The consideration should purely be on a case-to-case basis and after determining the effect of the foreign court's order. It will not be binding on the courts/authorities.
A full bench of the Bombay High Court has held that judicial and quasi judicial authorities — courts, authorities/commissions — in India can consider a conviction/acquittal order passed by a foreign court for offence committed outside India, while deciding on pending proceedings here.
However, the consideration should purely be on a case-to-case basis and after determining the effect of the foreign court's order. It will not be binding on the courts/authorities.
"We are of the considered view that no hard and fast rule can be laid for that purpose. It will have to take a call on the facts and circumstances of each case and make a decision as to what is the effect of such an order," it said.
A bench of Justices BR Gavai, KR Shriram and BP Colabawala gave the order after a question was referred to the full bench to decide, while hearing an appeal filed by one Prabodh Mehta, who was removed as Trustee from the Lilavati Kirtilal Mehta Medical Trust, which runs the Lilavati hospital in Bandra.
The Charity Commissioner and the civil court, while upholding his removal, took into consideration the conviction order passed by a court in Belgium.
Mehta, countered the order by saying he was pardoned later by the court. Moreover, a judgment of the foreign court, cannot be even looked into by Indian courts. The bench, after going through various judgments of the Supreme Court, and other courts held "The correct position of law is that an Indian court or any other quasi-judicial authority in India has the power to take cognisance of an Indian's conviction by a foreign court while exercising its own judicial powers."
The court clarified that as per the Constitution of India, the Criminal Procedure Code and the Indian Penal Code, an Indian who has committed an offence outside India cannot be re-tried in India for the same offence as it would amount to double jeopardy. However, if the argument — of not looking into the judgment of the foreign court — is accepted, it may deprive an Indian citizen of the fundamental right available to him under Article 20 (2) of the Constitution and to any person under Section 300 of the Criminal Procedure Code.
ORDER OUTSIDE BORDER
- Lilavati Hospital trust removed Prabodh Mehta, a decision which was upheld by authorities citing his conviction in Belgium
- Mehta said that Indian courts can’t use a foreign court ruling, but the HC rejected his contention
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
 "Bombay High Court")
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
)
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
)
)
)
)
)
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}