Site navigation

In Mobarik Ali Ahmed v State of Bombay (1957), did the Supreme Court treat a foreign national’s…

The Court's answer was "No; such physical absence alone was not a bar." Territorial liability for an offence committed within India did not generally depend on physical…

Choose your answer

In Mobarik Ali Ahmed v State of Bombay (1957), did the Supreme Court treat a foreign national’s physical absence from India at the time as a general bar to IPC liability for an offence committed within India?

Select one answer
Answer and explanation

Correct answer A

The Court's answer was "No; such physical absence alone was not a bar." Territorial liability for an offence committed within India did not generally depend on physical presence, so "Yes; nationality and physical absence always defeated liability.", "Yes; only Indian citizens could commit an offence within India." and "Yes; liability required the accused to owe temporary allegiance through physical entry." are wrong.

Practice for these exams

Related exam syllabi

Related questions in this topic