Judgement

IMAM J.; The appellant was convicted under R. 6 (a) of the Indian Passport Rules, 1950, hereinafter referred to as the Rules, made under S. 3 of the Indian Passport Act, (34 of 1920) hereinafter referred to as the Act, and was sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 100. The High Court in exercising its revisional jurisdiction upheld the conviction but reduced the sentence to a fine of Rs. 25. It granted a certificate to the appellant that the case was a fit one for appeal to this Court.

2. It is beyond dispute now that the appellant is a citizen of India. Admittedly he entered the territories of India without a passport. The sole question for determination is whether his act in so entering the territories of India amounted to an offence punishable under Rule 6 (a) of the Rules.

3. The Act was passed in 1920 and has been the subject of amendment and modification thereafter. Its preamble states "whereas it is expedient to take power to require passports of persons entering India, it is hereby enacted as follows." "Passport" has been defined as a passport for the time being in force issued or renewed by the prescribed authority and satisfying the conditions prescribed relating to the class of passports to which it belongs. Section 3 states:

(1) The Central Government may make rules requiring that persons entering India shall be in possession of passports, and for all matters ancillary or incidental to that purpose.

(2) Without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing power such rules may-

(a) prohibit the entry into India or any part thereof of any person who has not in his possession a passport issued to him;

(b) prescribe the authorities by whom passports must have been issued or renewed, and the conditions with which they must comply for the purposes of this Act; and

(c) provide for the exemption, either absolutely or on any condition, of any person or class of persons from any provision of such rules.

3. Rules made under this section may provide that any contravention thereof or of any order issued under the authority of any such rule shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three months, or with fine or with both.

4. All rules made under this section shall be published in the Official Gazette, and shall thereupon have effect as if enacted in this Act.

Rule 3 of the Rules states:

"Save as provided in R. 4, no person, proceeding from any place outside India, shall enter, or attempt to enter, India by water, land or air unless he is in possession of a valid passport conforming to the conditions prescribed in rule 5."

Rule 4 specifies the persons who shall be exempted from the provisions of R. 3. Clause (b) of R. 4 exempts members of the Naval, Military or Air Forces of India on duty, and members of the family of any such person when accompanying such person to India on a Government transport. Clause (c) exempts persons domiciled in India proceeding from any of the French establishments in India (other than Pondicherry in Karaikal) or from any of the Portuguese establishments in India or Pakistan, Clause (f) exempts persons domiciled in India entering India by land or by air over the Nepalese or Tibetan frontier. Clause (h) exempts bona fide Mahomedan pilgrims returning from Jeddah or Basra and cl. (i) exempts other persons or classes of persons specified by general or special orders of the Central Government.

4. The date of the appellants entry into India is not known. He was certainly arrested on 26-2-1955, and it is his case that he entered India sometime after the decision of this Court in the case of Ebrahim Vazir Mavat v. State of Bombay, 1954 SCR 933: The judgment of this Court in that case was delivered on 15-2-1954. On that basis the appellant entered India sometime after 15-2-1954 and before 26-2-1955. It is unnecessary to specify in great detail the movements of the appellant between 19-11-1948, when he went to Karachi for the first time, and his arrest on 26-2-1955, as his movements during this p