CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA Vs.

RAM NARAIN (AIR1955SC 36)

Aditya Sharma
2013007

BACKGROUND

The parties involved in this case are Central Bank of India (Appellants) and Ram Narain
(Respondents). The Subject matter of this case related to Applicability of Penal Laws
regarding domicile of a person. This case decided on 12.10.1954

Major Provisions Deals in this Case:

Section 4, 380, 454 & 412 of IPC,1860

Section 188 of Crpc, 1973

Honble Judges/Coram:

Five Judge Bench decided this case. The name of the Judges are; M.C. Mahajan, C.J., B.K.
Mukherjea, Vivian Bose, B. Jagannadhadas and T.L. Venkatarama Aiyyar, JJ.

Domicle: That place is properly the domicile of a person in which he has voluntarily fixed
the habitation of himself and his family, not for a mere special or temporary purpose but with
a present intention of making it his permanent home. Domicile is what is termed in private
international law as a connecting factor which connects an individual with a system of law
for the purposes of determining a range of matters, principally related to his status or
property.

Therefore, while going through Private International Law and the concept of Domicile, I
came across this very interesting case. I have tried to summarize it as briefly as possible.

FACTS OF THE CASE

The respondent, Ram Narain, 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 the 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

1|Page
 CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA Vs. RAM NARAIN (AIR1955SC 36)

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, he discovered that stocks pledged by Messrs.
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
Procedure Code, 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.

ISSUE INVOLVED IN THIS CASE

The question to be determined by the court was that:

1. Whether the Ram Narain (respondent) therein had Indian domicile at the time of the
commission of offence.
2. Whether on a true construction of section 188, Criminal Procedure Code, 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.

ARGUMENT OF THE PARTIES

ARGUMENT ON BEHALF THE PETITIONER:

The learned Advocate contended that Ram Narain was, at the time when sanction for his
prosecution was given by the East Punjab Government, a citizen of India residing in Hodel
and that being so, he could be tried in India being a citizen of India at that moment, and
having committed offences outside India and that the provisions of section 4, Indian Penal
Code, and section 188, Criminal Procedure Code, were fully attracted to the case.

2|Page
 CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA Vs. RAM NARAIN (AIR1955SC 36)

ARGUMENT ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT:

The learned Advocate contended that the language of the section 4 of IPC and section 188 of
CrPC plainly means that if at the time of the commission of the offence, the person
committing it is a citizen of India, then even if the offence is committed outside India he is
subject to the jurisdiction of the Court in India. The rule enunciated in the section is based on
the principle that qua citizen the jurisdiction of Courts is not lost by reason of the venue of
the offence. If, however, at the time of the commission of the offence the accused person is
not a citizen of India, then the provisions of these sections have no application whatsoever. A
foreigner was not liable to be dealt with in British India for an offence committed and
completed outside British India under the provisions of the sections as they stood before the
adaptations made in them after the partition of India.

PRAYER OF THE PARTIES

PRAYER ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER:

It is Prayed before this Honble court that,

Ram Narain (Respondent) should be prosecuted in India.

PRAYER ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT:

It is Prayed before this Honble court that,

Dismiss the petition because at the commission of the offence respondent was not
domiciled in India.

DECISION OF THE COURT

It was held by the Court in majority that Ram Narain could not be tried in any Court in India
for offences committed in Mailsi in November, 1947 is right and that the Provincial
Government had no power under section 188, Criminal Procedure Code, to accord sanction to
his prosecution.

The Apex Court in paragraph 6 of the judgment, observed thus:

"6...Writers on Private International Law are agreed that it is impossible to lay down an
absolute definition of 'domicile'. The simplest definition of this expression has been given by

3|Page
 CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA Vs. RAM NARAIN (AIR1955SC 36)

Chitty, J. in - 'Craignish v. Craignish, (1892) 3 Ch. 180. at p. 192 (A), wherein the learned
Judge said :
"That place is properly the domicile of a person in which his habitation is fixed without any
present intention of removing therefrom". But even this definition is not an absolute one. The
truth is that the term 'domicile' lends itself to illustrations but not to definition. Be that as it
may two constituent elements that are necessary by English Law for the existence of domicile
are (1) a residence of a particular kind, and (2) an intention of a particular kind. There must
be the factum and there must be the animus, the residence need not be continuous but that
must be indefinite, not purely fleeting. The intention must be a present intention to reside
forever in the country where the residence has been taken up.
As pointed out by the learned Judge below, he and his ancestors lived in the Multan District.
He had considerable business there. There is no evidence that he had any home in India and
there is no reason to go behind the finding of the learned Judge that he and his ancestors had
been living in Mailsi. His domicile cannot be determined by his family coming to India and
without any finding that he had established a home for himself. Even if the animus can be
ascribed to him the factum of residence is wanting in his case; then he was not a citizen of
India because that status was given by the Constitution that came into force in January, 1950.
It is impossible to read a man's mind but it is even more than impossible to say how the
minds of people worked during the great upheaval of 1947.
The result is that the appeal fails and is dismissed.
Appeal dismissed.

REASON FOR THE JUDGMENT

Ram Narain (respondent) remained in Multan District of the West Punjab, where he and his
ancestors had lived till his migration to India. In our opinion, none of these circumstances
conclusively indicate an intention in Ram Narain of permanently removing himself from
Pakistan and taking up residence in India. It has to be remembered that in October or
November, 1947, men's minds were in a state of flux. Minds of people affected by this
partition and who were living in those parts were completely unhinged and unbalanced and
there was hardly any occasion to form intentions requisite for acquiring domicile in one place
or another. People vacillated and altered their programmes from day to day as events
happened. They went backward and forward; families were sent from one place to another for

4|Page
 CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA Vs. RAM NARAIN (AIR1955SC 36)

the sake of safety. They overnight became refugees, living in camps in Pakistan or in India.
Ram Narain may well have sent his family to India for safety. Therefore everyone has
domicile of origin by his birth. This prevails until a new domicile has been acquired.

CONCLUSION/CRITIQUE

Domicile is the place in which a man has voluntarily fixed the habitation of himself and
family, not for a mere special or temporary purpose, but with the present intention of making
a permanent home, until some unexpected event shall occur to induce him to adopt some
other permanent home. Domicile is the most significant connecting factor in Conflict of
Laws.

My criticism on the judgment is that respondent committed a crime in Pakistan and left the
country. After committed the crime he still not be prosecuted. Therefore it leads to
miscarriage of justice.

5|Page