It is strenuously urged that to consider a foreigner guilty under the Penal Code for an offence committed in India though attributable to him and to punish him therefor in a case where he is not corporeally present in India for the commission of the offence, would be to give extra territorial operation to the Indian Penal Code and that an interpretation which brings such extra-territorial operation must be avoided.
whether there is anything in the language of the sections of the Indian Penal Code relating to the general scheme of the Code which compels the construction that the various sections of the Penal Code are not intended to apply to a foreigner who has committed an offence in India while not being corporeally present therein at the time.
Supreme Court observed :- The word “propriety” has nowhere been defined in the Act and is capable of a variety of meanings. In the Oxford English Dictionary (Vol. VIII), it has been stated to mean “fitness; appropriateness; aptitude; suitability; appropriateness to the circumstance or conditions; comfirmity with requirement, rule or principle; rightness; correctness, justness, accuracy”. Ref: AIR 1956 SC 463 […]
Jagir is resumable after the death of the grantee. Ordinarily a jagir is an assignment in land or money for the support of a certain dignity and for the troops annexed thereto. It is either conditional or unconditional. The assignment is for a stated term, and more usually, it is for the life-time of the holder, lapsing on his death, […]
In this context it is necessary to notice that what is prohibited under Art. 20 is only conviction or sentence under an ‘ex post facto’ law and not the trial thereof. Such trial under a procedure different from what obtained at the time of the commission of the offence or by a Court different from that which had competence at the time cannot ‘ipso facto’ be held to be unconstitutional.
Earlier, the Calcutta High Court allowed Bail on a personal bond of Rs 50,000. Rajeev Kumar has been directed by the court to cooperate with the investigation. The grounds on which the CBI challenged the anticipatory bail to Rajeev Kumar are that he has been non-cooperative and evasive, evidence against him are strong and his custodial interrogation is important to complete the investigation. For CBI, Rajib Kumar is the key person who can open all kingpins behind Sardar scam. Rajeev Kumar, is the main culprit in hiding the facts of the Sarda Chit Fund and many other Chit Fund cases in Bengal.
Forfeiture of property is thus not one of the penalties or punishments for any of the offences mentioned in the Bengal Municipal Act. In the relevant provision in the rule of the High Court an order of sentence of death, transportation, penal servitude, forfeiture of property or of imprisonment are grouped together.
It is enough for our purpose to state that there is a difference between an order refusing to rescind leave granted under Cl. 12 of the Letters Patent and one under Cl. 13 directing the removal of a suit from one Court to another, and there is no good reason to hold that the principle applicable to one applies to the other also.
Rule of interpretation that the language used by the Legislature is the true depository of the legislative intent, and that words and phrases occurring in a statute are to be taken not in an isolated or detached manner dissociated from the context, but are to be read together and construed in the light of the purpose and object of the Act itself.