Explanation:

This question relates to the territorial jurisdiction of Indian courts, specifically concerning offenses committed within India by individuals, regardless of their nationality or residence. The Indian Penal Code (IPC) and the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) govern this aspect. **Analysis of Options:** * **Option (1) Gopal Vinayak Godse V. State, AIR 1961 SC 600:** This case primarily dealt with the issue of the legality of the detention of Nathuram Godse (brother of Gopal Vinayak Godse) and the interpretation of Article 20(1) of the Constitution regarding ex post facto laws. It is not directly related to the territorial jurisdiction over foreigners committing crimes in India. Therefore, this option is incorrect. * **Option (2) Mobarik Ali Ahmed V. State of Bombay, AIR 1957 SC 857:** This is the correct answer. This landmark Supreme Court case dealt with the issue of jurisdiction over a foreigner who was not physically present in India but committed offenses (cheating and forgery) that had their effect and consequences in India. The Court held that a foreigner who commits an offense within India, even if he is not physically present at the time of the commission of the offense but causes an act to be done in India, is amenable to the jurisdiction of Indian courts. The principle established is that the place where the crime is committed determines the jurisdiction, irrespective of the nationality or residence of the offender. Section 2 of the Indian Penal Code states that "Every person shall be liable to punishment under this Code for every act or omission contrary to the provisions thereof, of which he shall be guilty within India." This principle applies universally. The Mobarik Ali Ahmed case reinforced this by clarifying that even if the perpetrator is a foreigner residing abroad, if the *offence is committed within India* (or has a substantial nexus with India), Indian courts have jurisdiction. The question specifically asks about an offence committed *in India*, making this case highly relevant for establishing jurisdiction over any perpetrator, whether Indian or foreign, residing in India or abroad, for crimes committed within Indian territory. * **Option (3) Phool Kumari V. Tihar Central Jail, AIR 2012 SC 3198:** This case is not a widely cited landmark judgment concerning territorial jurisdiction under the IPC. It likely pertains to specific procedural or prison-related matters. Therefore, this option is incorrect. * **Option (4) Bishambher Bhagat V. State, AIR 1971 SC 2381:** This case is also not a prominent authority on the specific issue of territorial jurisdiction over foreigners for crimes committed in India. It might relate to other aspects of criminal law or procedure. Therefore, this option is incorrect. The Mobarik Ali Ahmed case is a cornerstone for understanding the territorial application of the IPC and the jurisdiction of Indian courts over all persons, regardless of their nationality, for offenses committed within the geographical boundaries of India, or having a significant impact within India.