Can an accused who diverted merchandise abroad challenge the state sanction on the ground that he was not an Indian citizen at the material time?

Sources
Source Judgment: Read judgment
Case Analysis: Read case analysis

Suppose a person who had been operating a small textile trading business in a border town that became part of a neighboring country after independence is later accused of diverting valuable merchandise to that foreign jurisdiction and of falsifying documents to conceal the loss, with the alleged misconduct occurring before the individual ever established permanent residence in India.

The investigating agency files a First Information Report (FIR) in a district where the accused now lives, charging the accused under provisions that punish theft of movable property and fraudulent concealment of assets. The prosecution seeks to proceed with the trial, relying on a sanction that was issued by the state government under the criminal procedure code, which permits prosecution of a citizen for offences committed abroad.

At the initial hearing, the accused raises a preliminary objection, contending that at the time of the alleged diversion he was not an Indian citizen because his domicile remained in the foreign territory. The magistrate, however, dismisses the objection and allows the trial to continue, leading the accused to apply to the Sessions Court for relief under the provisions that allow setting aside an order of commitment to trial.

The Sessions Court rejects the application, holding that the sanction was valid and that the trial may proceed. The accused then approaches the Punjab and Haryana High Court, filing a revision petition challenging the lower courts’ jurisdiction on the ground that the accused was not a citizen of India at the material time and therefore the state government lacked authority to grant sanction for prosecution.

The revision petition argues that the statutory test for citizenship requires both a settled residence and an intention to remain permanently in India at the moment of the offence. It points out that the accused only migrated after the alleged diversion, that his family was still residing across the border, and that he continued to conduct business in the foreign jurisdiction for several months thereafter.

In support of the petition, the accused’s counsel submits evidence of the accused’s continued residence abroad, bank statements showing transactions in the foreign currency, and affidavits from former business partners confirming that the accused’s intention to relocate permanently materialised only after the alleged offence. The petition also highlights that the sanction was granted months after the offence, when the accused had already obtained a temporary permit to stay in India, but had not yet acquired domicile.

A lawyer in Punjab and Haryana High Court prepares the revision petition, emphasizing that the jurisdictional defect is fatal and that any trial conducted without proper jurisdiction must be set aside. The petition seeks a declaration that the sanction was ultra vires and that the proceedings before the magistrate and the Sessions Court be quashed.

The High Court, upon examining the statutory scheme, notes that the provisions allowing prosecution of a citizen for offences committed abroad are conditioned on the accused being a citizen at the time of the act. It observes that the domicile test cannot be satisfied retrospectively and that the state government’s power to sanction is circumscribed by the same requirement.

Consequently, the court finds that the accused’s domicile remained in the foreign territory at the relevant time, rendering the sanction invalid. The court therefore holds that the lower courts lacked jurisdiction to entertain the trial and that the proceedings must be set aside.

The judgment orders the quashing of the FIR and directs the investigating agency to close the case, noting that any further attempt to prosecute would be barred by the lack of jurisdiction. It also directs that the accused be released from any custodial detention that may have resulted from the earlier proceedings.

In drafting the judgment, the bench refers to earlier authorities that have consistently held that citizenship for the purpose of extraterritorial jurisdiction must exist at the time of the offence, and that subsequent acquisition of domicile cannot retroactively confer jurisdiction.

Legal practitioners reviewing the case often cite it as a precedent for filing a revision petition before the Punjab and Haryana High Court when faced with a similar jurisdictional challenge. A lawyer in Chandigarh High Court may advise clients that the appropriate remedy is not a simple bail application but a direct challenge to the sanction through a revision petition.

Lawyers in Chandigarh High Court and lawyers in Punjab and Haryana High Court alike stress the importance of raising the jurisdictional objection at the earliest stage, because failure to do so can result in the trial proceeding despite the defect, thereby complicating later relief.

Thus, the procedural solution to the legal problem—lack of jurisdiction due to the accused not being an Indian citizen at the time of the alleged offence—lies in filing a revision petition before the Punjab and Haryana High Court, seeking quashing of the sanction and the consequent criminal proceedings.

Question: Does the absence of Indian citizenship at the time of the alleged diversion make the state‑issued sanction ultra vires and consequently deprive the magistrate and Sessions Court of jurisdiction to try the accused?

Answer: The factual matrix shows that the accused operated a textile business in a border town that, after independence, became part of a foreign sovereign. The alleged diversion of merchandise and falsification of documents occurred while the accused’s domicile and animus of permanent residence remained in that foreign jurisdiction. The investigating agency filed an FIR in the district where the accused now resides, and the state government later issued a sanction permitting prosecution of a “citizen” for offences committed abroad. The legal problem therefore hinges on the statutory requirement that jurisdiction may be exercised only when the accused is a citizen of India at the material time. The doctrine of domicile, comprising a settled residence and a present intention to remain permanently, must be satisfied at the moment of the offence. Because the accused’s residence, bank records, and partner affidavits demonstrate continued ties to the foreign territory, the domicile test is not met. Consequently, the sanction was issued beyond the statutory authority of the state government; it is ultra vires. Procedurally, an ultra vires sanction defeats the foundation of the trial, rendering any order of commitment to trial void. The magistrate’s dismissal of the preliminary objection and the Sessions Court’s refusal to set aside the order are therefore reversible. Practically, the accused benefits from a clear jurisdictional defect that bars the trial, while the prosecution loses the power to proceed. The High Court’s revision petition, prepared by a lawyer in Chandigarh High Court, correctly framed the defect as fatal, seeking a declaration that the sanction was invalid and that the proceedings must be quashed. If the High Court accepts this reasoning, the lower courts’ jurisdiction evaporates, and the accused is entitled to release and discharge of all pending charges.

Question: What legal effect does the High Court’s order quashing the FIR have on the investigating agency and on any custodial detention that may have resulted from the earlier proceedings?

Answer: The High Court’s judgment declares the FIR void, the sanction ultra vires, and the entire chain of proceedings as lacking jurisdiction. Under criminal procedure, a quashing order operates retrospectively, erasing the legal basis for the investigation, the filing of charges, and any subsequent detention. The investigating agency must therefore close the case file, return any seized property, and cease all investigative activity. Any custodial detention that arose from the magistrate’s commitment order is rendered unlawful; the accused must be released immediately, and any bail or remand orders become null. The practical implication for the agency is the obligation to file a compliance report indicating closure of the case, and to ensure that no further action, such as a fresh FIR on the same facts, is initiated, because the jurisdictional defect cannot be cured by a subsequent sanction. For the accused, the quashing order provides a definitive legal shield against future prosecution on the same factual allegations, barring the prosecution from invoking alternative charges that are essentially the same conduct. The High Court’s decision also has a collateral effect on any pending appeals or revisions in lower courts; those proceedings are terminated ab initio. A lawyer in Chandigarh High Court would advise the accused to obtain a certified copy of the judgment and to file a petition for release of any remaining bail bond, as well as to seek restitution for any losses incurred during detention. The prosecution, aware of the High Court’s reasoning, may consider filing a review petition, but such a step would be unlikely to succeed because the jurisdictional defect is grounded in the fundamental requirement of citizenship at the time of the offence, a matter of fact that cannot be altered by procedural maneuvering.

Question: Can the prosecution lawfully challenge the High Court’s quashing order by filing an appeal to the Supreme Court, and on what legal grounds would such an appeal be viable?

Answer: An appeal to the Supreme Court is permissible only when the High Court’s decision involves a substantial question of law of public importance or a grave miscarriage of justice. In this case, the High Court’s reasoning rests on the interpretation of the citizenship requirement for extraterritorial jurisdiction and the validity of a state sanction issued without jurisdiction. The prosecution could argue that the High Court erred in construing the domicile test, perhaps contending that the animus of permanent residence had crystallised before the offence, thereby rendering the accused a citizen at the relevant time. However, the factual record, including bank statements and partner affidavits, strongly supports the accused’s continued residence abroad. Moreover, the Supreme Court has previously affirmed that citizenship must exist at the time of the offence and cannot be back‑dated. The prosecution’s appeal would therefore need to demonstrate a clear departure from established precedent or a misapprehension of the statutory scheme governing extraterritorial jurisdiction. Procedurally, the appeal would be filed under the appropriate constitutional provision for a revision or special leave, and the petition would have to articulate why the High Court’s decision threatens the uniform application of the law across the nation. Practically, even if the Supreme Court entertains the appeal, the burden of proof lies heavily on the prosecution to overturn the factual findings on domicile, which are well‑documented. A lawyer in Chandigarh High Court, advising the prosecution, would caution that the chances of success are slim, and that pursuing an appeal could further delay closure for the accused and waste judicial resources. If the Supreme Court ultimately upholds the High Court, the quashing order becomes final, cementing the jurisdictional bar and precluding any future prosecution on the same facts.

Question: How does the doctrine of domicile apply to individuals who migrate after the alleged offence, and what evidentiary burden does the accused bear to prove lack of Indian citizenship at the material time?

Answer: The doctrine of domicile requires two elements: a factual residence (the factum) and a present intention to remain permanently (the animus). Both must be satisfied at the moment the offence is alleged to have occurred. When an individual migrates after the alleged conduct, the domicile analysis looks retrospectively to the state of affairs at that earlier date. In the present case, the accused continued to operate his textile business in the foreign jurisdiction, maintained bank accounts in foreign currency, and received affidavits from former partners confirming his intention to remain abroad for several months after the alleged diversion. These facts establish that the factum of residence and the animus of permanent settlement were still anchored in the foreign territory at the material time. The evidentiary burden rests on the accused to demonstrate, on a balance of probabilities, that he was not a citizen of India when the offence took place. This burden is lighter than the prosecution’s burden of proving guilt beyond reasonable doubt, but it is nonetheless substantive. The accused must produce documentary evidence—such as residence certificates, tax filings, bank statements, and testimonies from contemporaries—showing that his domicile remained abroad. In the revision petition, the accused’s counsel, a lawyer in Chandigarh High Court, presented bank statements, foreign‑currency transactions, and affidavits, thereby satisfying the burden. The prosecution, on the other hand, bears the burden of disproving these assertions and establishing that the accused had already acquired domicile in India at the relevant time. Courts have consistently held that the animus cannot be inferred from post‑offence actions; it must be contemporaneous. Consequently, the doctrine of domicile operates as a decisive tool to bar jurisdiction when the accused’s domicile was abroad, and the evidentiary burden on the accused, once met, compels the prosecution to abandon the case or risk a quashing order.

Question: If the accused seeks a writ of habeas corpus after release, what relief can a lawyer in Chandigarh High Court obtain, and how does that relief interact with the High Court’s earlier quashing order?

Answer: A writ of habeas corpus is a remedy to secure release from unlawful detention. In the present scenario, the accused has already been released following the High Court’s quashing order, but the writ may be employed to obtain a formal declaration that any residual custodial constraints—such as a pending bail bond, surveillance orders, or restrictions on movement—are void. A lawyer in Chandigarh High Court would file the writ petition, citing the earlier judgment that declared the FIR void and the proceedings ultra vires. The court, in exercising its jurisdiction, would likely issue a direction confirming that the accused is no longer in any form of legal custody and that all ancillary orders stemming from the now‑invalid FIR are set aside. This declaratory relief reinforces the effect of the quashing order, ensuring that no administrative or police action can be justified on the basis of the dismissed case. Practically, the writ would compel the police to withdraw any remaining case files, delete entries from criminal databases, and cease any surveillance. It also provides the accused with a clear legal shield against future attempts to re‑arrest him on the same factual basis, as the writ would establish a precedent that the jurisdictional defect is fatal. Moreover, the writ can be used to claim compensation for unlawful detention, though that would require a separate civil claim. The interaction between the habeas corpus relief and the quashing order is synergistic: the former enforces the latter, converting the judicial declaration into an operative release from all forms of restraint. Thus, the accused gains both immediate freedom and a durable protective order, while the investigating agency is compelled to close the file permanently.

Question: What is the basis for filing a revision petition before the Punjab and Haryana High Court in the present case, and how does the jurisdictional defect create a viable remedy?

Answer: The factual matrix shows that the accused was operating a textile business in a border town that later fell under a foreign jurisdiction, and the alleged diversion of merchandise occurred before the accused ever acquired Indian domicile. The investigating agency nonetheless lodged an FIR in the district where the accused now resides and obtained a sanction from the state government to prosecute under the extraterritorial provision that requires the accused to be a citizen of India at the material time. The magistrate dismissed the preliminary objection and allowed the trial to proceed, and the Sessions Court affirmed that decision. At this juncture, the only avenue to challenge the substantive jurisdiction lies in a revision petition before the Punjab and Haryana High Court because the High Court possesses supervisory jurisdiction over orders of inferior courts when a grave error of law is alleged. The jurisdictional defect – the lack of Indian citizenship at the time of the alleged offence – is fatal; it strikes at the very foundation of the statutory power to sanction prosecution. A High Court, exercising its power of revision, can examine whether the lower courts erred in law by ignoring the statutory requirement that citizenship must exist at the time of the act. The remedy is not a mere appeal on factual grounds but a direct attack on the legality of the sanction and, consequently, on the jurisdiction of the magistrate and Sessions Court. By filing the revision, the accused seeks a declaration that the sanction was ultra vires and that the proceedings must be set aside. This approach is preferred over a regular appeal because the appellate route would still be confined to the trial record, whereas a revision allows the High Court to consider the statutory scheme afresh. A lawyer in Punjab and Haryana High Court would therefore frame the petition to highlight the statutory citizenship test, the domicile evidence, and the timing of the sanction, arguing that the lower courts failed to apply the correct legal test, rendering the trial void ab initio. The High Court’s power to quash the FIR and direct release from custody flows directly from this jurisdictional defect, making the revision the most appropriate procedural weapon.

Question: Why might the accused consider engaging a lawyer in Chandigarh High Court despite the primary petition being filed in the Punjab and Haryana High Court?

Answer: Although the revision petition is lodged before the Punjab and Haryana High Court, the accused’s immediate concerns often revolve around custodial status, bail applications, and potential interim orders that may be entertained by the district court or the Sessions Court situated in Chandigarh. A lawyer in Chandigarh High Court is strategically positioned to address these parallel proceedings, ensuring that the accused does not remain detained while the revision is pending. The High Court’s jurisdiction is primarily supervisory and may take time to render a decision; during this interval, the accused may be subject to further procedural steps such as a charge-sheet filing, a summons for further evidence, or a request for further custody. Engaging a lawyer in Chandigarh High Court enables the accused to file a bail application, seek a stay on the trial proceedings, or request an interim release on the ground that the High Court is likely to quash the sanction. Moreover, the lawyer can coordinate with counsel appearing before the Punjab and Haryana High Court to synchronize arguments, ensuring that the factual and legal narrative presented in the revision aligns with any interim relief sought in Chandigarh. This dual representation also helps in managing procedural deadlines, such as responding to notices from the investigating agency, and in preserving the accused’s right to liberty while the jurisdictional issue is being examined. The presence of a lawyer in Chandigarh High Court also facilitates direct interaction with the local court registry, which can be crucial for filing urgent applications, obtaining certified copies of orders, and ensuring that any adverse orders from the lower courts are promptly challenged. In essence, while the substantive remedy lies in the revision before the Punjab and Haryana High Court, the practical reality of criminal procedure demands that the accused secure representation in Chandigarh High Court to safeguard personal liberty, manage interim procedural hurdles, and maintain a cohesive litigation strategy across both forums.

Question: How does the procedural route from the magistrate’s order to the High Court revision ensure that a factual defence alone is insufficient to overturn the trial?

Answer: The magistrate’s order to proceed with trial was based on a preliminary objection that the accused was not an Indian citizen at the time of the alleged diversion. The magistrate dismissed this objection, focusing primarily on the evidentiary record rather than the statutory requirement of citizenship. When the accused later approached the Sessions Court for relief, the court again confined its analysis to procedural compliance, accepting the sanction as valid. At this stage, a factual defence—such as denying the alleged diversion or challenging the authenticity of documents—does not address the core jurisdictional flaw. The procedural route mandates that the accused first establish that the statutory precondition for prosecution—citizenship at the material time—was not satisfied. This is a question of law, not fact, and therefore cannot be resolved by merely presenting evidence of innocence or lack of participation. By filing a revision petition before the Punjab and Haryana High Court, the accused elevates the matter to a forum that can scrutinize the legal validity of the sanction itself. The High Court’s supervisory jurisdiction allows it to examine whether the lower courts erred in law by ignoring the citizenship test, irrespective of the factual matrix of the alleged theft. Consequently, the remedy targets the jurisdictional defect, which, if found fatal, nullifies the entire trial process, rendering any factual defence moot. A lawyer in Chandigarh High Court would advise the accused that pursuing a factual defence at the trial stage would be a futile exercise if the jurisdictional defect remains unchallenged, because the trial would continue on an invalid foundation. The High Court’s ability to quash the FIR and direct release from custody underscores that the procedural route is designed to address legal infirmities first; only after the jurisdictional hurdle is cleared can factual issues be meaningfully contested. Thus, the procedural ladder from magistrate to High Court ensures that the accused must first secure a declaration of lack of jurisdiction before any factual defence can have any operative effect.

Question: What practical steps should the accused take, including documentation and interim relief, when pursuing the High Court remedy, and how do lawyers in Punjab and Haryana High Court typically advise on bail or custody issues during the revision?

Answer: The accused should begin by assembling a comprehensive documentary record that demonstrates the continuity of residence abroad at the time of the alleged offence. This includes bank statements in foreign currency, lease agreements, affidavits from former business partners, and any travel documents showing the date of migration. These documents form the evidentiary backbone of the jurisdictional claim and must be annexed to the revision petition. Simultaneously, the accused should file an application for interim bail or release from custody in the district court where he is detained, invoking the pending revision and the likelihood of quashing the sanction. Lawyers in Punjab and Haryana High Court commonly advise that the bail application reference the High Court’s jurisdiction to examine the legality of the sanction, thereby persuading the lower court to grant temporary liberty pending the final decision. The counsel will also seek a stay on any further proceedings, such as the filing of a charge-sheet or the issuance of a summons, arguing that proceeding would be premature and potentially infringe on the accused’s right to liberty. It is prudent to engage a lawyer in Chandigarh High Court to file the bail application, ensuring that the local court is aware of the parallel revision and can coordinate its orders accordingly. The accused should also request certified copies of the magistrate’s order and the Sessions Court’s dismissal, as these will be essential for the High Court’s review. Once the revision is filed, the accused must monitor the docket for any notice of hearing and be prepared to present oral arguments focusing on the statutory citizenship test, the timing of the sanction, and the lack of domicile at the material time. Throughout this process, lawyers in Punjab and Haryana High Court will emphasize that the primary relief sought is a declaration of ultra vires sanction and quashing of the FIR, but they will also prepare a parallel strategy to secure bail or release, thereby protecting the accused’s liberty while the High Court deliberates. This dual approach ensures that the accused is not left in custody unnecessarily and that the jurisdictional challenge proceeds unimpeded.

Question: What are the key procedural defects in the sanction and how should a lawyer in Punjab and Haryana High Court evaluate them before seeking quashing?

Answer: The factual matrix shows that the sanction was issued months after the alleged diversion, at a time when the accused had only a temporary permit to stay in India and had not yet acquired domicile. The statutory scheme governing extraterritorial prosecution requires that the sanction be granted only when the accused is a citizen of India at the material time of the offence. The procedural defect therefore lies in the failure of the state government to establish that the accused satisfied the citizenship test when the sanction was issued. A lawyer in Punjab and Haryana High Court must begin by obtaining the original sanction order, the accompanying memorandum, and any correspondence between the investigating agency and the state authority. These documents will reveal the factual basis, the date of issuance, and the rationale invoked by the government. The counsel should also request the domicile records, passport entries, and immigration clearances to demonstrate that the accused’s legal status remained foreign at the relevant date. The next step is to examine the magistrate’s order allowing the trial to proceed, focusing on whether the preliminary objection raised by the accused was recorded, considered, and rejected on a reasoned basis. If the objection was dismissed without a proper hearing, this adds a procedural infirmity that can be raised as a violation of the principle of fair trial. The lawyer must then prepare a detailed affidavit outlining the timeline of residence, the intention to relocate, and the lack of settled settlement in India before the offence. By juxtaposing this timeline with the date of the sanction, the counsel can argue that the sanction is ultra vires and that any proceeding based on it is void. The practical implication is that a successful quashing will not only release the accused from further prosecution but also compel the investigating agency to close the FIR, thereby eliminating the risk of future re‑initiation of the case. The High Court will be asked to declare the sanction invalid, set aside the order of commitment, and direct the release of the accused from custody.

Question: How does the evidence of continued foreign residence and intent affect the jurisdictional argument and what documents should be scrutinized by lawyers in Chandigarh High Court?

Answer: The evidence that the accused maintained a residence abroad, conducted transactions in foreign currency, and received affidavits confirming his intention to remain overseas for several months after the alleged diversion is pivotal to the jurisdictional defence. The statutory test for citizenship hinges on both a settled residence and the animus to remain permanently, and the factual record must demonstrate that these elements were absent at the material time. Lawyers in Chandigarh High Court should therefore focus on the bank statements showing foreign currency deposits, the passport stamps indicating travel dates, and the affidavits of former business partners that describe the accused’s ongoing commercial activities in the neighboring country. Additionally, the counsel must obtain the lease agreements, utility bills, and tax filings from the foreign jurisdiction to establish a factual nexus to that territory. The High Court will expect a chronological chart that aligns the dates of these documents with the date of the alleged offence and the date of the sanction. If the chart shows that the accused’s domicile of origin remained abroad when the offence occurred, the jurisdictional link collapses. The prosecution’s reliance on the later acquisition of a temporary permit to stay in India becomes irrelevant because the statutory requirement is not satisfied retrospectively. The practical implication for the accused is that the High Court, upon seeing a coherent documentary trail, is likely to find the sanction ultra vires and to quash the proceedings. For the complainant, the loss of a trial means that any civil recovery must be pursued in the foreign jurisdiction, if at all. The investigating agency will be compelled to file a closure report, and the prosecution will lose the ability to re‑file the case on the same factual basis. The strategic focus on documentary evidence therefore strengthens the jurisdictional challenge and supports the request for a declaration of nullity.

Question: What are the risks of continued custody for the accused and what strategic bail or release arguments can be raised in the High Court?

Answer: Continued detention of the accused creates several substantive and procedural risks. First, prolonged custody without a valid jurisdictional basis infringes the right to liberty and may be viewed as an abuse of process. Second, the accused may suffer personal hardship, loss of employment, and damage to reputation, which can affect the fairness of any future trial if the jurisdictional defect is later remedied. A lawyer in Chandigarh High Court can argue that the sanction is void ab initio, rendering the entire criminal proceeding illegal; consequently, any order of commitment is likewise illegal. The counsel should file a petition for immediate bail on the ground that the accused is entitled to liberty pending determination of the jurisdictional issue, emphasizing that the alleged offence is not cognizable by Indian courts. The argument should be supported by the fact that the accused has no prior criminal record, is willing to cooperate with any legitimate investigation, and that the alleged conduct occurred outside India, thereby negating the need for custodial measures. The petition should also cite the principle that bail is the rule and imprisonment the exception, especially where the prosecution’s case rests on a procedural defect. The practical implication of a successful bail application is that the accused can resume his professional activities, secure his family’s welfare, and avoid the stigma of incarceration. Moreover, release from custody reduces the pressure on the High Court to issue a hurried decision, allowing a more thorough consideration of the jurisdictional arguments. If bail is denied, the counsel can move for a writ of habeas corpus, contending that the detention is unlawful because the underlying sanction is ultra vires. The High Court, upon recognizing the lack of jurisdiction, is likely to order immediate release and direct the investigating agency to file a closure report, thereby eliminating any further custodial risk.

Question: How should the prosecution’s reliance on extraterritorial jurisdiction be challenged, and what relief can be pursued through a revision petition?

Answer: The prosecution’s case rests on the premise that the accused, as a citizen of India, can be tried for an offence committed abroad under the extraterritorial jurisdiction provision. To dismantle this premise, the defence must demonstrate that the citizenship requirement was not satisfied at the time of the alleged diversion. Lawyers in Punjab and Haryana High Court should therefore focus on the statutory language that requires citizenship at the material time, and on the factual evidence showing that the accused’s domicile remained abroad. The revision petition must set out a clear chronology of residence, intention, and legal status, supported by documentary proof such as foreign bank statements, passport entries, and affidavits from former partners. The petition should also highlight the procedural irregularity that the preliminary objection on jurisdiction was not properly heard before the magistrate proceeded, thereby violating the principle of fair trial. The relief sought includes a declaration that the sanction was ultra vires, quashing of the FIR, and an order directing the investigating agency to close the case. Additionally, the petition may request that the accused be released from any custodial detention and that any bail bond be set aside. The practical implication of obtaining such relief is that the criminal proceedings are terminated, the accused regains his freedom, and the state is barred from re‑initiating prosecution on the same facts. For the prosecution, the loss of jurisdiction means that any attempt to revive the case would require a fresh sanction based on a different legal basis, which is unlikely given the factual matrix. The revision petition, therefore, serves as the decisive procedural weapon to extinguish the criminal liability and to protect the accused from further legal harassment.