AUTHOR – SABREEN BANO FROM UNITED UNIVERSITY
To THE POINT
It is a landmark case of banking law. In 1946 there was a ram Narain a business man who living in Multan district. He took a loan from central bank of India the amount of money is 3 lakhs. Ram Narain submitted 802 bales of as collateral in the exchange of bank loan. Bank took those bales on godown nearby bank. After partition in nation in 1947 the owner leaves their place on the responsibility of cashier after some time cashier also move from that place and no one has owner of that godown. After partition when bank go to godown for checking.
When bank go to godown, they see 802 bales was stolen by someone. After investigation they got knowledge that ram Narain was stolen that bales and sale in the market. Bank sent notice to ram Narain and ask for money but he did not show any interest and not given any response. At that time ram Narain came to India with their family and having a business in Hodel. Then central bank filed suit against ram Narain this case handle by district magistrate, in Gurgaon.
THE PROOF
In 1860, Indian penal code there are several of provision those protect Indian citizen by crime and offences. There shall bs a one provision who deals with punishment of Indian citizens who commits crime outside from India. This provision explained in detail in section 4 of Indian penal code. This section applies every person who commit crime outside of India. In this case central bank of India v ram Narain liable for a person who is citizen of India or not during the offence, ram Narain was an Indian citizen or not. In this case ram Narain was not a Indian
citizen during the offenc*eps. Because Multan is in Pakistan after partition.
USE OF LEGAL JARGON
In this case mostly use statues from constitution of India, Indian penal code, criminal procedure code. In this case ram Narain v. central bank of India. Article 134(1)(c) of India constitution, section 4 of Indian penal code and section 188,179 0f criminal procedure code. Article 134(1)(c) in this article held if any case appellate jurisdiction of the supreme court in criminal matter this is basically happen when high court certified that this case is jurisdiction under supreme court. This article give approval that a case discretion to certify a case fit for appeal to the supreme court in criminal matter.
Section 4 of Indian penal code deals with extra territorial offences in this section held that any Indian citizen commits an offence in any part of world they are liable for those offence and got punished.
Section 188 of CrPC deals with jurisdiction of offence outside of India and section 179 of CrPC deals with when an offence which commit more than one local area.
ABSTRACT
In this case central bank of India file a suit against ram Narain. Ram Narain commit a theft of bank security. Ram Narain was a business man in Multan which is in Pakistan after the partition. He was taking a loan from central bank of India in 1946 of 3 lakhs, in the exchange of 802 bales of cotton as a security of bank. After partition of India and Pakistan on 15 august 1947, after this incident attendant of godown where the 802 cotton bales are stored, the attendant of that godown was left that place to give responsibility to cashier. On October 1947 the cashier also leaves that place so, consequently no one have responsibility or owner of that godown. In 1948 January one of the agent of central bank visited to the godown and found that godown was empty there was no any security got found which is kept by bank.
After enquiry bank found that 802 cotton bales were stolen from godown by ram Narain. Ram Narain sold that goods on the price of 1,98,702. During partition due amount of bank by ram Narain was 1,40,000 with interest but the price of cotton bales was approximate 1,90,000 at that time. After all those investigation bank sends a notice to the ram Narain for theft and recovery of money but, he could not give any response to the bank. Ram Narain sent his family in India during Sikhs and Hindus violence after some times he also come in India and started his business. Central bank of India filled a suit against him charging theft but ram Narain defend itself to saying that when this all thing was happened at that time he was in nationality of Pakistan, he was not a citizen of India. So, he was not liable for that offence. After all, hearing the judgement was against ram Narain in district court, ram Narain file appeal in high court. High court give judgement in ram Narain favor says in incident take place after the partition in 1997 and the godown of central bank of India located in part of Pakistan not in India. So, this case not in Indian jurisdiction because ram Narain was not an Indian citizen at the time of offences which they commit. After this case go to supreme court where some issues were arises. After all hearing and proceedings judgment was that ram Narain was not liable for any offence which they commit in Pakistan until unless he was not become a citizen of India. Ram Narain was not a citizen of India was confirmed. Because constitution of India was not enforced at that time. After constitution this case was revised.
CASE LAWS
PHOENIX ARC (P)LTD V. VISHWAS BHARTI VIDYA MANDIR
This case also related to banking law, in this case issue was raised maintainability of writ petition of article 226 under high court of the constitution on the ARC full form of ARC is asset reconstruction company. In this case basically ARC was registered with RBI which is also cancelled under section 4 of Indian penal code.
PARDEEP KUMAR V. POSTMASSTER GENERAL
In this case the applicant Pardeep Kumar, was either an employee or a candidate aspiring for a post within the Indian postal department. He approached the court challenging the decision of the postmaster general, alleging, irregularities, unfair practices, or violation of service rules. In this case applicant claimed for selection process was not proper and fair. Violation of recruitment rules and conditions. Argued that he is more eligible and more skillful than selected candidate. Judgement of this case was allowed the application, directing reconsideration promotion. Quashed adverse orders like illegal transfer or disciplinary action, or dismissed the application, upholding the department action.
BANK OF BARODA V KARWA TRADING
In this case Karwa trading obtaining 1.95 crore secured by 2 properties that s residential and industrial plot both. The barrower defaulted the outstanding dues ballooned to approximately 1.85 crore. Bank of Baroda took possession under SARFAESI, issued a 48.65 lakhs reserve price auction notice, and possession was granted by the DRT. DRT allowed Karwa to deposit the 48.65 lakhs reserve price in instalments and stay the sale granting them the property upon payment. Judgment of this case order passed by the division bench of the high court are set aside. The order passed by the learned single judge is restored. The appellant bank is permitted to proceed further with the auction process of the secured assets as per the provisions of the SARFAESI act.
CONCLUSION
It can be concluded from this landmark case, that during partition 1947, everyone was is flux. They face trouble to decide about which country they live. During that time majority of Hindu and Sikhs was facing violence. In this case this was cleared that what jurisdiction comes in India and Pakistan. In section 4 of IPC says that Indian citizen is liable for their crime or offences which they commit into India or outside of India they will get punished under Indian law and rules & regulation. This law regulates in India only. This case says that if any ex-citizen of Indian commit crime who now present time other countries citizen now they are not coming under Indian jurisdiction.
FAQs
To what extent, Indian jurisdiction applies?
Territorial jurisdiction- throughout the territory of India included all 28 states and 8 unio territorial waters, Indian ships and aircrafts, foreigner present on Indian soil.
Extraterritorial jurisdiction – Indian laws may apply outside India in specific case article 245(2) of Indian constitution and Indian penal code section 4.
Does an intention to move to India makes a person Indian citizen?
The intention to move to Indian alone does not make a person an Indian citizen. Indian citizenship is governed by strict legal requirements under the citizenship act, 1955. Citizen of India become by birth, by decent, by registration, by naturalization, by incorporation of territory. Intention and formal legal process are must for acquire a Indian citizen.
Weather ram Narain had Indian domicile at the time of the commission of the offence?
Yes based on legal records and the nature of the case, ram Narain Rastogi had Indian domicile at the time the alleged offence was committed.
