Sir.. section 4 of ipc relating to extra territorial offences . Sub section (2) says Any citizen of india in any place without and beyond india . Sir do (beyond and without) differ if not, why two are simultaneously used . Please sir clear it .
Well, it is a very interesting point that you have observed and rightly sought to be answered. Let's understand this layer by layer: Section 1 extends the operation of IPC to the whole of India (India being defined by section 18 itself); A person guilty of doing any act/omission within India contrary to the provisions of IPC shall be punishable under IPC (Section 2); Now sections 3 and 4 weave together a scheme of legal fiction whereby the operation of IPC becomes extra-territorial. If any person does an act outside India ( beyond India) but any Indian law makes that person's liability within India possible (which ordinarily is not possible because of doctrine of sovereignty of every nation within its own sphere), section 3 creates a fiction that such person shall be dealt as if the act was committed within India. Such laws are based on reciprocal arrangements, etc. For example, see Chapter VII-A of CrPC (ss. 105A-105L). Now, section 4 creates another kind of legal fiction which tends to establish two things primarily (now "three* after the 2009 Amendment regarding computer resource): 1. Every citizen of India carries his Penal law with himself wherever he goes to; and 2. Every ship/aircraft of India, wherever they be, constitute Indian territory. Now back to your main question which might have become easier to understand by now. The phrase "any place without and beyond India" has been used simply to obliterate or overcome the effect created by the operation of section 3 which uses "beyond India" ( but which shall be deemed to be "within India". That is why section 4 clearly emphasises those exclusive offences committed beyond and without India (that means those acts/offences to which even section 3 won't be able to cover within its ambit.) Phew! That was long.😅
Thank You ,❣️
Thank you
Sir.. section 4 of ipc relating to extra territorial offences . Sub section (2) says Any citizen of india in any place without and beyond india . Sir do (beyond and without) differ if not, why two are simultaneously used . Please sir clear it .
Well, it is a very interesting point that you have observed and rightly sought to be answered. Let's understand this layer by layer:
Section 1 extends the operation of IPC to the whole of India (India being defined by section 18 itself);
A person guilty of doing any act/omission within India contrary to the provisions of IPC shall be punishable under IPC (Section 2);
Now sections 3 and 4 weave together a scheme of legal fiction whereby the operation of IPC becomes extra-territorial. If any person does an act outside India ( beyond India) but any Indian law makes that person's liability within India possible (which ordinarily is not possible because of doctrine of sovereignty of every nation within its own sphere), section 3 creates a fiction that such person shall be dealt as if the act was committed within India. Such laws are based on reciprocal arrangements, etc. For example, see Chapter VII-A of CrPC (ss. 105A-105L).
Now, section 4 creates another kind of legal fiction which tends to establish two things primarily (now "three* after the 2009 Amendment regarding computer resource):
1. Every citizen of India carries his Penal law with himself wherever he goes to; and
2. Every ship/aircraft of India, wherever they be, constitute Indian territory.
Now back to your main question which might have become easier to understand by now. The phrase "any place without and beyond India" has been used simply to obliterate or overcome the effect created by the operation of section 3 which uses "beyond India" ( but which shall be deemed to be "within India". That is why section 4 clearly emphasises those exclusive offences committed beyond and without India (that means those acts/offences to which even section 3 won't be able to cover within its ambit.) Phew! That was long.😅
why haven't you uploaded section 499 ?
You are right. The only reason is that back then when I was teaching here online, it was not part of the syllabus in the law school.