Indian Citizens Can Be Prosecuted In India For Offences Committed Abroad If Statutory Conditions Are Met: Orissa High Court
The High Court held that under Section 337(6) of the BNSS, an Indian citizen who commits an offence outside India may still be prosecuted in India as if the offence had been committed domestically, subject to statutory safeguards such as prior sanction under Section 208 BNSS.
Justice G. Satapathy, Orissa High Court
The Orissa High Court has held that offences allegedly committed by an Indian citizen outside India do not create a jurisdictional bar to prosecution in India, provided the statutory requirements under the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) are satisfied.
The Court was hearing a bail application arising from allegations of financial fraud committed partly in Zambia and partly in India. The petitioner had challenged the jurisdiction of the Indian court, arguing that the alleged acts took place outside India and were already the subject of proceedings before Zambian authorities.
The matter was decided by a Bench of Justice G. Satapathy. In the course of the judgment, the Court underscored: “The aforesaid exception as provided in Sec.337(6) of BNSS makes it very clear that if the person who is an Indian citizen has committed an offence beyond India, he can still be prosecuted in India, as if the offence had been committed within India.”
The Court further observed that the statutory bar applies only when the individual has already been tried and acquitted or convicted by a court of competent jurisdiction abroad.
Background
The petitioner had been appointed as Finance and Administration Manager for an Indian company with operations in Zambia. While stationed there, he allegedly created a parallel company in Zambia under the same name and diverted funds from the partner company, including withdrawals and transfers exceeding USD 1,25,000. The FIR alleged fraudulent receipt of payments, illegal sale of stock, unauthorised bank transfers, and personal remittances to accounts in India.
Further allegations included theft of company assets such as a laptop, an iPhone, bank cards, and confidential data. An arrest warrant was stated to have been issued against the petitioner by a Zambian court. The petitioner was arrested in India on 15.05.2025, and a charge sheet was filed on 14.07.2025.
Before the High Court, the petitioner argued that since the alleged acts occurred in Zambia, the Court at Jajpur lacked territorial jurisdiction.
Court’s Observation
The Orissa Court examined the jurisdictional objection by referring to Sections 208 and 209 BNSS, which correspond to the earlier Sections 188 and 189 CrPC. The Court reproduced the statutory text to emphasise that Indian courts may deal with such offences “as if committed within India” once the statutory condition of sanction is met.
The Court then turned to Section 337(6) BNSS, which preserves the exception allowing prosecution in India even when acts have been committed abroad. It was observed that this provision does not dilute the constitutional protection against double jeopardy. Instead, it clarifies that the bar applies only where a person has already been tried and acquitted or convicted by a court of competent jurisdiction in a foreign country.
In the petitioner’s case, although proceedings were pending in Zambia, no trial or adjudication had yet taken place. Therefore, Article 20(2) of the Constitution and Section 337 BNSS did not bar prosecution in India.
The Court further noted that some part of the alleged transactions had taken place in India, including the remittance of funds to bank accounts in Jajpur and the seizure of company property from the petitioner within Indian territory. These acts, the Court held, prima facie constituted offences triable in India irrespective of where the larger scheme began.
To illustrate the legal position, the Court referred to the Supreme Court’s decision in Thota Venkateswarlu, where it was held that offences committed abroad by Indian citizens fall within Indian jurisdiction subject to sanction, and that a Magistrate may proceed with respect to acts committed in India while awaiting such sanction for offences committed outside India.
Applying these principles, the Court held that the mere pendency of proceedings in Zambia did not oust the jurisdiction of Indian courts. It concluded that the petitioner, being an Indian citizen and alleged to have committed acts both within and outside India, could face prosecution in India where the statutory framework permits such inquiry and trial.
Conclusion
Finding that the bar of double jeopardy was not attracted and that the statutory provisions allow prosecution of an Indian citizen for acts committed abroad, the Court held that no jurisdictional defect existed in proceeding against the petitioner.
However, considering that the trial had already commenced but had been stayed in the meantime, and noting the petitioner’s continued detention since 15.05.2025, the Court granted bail subject to conditions relating to execution of surety, non-commission of similar offences, disclosure of residence, monthly reporting, and submission to the jurisdiction of the Zambian court where required.
The bail application was accordingly allowed.
Cause Title: Soumya Ranjan Panda v. State of Odisha
Appearances
Petitioner: D. Panda, Advocate
Respondents: P. Satpathy, Addl. Public Prosecutor, S. Mohanty, Advocate