Meher Chand Mahajan, C. J. - (1.) This appeal, by leave of the High Court of Judicature at Simla, raises a novel and interesting question of law, viz., whether a person accused of an offence under the Indian Penal Code and committed in a district which after the partition of India became Pakistan, could be tried for that offence by a criminal court in India after his migration to that country, and thereafter acquiring the status of a citizen.
(2.) The material facts relevant to this enquiry are thesc: The respondent Ram Narain, acting on behalf of his firm Ram Narain Joginder Nath, carrying on business at Mailsi in Multan District, was allowed a cash credit limit of rupees three lakhs by the Mailsi branch of the Central Bank of India Ltd. (the appellant) on the 23rd December, 1946, shortly before the partition of British India. The account was secured against stocks which were to remain in possession of thc borrowers as trustees on behalf of the Bank. On 15th August, 1947, when British India was split into two Dominions, the amount due to the bank from Ram Narain was over Rs 1,40,000/-, exclusive of interest, while the value of the goods pledged under the cash credit agreement was approximately in the sum of Rs. 1,90,000/-. On account of the disturbances that followed in the wake of the partition of the country the bank's godown-keeper at Mailsi left Mailsi some time in September, 1947 and the cashier, who was left in charge, also was forced to leave that place in October, 1947, and thus no one was in Mailsi to safeguard the bank's godowns after that date. It is alleged that in January, 1948 when Mr. D. P. Patel, Agent of the Multan branch of the appellant bank visited Mailsi hc discovered that stocks pledge, by M/s. Ram Narain Joginder Nath against the cash credit agreement had disappeared. On inquiry he found that 801 cotton bales pledged with the bank had been stolen, and booked by Ram Narain to Karachi on the 9th November, 1947 and that he had recovered a sum of Rs. 1,98,702-12-9 as price of these bales from one Durgadas D. Punjabi. The bank claimed this amount from Ram Narain but with no result. It then applied under Section 188, Criminal P. C. to the East Punjab Government for sanction for the prosecution of Ram Narain for the offences committed in Pakistan in November, 1947 when he was there, in respect of these bales. The East Punjab Government, by its order dated 23rd February, 1950 accorded sanction for the prosecution of Ram Narain under Sections 380 and 454, I. P. C. Ram Narain, at this time, was residing in Hodel, District Gurgaon, and was carrying on business under the name and style of Ram Narain Bhola Nath, Hodel. In pursuance of this sanction, on 18th April, 1950 the bank filed a complaint against Ram Narain under Sections 380 and 454, I. P. C. and 411 before the District Magistrate of Gurgaon.
(3.) Ram Narain, when he appeared in court, raised a preliminary objection that at the time of the alleged occurrence he was a national of Pakistan and therefore the East Punjab Government was not competent to grant sanction for his prosecution under Section 188, Cr. P. C. read with Section 4, I. P. C. This objection was not decided at that moment, but after evidence in the case had been taken at the request of both sides the court heard arguments on the preliminary point and overruled it on the finding that Ram Narain could not be said to have acquired Pakistan nationality by merely staying on there from 15th August till 10 November, 1947 and that all this time he had the desire and intention to revert to Indian nationality because he sent his family out to India in October 1947, wound up his business there and after his migration to India in November 1947 he did not return to Pakistan. It was also said that in those days Hindus and Sikhs were not safe in Pakistan and they were bound to come to India under the inevitable pressure of circumstances over which they had no control. Ram Narain applied to the Sessions Judge, Gurgaon, under Sections 435 and 439, Cr. P. C. for setting aside this order and for quashing the charges framed against him. The Additional Sessions Judge dismissed this petition and affirmed the decision of the trial magistrate. Ram Narain then preferred an application in revision to the High Court, Punjab at Simla, and with success. The High Court allowed the revision and quashed the charges and held that the trial of respondent Ram Narain by a magistrate in India was without jurisdiction. It was held that until Ram Narain actually left Pakistan and came to India he could not possibly be said to have become a citizen of India, though undoubtedly he never intended to remain in Pakistan for any length of time and wound up his business as quickly as he could and came to India in November 1947 and settled in Hodel. It was further held that the Punjab Government had no power in February 1950 to sanction his prosecution under Section 188, Cr. P. C. for acts committed in Pakistan in November 1947. The High Court also repelled the further contention of the appellant bank that in any case Ram Narain could be tried at Gurgaon for the possession or retention by him at Hodel of the sale proceeds of the stolen cotton which themselves constitute stolen property. Leave to appeal to this Court was granted under Article 134 (1)(c) of the Constitution. The sole question for determination in the appeal is whether on a true construction of Section 188, Cr. P. C. and Section 4 of the Indian Penal Code, the East Punjab Government had power to grant sanction for the prosecution of Ram Narain for offences committed in Pakistan before his migration to India.;