Territorial and Extra-Territorial Jurisdiction Under the BNS

Section 1 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS) says every person is punishable under the Sanhita for offences committed within India, and it extends the Sanhita to offences committed outside India by Indian citizens, by anyone on an Indian registered ship or aircraft, and by anyone abroad who targets a computer resource located in India. The procedure for trying such cases sits in the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), mainly Sections 197 to 209, and an offence committed outside India cannot be inquired into or tried here without the previous sanction of the Central Government (Section 208 BNSS).

This explainer is for B.A. LL.B. and LL.B. students preparing for criminal law papers, and for anyone who has wondered whether a cheating call from abroad or a crime by an Indian working in the Gulf can be prosecuted in an Indian court. The BNS replaced the Indian Penal Code from 1 July 2024, so old notes built around IPC Sections 2 to 4 need a fresh set of section numbers.

What does Section 1 of the BNS actually say?

Section 1 does far more than give the Act its name. Read sub-sections (3) to (6) slowly, because each one answers a different question.

• Section 1(3), territorial jurisdiction: every person is liable to punishment under the Sanhita "and not otherwise" for every act or omission contrary to its provisions of which he is guilty within India. "Every person" includes foreigners. (Old pointer: IPC Section 2.)
• Section 1(4), offences beyond India: a person who is liable under any Indian law to be tried for an offence committed beyond India is dealt with under the Sanhita as if the act had been committed within India. (Old pointer: IPC Section 3.)
• Section 1(5), extension of the Sanhita: the Sanhita also applies to offences committed by (a) any citizen of India in any place without and beyond India, (b) any person on any ship or aircraft registered in India wherever it may be, and (c) any person outside India committing an offence targeting a computer resource located in India. The Explanation says "offence" here includes every act committed outside India which would be punishable under the Sanhita if committed in India. (Old pointer: IPC Section 4.)
• Section 1(6), saving clause: nothing in the Sanhita affects laws punishing mutiny and desertion in the armed forces, or any special or local law. (Old pointer: IPC Section 5.)

The statutory illustration is worth memorising: A, a citizen of India, commits a murder outside India. He can be tried and convicted of murder in any place in India in which he may be found.

Territorial jurisdiction: when is an offence "within India"?

The simple case is a crime physically committed on Indian soil. The harder case is where the accused never set foot in India. The Supreme Court settled this in Mobarik Ali Ahmed v. State of Bombay (1957). A Pakistani national sitting in Karachi agreed to sell a large quantity of rice to a businessman and, through letters, telegrams and telephone calls with the buyer's side in Bombay, induced advance payments of about Rs. 5.48 lakh in 1951. No rice was ever shipped. The Court held that the offence of cheating was committed in Bombay, where the deception took effect and the money was parted with, and that the word "every person" in IPC Section 2 (now BNS Section 1(3)) covers a foreigner even if he was not physically present in India. The conviction under Section 420 IPC was upheld.

Today the same reasoning would apply to cheating under the BNS. Picture a student in Nagercoil who pays a "visa agent" abroad after a WhatsApp conversation. The deception operated in Nagercoil, so the offence is committed within India.

Which court tries the case? The BNSS venue rules

Once Indian law applies, the BNSS decides which local court hears the case.

1. Section 197 BNSS (old CrPC 177): every offence is ordinarily inquired into and tried by a court within whose local jurisdiction it was committed.
2. Section 199 BNSS (old CrPC 179): where an act is an offence because of a consequence that has ensued, it may be tried where the act was done or where the consequence ensued.
3. Section 202(1) BNSS: an offence that includes cheating, where the deception is practised by electronic communications, letters or telecommunication messages, may be tried by any court within whose local jurisdiction those communications were sent or received. Cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property may also be tried where the property was delivered or received.

So in our Nagercoil example, the complaint can be filed and tried in Kanyakumari District, where the messages were received and the money was paid.

Offences committed outside India: Section 208 BNSS and sanction

Section 208 BNSS (old CrPC 188) covers an offence committed outside India by a citizen of India, whether on the high seas or elsewhere, or by a non-citizen on a ship or aircraft registered in India. Such a person may be dealt with as if the offence had been committed at any place in India where he may be found or where the offence is registered in India. The words after "or" are new in the BNSS and give a clear second venue. The proviso keeps the old safeguard: no such offence shall be inquired into or tried in India except with the previous sanction of the Central Government.

When must sanction be obtained? In Thota Venkateswarlu v. State of Andhra Pradesh (2011), a wife alleged cruelty and threats while the couple lived in Botswana, and offences under the Dowry Prohibition Act linked to the dowry given in India. After discussing Ajay Aggarwal v. Union of India (1993), the Supreme Court held on 2 September 2011 that no sanction is needed up to the stage of taking cognizance, but the trial cannot proceed beyond that stage for the offences committed abroad without Central Government sanction. The Magistrate could go ahead with the offences alleged to have happened in India without sanction. That split is the practical lesson: a single complaint can contain some charges that need sanction and some that do not. The ruling was given under CrPC Section 188, so check later case law on Section 208 BNSS before relying on it in practice.

Two related provisions round this out. Section 209 BNSS (old CrPC 189) deals with receiving evidence relating to offences committed outside India, and Section 48 BNS (old IPC 108A) makes a person abroad guilty of abetment if he abets an act in India that would be an offence here.

A sea case close to home

The Italian marines case shows how jurisdiction is argued at sea. On 15 February 2012, two Indian fishermen on the boat St. Antony were shot about 20.5 nautical miles off the Kerala coast. In Republic of Italy v. Union of India (2013), the Supreme Court held that Kerala had no jurisdiction to investigate, but the Union of India could prosecute because the firing occurred in the contiguous zone under the Maritime Zones Act, and directed a Special Court. The matter later went to international arbitration, and in June 2021 the Supreme Court closed the Indian proceedings after Italy paid Rs. 10 crore in compensation. For students in a coastal district like Kanyakumari, this is a useful reminder that territorial jurisdiction is not only about land.

How to write this answer in an exam

• Open with the principle: criminal law is primarily territorial, with listed extra-territorial extensions.
• Quote BNS Section 1(3), 1(4) and 1(5) with their IPC pointers in brackets.
• Explain territorial jurisdiction through Mobarik Ali Ahmed (1957).
• Move to procedure: Sections 197, 199, 202 and 208 BNSS.
• Discuss sanction with Ajay Aggarwal (1993) and Thota Venkateswarlu (2011).
• Add the computer resource clause in Section 1(5)(c) and the new "where the offence is registered" venue in Section 208 as points showing you know the 2023 changes.
• End with the saving clause in Section 1(6) for special laws.

Students who want to see how such complaints are actually drafted can volunteer with the college legal aid clinic.

Sources

• BNS Section 1, Devgan.in: text of Section 1 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, with Explanation and illustration.
• BNSS Section 208, ApniLaw: text of the provision on offences committed outside India and the sanction proviso.
• BNSS Section 202, ApniLaw: venue for offences committed through electronic communications and letters.
• Thota Venkateswarlu v. State of A.P. (2011): Supreme Court judgment on when sanction is required.
• Mobarik Ali Ahmed v. State of Bombay (1957), LawFoyer: case summary on territorial jurisdiction over a foreigner.
• Bar and Bench, June 2021: report on closure of the Italian marines proceedings.
• LiveLaw, Enrica Lexie case timeline: incident date, distance from the coast and the 2013 Supreme Court ruling on jurisdiction.

For the authoritative text of both Sanhitas, check the official versions published on India Code or in the Gazette of India.