to its land mass alone but includes the territorial waters — a marginal belt of the sea adjoining the State's territorial land, including bays and islands in its effective occupation (AMSSVM & Co v State of Madras AIR 1954 Mad 291). The territorial waters of India extend into the sea to a distance of twelve nautical miles measured from the appropriate base line. A State may enact laws affecting the seas beyond the ordinary limits of territorial waters for the purposes of police, revenue, public health, fisheries, and the like (ER Croft v Sylvester Dunphy AIR 1933 PC 16). Offences committed within this maritime belt are committed within India for the purposes of the IPC and BNS.



The Four Provisions in Section 1 IPC — Mapped to the BNS


The IPC's Sections 1 to 5, which deal with the title, application, and jurisdictional reach of the Code, have been incorporated into the BNS as sub-sections of its Section 1. The BNS comparison table confirms this consolidation: five separate IPC sections correspond to six sub-sections of Section 1 of the BNS.


Section 1 IPC / BNS Section 1(1): Extent of Application

Section 1 IPC provides the short title and the geographic extent of the Code. Under the BNS Section 1(1), this is similarly the short title, commencement, and application provision. Notably, under the IPC, Section 1 also stated the extent of the Code's operation (the whole of India, excepting certain territories). Under the BNS, the extent of operation is absent from Section 1(1) — the BNS comparison table specifically flags that "in IPC, the extent of code operation is also given, which is absent in BNS." A new sub-section 1(2) of the BNS delegates the power to appoint the date of commencement to the Central Government — a power absent in the IPC structure.


Section 2 IPC / BNS Section 1(3): Punishment for Offences Within India

Section 2 IPC declares that every person shall be liable to punishment under the IPC and not otherwise for every act or omission contrary to its provisions of which he shall be guilty within India. The BNS carries this forward as Section 1(3) without substantive change, substituting only the word "Sanhita" for "Code" throughout — a linguistic modernisation applied consistently.

This provision emphasises the territorial principle: guilt must be established within India for this provision to operate. It is distinct from the extra-territorial provisions that follow.


Section 3 IPC / BNS Section 1(4): Offences Committed Beyond India But Triable Within India

Section 3 IPC provides that any person liable by any Indian law to be tried for an offence committed beyond India shall be dealt with according to the provisions of the IPC for any act committed beyond India in the same manner as if such act had been committed within India. This creates a legal fiction: an offence committed beyond India is deemed to have been committed within India (Mobarik Ali Ahmed v State of Bombay AIR 1957 SC 857).

The BNS carries this forward in Section 1(4) with two changes: "Indian laws" is replaced with "law" (widening the reference), and the words "for the time being in force in India" are inserted. These are refinements in language rather than substantive alterations.


Section 4 IPC / BNS Section 1(5): Extension of the Code to Extra-Territorial Offences

Section 4 IPC is the principal extra-territorial jurisdiction provision. It extends the IPC to offences committed beyond India's borders in three categories: by any citizen of India in any place without or beyond India; by any person on any ship or aircraft registered in India, wherever it may be; and — a modern addition in force since 2008 — by any person in any place without and beyond India committing an offence targeting a computer resource located in India.

The BNS Section 1(5) carries this forward with one change to the illustration: the IPC's illustration used "Uganda" as the foreign country where the offence was committed; the BNS replaces it with "any place outside India" — a general reference that avoids naming any specific foreign country.



The Five Categories of Extra-Territorial Jurisdiction


Category One: Indian Citizens Abroad


The IPC and the BNS apply to any offence committed by any citizen of India in any

place without or beyond India. The principle is that as far as citizens of India are concerned, the jurisdiction of courts is not lost by reason of the venue of the offence (Mobarik Ali Ahmed v State of Bombay AIR 1957 SC 857). It is immaterial whether the person committing an offence outside India comes to India voluntarily or in answer to summons or under illegal arrest (Mobarik Ali v State of Bombay AIR 1957 SC 857). When an offence is committed abroad by an Indian, the victim can complain about the said offence to any competent court of India which he may find convenient (Om Hemrajani v State of Uttar Pradesh AIR 2005 SC 392).

A legislature is competent to pass a law having extra-territorial operation even though it may find that what it has enacted may not be directly enforced. An enactment is not invalid on that account and the courts of its country must enforce the law with the machinery available to them (British Columbia Electric Railway Co Ltd v King AIR 1946 PC 180).


Category Two: Indian-Registered Ships and Aircraft


The IPC and BNS also apply to offences committed by any person on any ship or aircraft registered in India, wherever it may be. Registration in India — not Indian citizenship of the offender — is the basis of jurisdiction in this category. A non-citizen who commits an offence aboard an Indian-registered vessel anywhere in the world falls within the reach of the IPC, provided the vessel is registered in India.

Where an offence is committed outside India by a citizen of India, whether in high seas or elsewhere, or by a person — not being such a citizen — on any ship or aircraft registered in India, that person may be dealt with in respect of such offence as if it had been committed at any place within India at which he may be found (A V Mohan v M Kishan Rao (2002) 6 SCC 174).


Category Three: Computer Resources Located in India


The IPC, as amended in 2008, and now the BNS, extend to any person in any place without and beyond India committing an offence targeting a computer resource located in India. This is the cyber-jurisdiction clause: the nationality of the offender and the location from which the attack is launched are irrelevant if the target — the computer resource — is located in India. The test for whether an act committed outside India is an offence in India is to check if that act, if committed in India, would be punishable under the IPC/BNS.

This provision directly addresses the Singapore fraud scenario with which this blog opened. The fraudster operating from Singapore targeting Indian investors — who sends fraudulent communications that reach their targets in India — falls within Indian penal jurisdiction because the computer resources being targeted, and the effects felt, are located in India.


Category Four: The Legal Fiction — Acts Outside India Deemed Within

India


The fiction created by Section 3 IPC / Section 1(4) BNS is foundational: a person liable under Indian law to be tried for an offence committed beyond India is dealt with according to the provisions of the IPC/BNS as if the act had been committed within India. This is not a mere procedural convenience — it creates a substantive assimilation of the extra-territorial act to a domestic act for all purposes of charge, trial, and punishment.


Category Five: Acts Partly in India, Partly Abroad


Some of the most complex jurisdictional questions arise when an offence is partly committed in India and partly outside India. Indian courts have dealt with this through the principle that where a part of the offence is committed inside India, the fact that certain other acts connected to the offence were committed outside India does not displace Indian jurisdiction (K Satwant Singh v State of Punjab AIR 1960 SC 266). The locality of a constituent element of the offence in India is sufficient to ground jurisdiction. The offender need not have been in India; what matters is that part of the criminal enterprise operated on Indian soil.



The Mobarik Ali Ahmed Principle: Locality, Not Physical Presence


Mobarik Ali Ahmed v State of Bombay AIR 1957 SC 857 is the towering judicial authority on the territorial jurisdiction of the IPC and deserves extended treatment. A Pakistani national, Mobarik Ali Ahmed, had sent fraudulent representations from Pakistan to merchants in Bombay, induced them to pay money, and received that money without entering India. He was arrested in India on an unrelated matter and prosecuted for cheating.


The question was whether Indian courts had jurisdiction to try him for an offence he had committed while physically present in Pakistan. The Supreme Court of India held that they did. The court laid down that penal statutes must be interpreted so that even if the authors of crime are in the territory of another state, the offence will be regarded as committed within the national territory if one of its constituent elements — and more especially its effects — took place in that territory. Since the fraudulent inducement was received by, and produced its effect upon, the merchants in Bombay, the offence was committed in Bombay.


The accused's physical absence from India did not deprive Indian courts of jurisdiction.

The broader principle is equally important: the IPC is not being applied extra-territorially in such a case. Mobarik Ali Ahmed was simply being prosecuted for an offence committed in India, even though he was not bodily present there. The locality of the offence, not the physical location of the offender's body, determines jurisdiction.



Exemptions from Jurisdiction


Diplomatic Immunity


The IPC is not applicable to persons specially exempted under statute, the Constitution of India, or international law — such as ambassadors, foreign princes, and diplomatic staff. All diplomatic agents enjoy immunity from the criminal jurisdiction of the State and shall not be liable to any form of arrest or detention. The immunity from jurisdiction of diplomatic agents may be waived by the sending State, but such waiver shall be in express terms. Members of the family of the diplomatic agent forming part of the household also enjoy such immunity, where they are not nationals of the receiving State. The immunity commences the moment the diplomat's appointment is notified and normally ceases the moment the diplomat leaves the country.


Subsequent Acquisition of Citizenship


If an offence was committed and completed at a time when the accused was neither a citizen of India nor domiciled in India, the subsequent acquisition of Indian citizenship does not confer retrospective jurisdiction on Indian courts to try offences committed before citizenship was acquired (Central Bank of India Ltd v Ram Narain AIR 1955 SC 36). The provision of extra-territorial operation of the IPC has no application where, at the time of commission of the offence, the accused was not a citizen of India. Citizenship must exist at the time of the offence, not merely at the time of trial.



Conspiracy and Jurisdiction: The Continuing Offence Doctrine


Conspiracy is a continuing offence and continues to subsist and be committed wherever one of the conspirators does an act or series of acts (Ajay Aggarwal v Union of India AIR 1993 SC 1637). A conspiracy designed or agreed abroad will have the same effect as one designed in India when part of the acts, pursuant to the agreement, are agreed to be finalised and done, attempted, or even frustrated in India — and vice versa. This is one of the most significant jurisdictional principles in the IPC/BNS framework for organised crime.


It is the commission of the offence and not the residence of the accused which is decisive of jurisdiction, especially when none of the offences charged has residence as one of its ingredients (Ajay Aggarwal v Union of India AIR 1993 SC 1637). A court having jurisdiction to try offences committed in pursuance of a conspiracy also has jurisdiction to try the offence of criminal conspiracy itself, even if the conspiracy was hatched outside its territorial jurisdiction (L N Mukherjee v State of Madras AIR 1961 SC 1601).


Since conspiracy is a continuing offence, and when any conspirator is in any territory of India during its continuance he has clearly committed the offence within Indian territory, Indian courts have jurisdiction (Abdul Kadar Saleh Mohammed v State AIR 1964 Bom 133). The conspiracy to commit an offence is by itself distinct from the offence to do which the conspiracy is entered into; and if the offence is actually committed, it would be the subject matter of a separate charge (Ajay Aggarwal v Union of India AIR 1993 SC 1637).



Jurisdiction Over Related Offences When the Principal Offence Is Outside India


The IPC has enacted certain provisions especially for the purpose of rectifying lacunae regarding whether criminal liability would arise with reference to acts connected to principal offences not punishable in India (Mobarik Ali Ahmed v State of Bombay AIR 1957 SC 857). These provisions — which the BNS carries forward with modifications — include:


Abetment in India of offences outside India: Where an abetment takes place within India of an act committed outside India, and the act if committed in India would constitute an offence, the abettor is guilty under the IPC/BNS. The BNS introduces a complementary provision (Section 48) going in the other direction: a person abets an offence within the meaning of the BNS who, without and beyond India, abets the commission of any act in India which would constitute an offence if committed in India — a new provision without IPC counterpart that closes the gap from the other direction.


Furnishing false information and harbouring: Furnishing false information to a public servant about an offence is punishable even if the act was committed outside India. Harbouring an offender is an offence even if the underlying offence was committed outside India, provided that offence is punishable under Indian law or is an extraditable offence. It is an offence to harbour robbers or dacoits even if the robbery or dacoity was committed or intended outside India. It is an offence to abet counterfeiting of coins outside India.



The Central Government Sanction Requirement


When Sanction Is Required


Where an offence is committed outside India by a citizen of India, or by a non-citizen on an Indian-registered ship or aircraft, no such offence shall be inquired into or tried in India except with the previous sanction of the Central Government (A V Mohan v M Kishan Rao (2002) 6 SCC 174). The requirements of this provision are: there must be a commission of an offence; the offence must be committed by an Indian citizen (or by a non-citizen on an Indian vessel); and it must have been committed outside India (Ajay Aggarwal v Union of India AIR 1993 SC 1637).


The Central Government has no power to accord sanction to prosecute under this provision when the accused is not a citizen of India and the offence is committed in a foreign land (Central Bank of India Ltd v Ram Narain AIR 1955 SC 36). Sanction is not necessary where proceedings are instituted against a public servant on charges of conspiracy and bribery involving offences that are substantially domestic (Ronald Wood Mathams v State of West Bengal AIR 1954 SC 455).


When Sanction Is Not Required


Where a part of the offence is committed inside India, merely because certain other acts connected to the offence were committed outside India does not necessitate a sanction of the Central Government (K Satwant Singh v State of Punjab AIR 1960 SC 266). The key question is whether the offence — or a constituent element of it — was committed within India. If yes, sanction for extra-territorial prosecution is not needed.

Prosecution for a conspiracy hatched in India to commit an unlawful act outside India does not require prior sanction of the Central Government (Vinod Kumar Jain v State through CBI (1999) Cr LJ 669 (Del)).


Sanction Is Not a Condition Precedent to Cognizance

Previous sanction of the Central Government is not a condition precedent to taking cognizance of the offence. Cognizance may be taken before sanction is obtained; the sanction can be obtained before commencement of trial (Ajay Aggarwal v Union of India AIR 1993 SC 1637). Courts are therefore not required to wait for sanction before taking the first judicial steps in the matter.



The BNS Changes: What Is Different, What Remains the Same


The BNS comparison table provides a precise account of what changed. The five IPC sections (Sections 1–5) are consolidated into six sub-sections of BNS Section 1.

Section 1(1) BNS covers the IPC's Section 1 (short title) but notably omits the extent of operation clause that was present in the IPC. This is a structural rather than substantive change.


Section 1(2) BNS is new: it delegates to the Central Government the power to appoint the date of commencement, a power absent in the IPC.


Section 1(3) BNS corresponds to Section 2 IPC without substantive change.


Section 1(4) BNS corresponds to Section 3 IPC with two changes: "Indian laws" is replaced with the broader "law", and "for the time being in force in India" is inserted. The effect is to widen the reference beyond laws specifically labelled as Indian, capturing any applicable law currently in force.


Section 1(5) BNS corresponds to Section 4 IPC. The illustration previously used "Uganda" as the foreign country; this is replaced with the neutral "any place outside India", avoiding the implication that only Uganda-type cases are contemplated. The substantive categories of extra-territorial jurisdiction — citizens abroad, Indian vessels, and computer resources in India — are unchanged.


Section 1(6) BNS corresponds to Section 5 IPC (saving of special and local laws) without substantive change.


The most significant new jurisdictional provision introduced by the BNS is Section 48 — a provision with no IPC counterpart. It provides that "a person abets an offence within the meaning of this Sanhita who, without and beyond India, abets the commission of any act in India which would constitute an offence if committed in India." The previous IPC Section 108A dealt with abetment in India of offences outside India; Section 48 BNS covers the reverse — abetment outside India of offences in India. This closes a meaningful gap and is of considerable practical significance for prosecuting those who, from foreign soil, instigate, conspire, or assist in the commission of offences in India.


The BNS also introduces new offences — terrorist acts (Section 113), organised crime (Section 111), and acts endangering the sovereignty and integrity of India (Section 152) — that explicitly contemplate cross-border dimensions and are framed with jurisdictional reach that extends to actors outside India.



Conclusion


The territorial jurisdiction framework of the IPC — now the BNS — reflects an abiding tension between the strict territorial principle (jurisdiction depends on where the offence is committed) and the practical reality of modern crime, which respects no borders. The IPC resolved this tension through a layered approach: a primary territorial rule (offences committed in India attract Indian law, regardless of the offender's nationality); a set of extra-territorial extensions (Indian citizens abroad, Indian-registered vessels, computer resources in India); and a legal fiction that deems extra-territorial acts committed within India for all purposes of trial and punishment.


The BNS inherits this framework and refines it. The consolidation into Section 1 sub-sections is structural. The replacement of "Uganda" with "any place outside India" in the illustration is a sensible modernisation. The broadening of "Indian laws" to "law" in Section 1(4) ensures no technical escape on the basis of which law's label the act falls under. The new Section 48 BNS on abetment outside India of Indian offences is a genuine and important substantive addition that closes the jurisdictional gap the IPC left open.


For the practitioner, the governing tests remain those established by the Supreme Court in the foundational cases: locality of the offence, not the nationality or physical location of the offender; the effect felt in India as a constituent element; and the continuing nature of conspiracy as grounds for domestic jurisdiction. Every Indian lawyer who advises clients in transactions, communications, or relationships that cross borders must keep this jurisdictional architecture in clear view — for it determines whether and where Indian criminal law will follow the offender wherever in the world he may choose to act.



Frequently Asked Questions


Q: Can an Indian court exercise jurisdiction over a foreigner who committed an offence in India without entering India?


Yes. The principle governing this is that the exercise of criminal jurisdiction depends on the locality of the offence, not the nationality or physical location of the offender. As established in Mobarik Ali Ahmed v State of Bombay AIR 1957 SC 857, where a fraudster in Pakistan sent fraudulent communications to merchants in Bombay and induced them to pay, the Supreme Court held that the offence was committed in Bombay, and Indian courts had full jurisdiction. The fact that the accused was not physically in India was held irrelevant.


Q: Does the IPC / BNS apply to an Indian citizen who commits an offence abroad?


Yes. The IPC's Section 4 (BNS Section 1(5)) extends the Code to any offence committed by any citizen of India in any place without or beyond India. The jurisdiction of Indian courts is not lost by reason of the venue of the offence being outside India, as far as Indian citizens are concerned. Such a case must generally be tried with the previous sanction of the Central Government, though sanction is not a condition precedent to taking cognizance.


Q: When does an offence partly committed outside India attract Indian jurisdiction without Central Government sanction?


Where a part of the offence is committed inside India, the fact that certain other acts connected to it were committed outside India does not necessitate a sanction of the Central Government. Indian courts have jurisdiction over the whole offence in such a case, because the domestic element is sufficient to ground jurisdiction. This was settled in K Satwant Singh v State of Punjab AIR 1960 SC 266.


Q: Does a conspiracy hatched abroad fall within Indian jurisdiction if part of the plan is executed in India?


Yes. Conspiracy is a continuing offence and continues to be committed wherever one of the conspirators does an act in furtherance of the conspiracy. A conspiracy designed or agreed abroad will have the same effect in India when part of the acts pursuant to the agreement are agreed to be finalised, done, attempted, or frustrated in India (Ajay Aggarwal v Union of India AIR 1993 SC 1637). Since conspiracy is a continuing offence, whenever any conspirator is in Indian territory during its continuance, the offence is clearly committed within Indian territory.


Q: What does the BNS's new Section 48 add to the jurisdictional framework?


Section 48 BNS introduces a provision without IPC counterpart. It provides that a person abets an offence within the meaning of the BNS who, without and beyond India, abets the commission of any act in India which would constitute an offence if committed in India. This means that a person sitting abroad who instigates, conspires with, or aids someone in India to commit a crime in India is an abettor under the BNS, even if that person never enters Indian territory. The IPC's Section 108A dealt only with the reverse — abetment in India of offences outside India. The BNS covers both directions.




Comments

bottom of page