MOBARIK ALI AHMED VS. STATE OF BOMBAY (1957) AIR 857, 1958 SCR 328

FACTS OF THIS CASE:–  

In this above mentioned case, there was a trader from Goa, who contacted a trader of Karachi, Pakistan, for the shipment of rice, during a severe shortage of rice in Goa. But he didn’t contact him directly, rather he contacted him via Jasawalla. He ordered 1200 tons of rice in which the appellant demanded twenty five percent of advance before the delivery of the rice bags. The complainant paid him three times in three counts, first, he paid Rs. 81,000, secondly, he paid Rs. 2,30,000 and at third time he paid Rs. 2,36,900.

So the appellant here in his favour stated that neither he nor his any agent received the money and he demanded from the complainant to pay him in Pakistani currency so that he can ship those rice bags from Karachi to Goa. 

According to the complainant he paid the money to the appellant only and he demands his rice bags or if he is unable to deliver rice bags, he should pay his money back so that he can trade from any other person. The complainant said that after demanding his money back the appellant demanded fifty percent of the advanced money then he would ship the rice from the port of  Karachi .

The evidences stated that the communication between the appellant, the  Jasawalla and the complainant happened via letters, telegram, if we have to know the detailed conversation between them we have to refer to the telegrams which are attached in this case. So the complainant could not hold for any longer and he visited Jasawalla in Bombay, and demanded five hundred tons of rice must be transported at once. After demanding fifty percent of payment, the appellant replied to Jasawalla through telegram that he will ship the rice bags as soon as possible and he also said that if they will show no confidence in him he will cancel all the negotiations and this was a threat from him. Jasawalla enquired at Karachi and he found that there was no shipping space reserved for the shipment. After questioning the appellant about this he answered that the authorities of Pakistan not allowing them to ship, then Jasawalla approached the authority of Goa to issue the certificate to bring rice from Karachi so that the ration shops of Goa should be fulfilled.

The appellant wrote a telegram to complainant and Jasawalla, demanding ninety percent of the payment. The complainant came to Bombay with Rs, 4,75,000 and contacted Jasawalla for the payment. The appellant replied that he received the money and reserved the space for the shipment. The complainant went to Karachi for three months but within two weeks he received a quit order from the government of Pakistan. After coming back to India, the appellant again misled the complainant that he will send the rice today or tomorrow or in upcoming days.

Finally at last, the complainant demanded that either he send the rice at once or cancel the contract and give his money back.  

ISSUES:-

The below mentioned issues had been faced by the Supreme Court of India during the proceedings of this case:-

• Whether the Indian Penal Code, 1860, will be applied on the person who is not the citizen of India.
• Whether the person will or will not be liable or will be punished if he committed the crime outside the territory of India.

ARGUMENTS:–

The appellant was a citizen of Pakistan and during the whole offence he was not present in the territory of India, after the incident he fled to England from Karachi.

That he is not punishable under Indian Penal Code under Section 420 and Section 34 which includes the offence of cheating and dishonesty against the delivery of property.

But here the appellant is not hiding the facts as he shown the godown of rice and he also communicated both the complainant and Jasawalla through telegram and he signed the telegram also. This shows that he is not committing cheating.

The respondent side stated that he is liable under Section 420 and Section 34 of IPC as he fled to England and also he was not willing to send the rice after the payment.

JUDGEMENT:–

This case was appealed under the Special Leave. The judgement was mainly held by Justice B. Jagannadhadas, in which respondent has to plead to the Queens Bench of England. .Then the appellant was brought back to India. Here the arguments were same that he is the Pakistani National so he cannot be held liable. He stated the facts of  the case Shreekantiah Ramayya Munipalli v. State of Bombay in which it was held that the mere planning should not be included in Section 420 instead actual doing of the action will be counted as offence. He said that he cannot be tried in any court in india. The Complainant quoted the fact that the appellant was a citizen of India, he studied here in Punjab and traded with the government. He also said that he has ready stock of rice and he re served and he always communicated through letters and telegrams frequently. He used Section 2 of the IPC that any person who is not the citizen of India corporeally who is not present during the time of offence will not be held liable under this code. This dictum of the appellant was cancelled out by the Judges of Supreme Court.

It was held that whether he ceased to be Indian or presently a Pakistani National he must be held liable for his offence, according to which for the first count of the payment he sentenced to the imprisonment for two years and for the second count, twenty two months. The total time period of his imprisonment shall be three years and ten months.

REFERENCES:–

https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/5609aafbe4b014971140b678

https://indiankanoon.org/doc/84475/

This Article is written by Anugrah Kurre of Guru Ghasidas Viswavidyalya, Intern at Legal Vidhya.

Admin