SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
27th November 1962
S.J. IMAM, K. SUBBA RAO, N. RAJAGOPALA AYYANGAR AND J.R. MUDHOLKAR, JJ.
Fateh Mohd., Appellant
Versus
The Delhi Administration, Respondent.
Criminal Appeal No. 121 of 1961.
Advocates appeared
Mr. Nur-ud-din, Ahmed and Naunit Lal, Advocates, for Appellant; Mr. V. D. Mahajan, Advocate and Mr. P. D. Menon, Advocate, for Mr. R. N. Sachthey, Advocate, for Respondent.
FOREIGNERS ACT - FOREIGNER - DEFINITION - AMENDMENT - EFFECT - CITIZENSHIP - BURDEN OF PROOF - FOREIGNERS ACT, 1946, SS. 3, 9, 14 - CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, ART. 5.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant, a Pakistani national, entered India in 1956 on a visa that expired in August 1956. He failed to leave India after the visa expired and was served with a notice in 1959 requiring him to report to the Foreigners Regional Registration Office and enter into a bond for his continued presence in India. He did not comply with the notice and was convicted under S. 14 of the Foreigners Act, 1946, for violating the provisions of S. 3. He appealed, arguing that he was not a foreigner within the meaning of the Act as it stood at the time of his entry into India and that he was a citizen of India.
Finding of the Court:
The Court held that the appellant was a foreigner within the meaning of the amended definition of a foreigner under the Foreigners Act, 1946, and that he had committed an offense by disobeying the directions given to him by the Delhi Administration. The Court also held that the appellant had failed to discharge the onus of proving that he was a citizen of India.
Issues: 1. Whether the appellant was a foreigner within the meaning of the Foreigners Act, 1946, as amended in 1957. 2. Whether the appellant was a citizen of India.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The definition of a foreigner under the Foreigners Act, 1946, was amended in 1957 to include any person who is not a citizen of India. The appellant was not a citizen of India, and therefore he was a foreigner within the meaning of the amended definition. 2. The appellant failed to discharge the onus of proving that he was a citizen of India. The burden of proof was on the appellant to establish that he was a citizen of India in the manner claimed by him, and he failed to do so.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed.
Judgment
SUBBA RAO, J. : This appeal by special leave is directed against the order of the Punjab High Court dismissing the Revision petition filed against the order of the Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi.
2. The appellant entered India on May 9, 1956, on a Pakistan passport dated February 11, 1956. He had a visa endorsed on the said passport permitting him to stay in India for three months. Under that visa he had to leave India on or before August 8, 1956. As he failed to do so, a notice under S. 3(2) of the Foreigners Act, 1946, as amended in 1957, hereinafter called the Act, was served on him on November 19, 1959, by the Delhi Administration. By that notice he was asked to report his presence personally to the Foreigners Regional Registration Office, Taj Barracks, Janpath, New Delhi, between 11 A.M. to 12 noon daily and enter into a personal bond in the amount of Rs. 5,000/- with two sureties in the amount of Rs. 10,000/- each for the due observance of the restrictions imposed on his movements. The appellant did not comply with the requirements of the notice. Therefore he was prosecuted under S. 14 of the Act for violating the provisions of S. 3 in the Court of the sub-Divisional Magistrate, Delhi. The appellant pleaded in defence that the said notice was not served on him and that he was a citizen of India. The learned Magistrate held on the evidence that the said notice was served on him and that he was not a citizen of India but a foreigner within the meaning of that Act and that he had committed an offence, inasmuch as he did not comply with the provisions of the said notice. On those findings he convicted him under S. 14 of the Act and sentenced him to six months rigorous imprisonment. On appeal the Sessions Judge, Delhi confirmed the findings of the Magistrate and dismissed the appeal filed by him. He held that the burden was upon the appellant to prove that he was not a foreigner and that he had failed to discharge the same. He also rejected the plea of the appellant viz. that as on the date he entered India, he was not a foreigner within the meaning of the definition of foreigner as it then stood he could not be convicted, on the ground that he was prosecuted for an offence committed after the definition was amended. The High Court confirmed the conviction of the appellant and the sentence passed against him. Hence the appeal.
3. The learned counsel Mr. Nur-ud-Din appearing for the appellant raised before us the following two points: (1) the appellant was not a foreigner within the meaning of the definition of a foreigner as existed at the time he entered India, i.e. on May 9, 1956, and therefore the High Court went wrong in convicting him, and (2) the appellant is not a foreigner even under the amended definition.
4. To appreciate the first contention it will be convenient to read the relevant provisions of the Foreigners Act, 1946 :
Section 3 :
"The Central Government may by order make provision, either generally or with respect to all foreigners or with respect to any particular foreigner or any prescribed class or description of foreigner, for prohibiting, regulating, or restricting the entry of foreigner into (India) or their departure there from or their presence or continued presence therein.
(2) In particular and without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing power, orders made under this section may provide that the foreigner .............
(a) x x x
(b) x x x
(c) x x x
(d) x x x
(e) shall comply with such conditions as may be prescribed or specified -
(i) requiring him to reside in a particular place :
(ii) imposing any restrictions on his movements :
(iii), (iv), (v), (vi), (vii), (viii), (ix), (x)
(f) shall enter into a bond with or without sureties for the due observance of, or as an alternative to the enforcement of, any or all prescribed or specified restrictions or conditions:
The definition of a foreigner as it stood in 1953 was la Foreigner means a person who is not a natural-born British subject as defi
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.