Judgment Imam, J. 1. The petitioners have been committed to the Court of Session to stand their trial under Sec.395. Penal Code. The commitment order states that the accused persons are nationals of India and the place of occurrence is within the territory of Nepal and the proceeding has started after the sanction (certificate) under Sec.188, Criminal P. C. was given. On this finding there can be no question that the occurrence took place within the territory of Nepal, a sovereign and independent State, and that the offence was committed outside the territories of India. 2. The certificate which the Magistrate speaks about is one issued by the Ambassador of India at the Court of Nepal. If this certificate fulfilled the requirements of Sec.188, of the Criminal P. C. then it would be competent for the Courts in India to hold the enquiry and the trial into the offence committed outside India. Sec.188 of the Code is as follows: "188. When an offence is committed by- (a) any citizen of India in any place without and beyond India; or (b) any person on any ship or aircraft registered in India, wherever it may be, he may be dealt with in respect of such offence as if it had been committed at any place within India at which he may be found; Provided that notwithstanding anything in any of the preceding sections of this Chapter no charge as to any such offence shall be inquired into in India unless the Political Agent, if there is one, for the territory in which the offence is alleged to have been committed, certifies that, in his opinion, the charge ought to be inquired into in India; and where there is no Political Agent, the sanction of the State Government shall be required. Provided, also, that any proceedings taken against any person under this section which would be a bar to subsequent proceedings against such person for the same offence if such offence had been committed in India shall be a bar to further proceedings against him under the Indian Extradition Act, 1903, in respect of the same offence in any territory beyond the limits of India." It will be noticed from the first proviso that the certificate to be given is by the Political Agent for the territory in which the offence is said to have been committed and that if in that territory there is no Political Agent then the sanction of the State Government shall be required, that is to say, in the territory beyond India where there is a Political Agent a certificate from him is necessary under the section, and where there is no Political Agent the sanction, not the certificate, of the State Government is required. In the present case there is no sanction of the State Government, and so far as the certificate is concerned it has been granted by the Ambassador of India at the Court of Nepal and not by a Political Agent. The question is as to whether the Ambassador of India at Nepal can be deemed to be a Political Agent under Section 188, Cr. P. C. In --Bansi Ahir V/s. The King, Cri. Revn. No. 735 of 1949 D/- 13-7-1949 (Pat) (A), Meredith J. of this Court had to consider this question, and I may quote the following passage from his judgment: "A Political Agent is appointed, or used to be appointed, in regard to the territories of the Indian Princes--the native States, as they were called--and in my opinion, the provision regarding the Political Agent has got no application to a wholly independent State such as Nepal. That is foreign territory. There may be an Ambassador there, but an Ambassador is quite different from a Political Agent, and his functions are different. The distinction is all the more clear since August 1947, and, in my opinion, what was necessary in the present case was the sanction of the Local Government." Meredith J. then referred to certain cases: --Jeramdas Vishendas V/s. Emperor, AIR 1934 Sind 96 (B); -- Mohammad Qasim Khan V/s. Emperor AIR 1934 Lah 827 CO and -- Sasadhar V/s. Charles Tegart, AIR 1932 Cal 229 (D). In the Sind case it was a case of a Vice-Consul and in -- Mohammad Qasims case (C), it was the case of the Ambassador of the United Kingdom at Kabul. In the said case it was definitely held that the Ambassador of the United Kingdom at Kabul was not a Political Agent. I can see no distinction between the sovereignty and independence of Nepal and that of Afghanistan, If the reasoning in Lahore case is correct that the Ambassador of the United Kingdom at Kabul is not a Political Agent, then the Ambassador for India in Nepal cannot be regarded as a Political Agent either. In the Calcutta case it was held that if the offence was committed in a place other than a Native State, i.e. in a foreign territory, the sanction of the Local Government is necessary. It seems to me, therefore, on the wording of the section itself and such decisions as are available to me that the certificate granted by the Ambassador of India in Nepal does not give jurisdiction to the Courts in India to hold the enquiry and to. pass the order of commitment as has been done in this case. There is no certificate of a Political Agent and certainly there is no sanction by the State Government. In my opinion, therefore, the enquiry before the committing Magistrate was without jurisdiction and the order of commitment must be quashed. 3. The application is accordingly allowed and the order of commitment is quashed. The prosecution would do well to see that the provisions of Section 188, Criminal P. C., are fully complied with, before they attempt to have an enquiry or trial by a Court in India.