SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
P.B. GAJENDRAGADKAR, C.J.I., A.K. SARKAR, K.N. WANCHOO, K.C. DAS GUPTA AND N. RAJAGOPALA AYYANGAR, JJ.
Abdul Sattar Haji Ibrahim Patel, Appellant
Versus
State of Gujarat, Respondent.
Criminal Appeal No. 153 of 1961.
Advocates appeared
Mr. Bishan Narain Senior Advocate, (M/s. Ravinder Narain, J. B. Dadachanji and O. C. Mathur, Advocates of M/s. J. B. Dadachanji and co., with him), for Appellant; M/s. H. R. Khanna and B. R. G. K. Achar, Advocates, for Respondent.
Judgment
GAJENDRAGADKAR, C.J.I. :
This is an appeal by Abdul Sattar Ibrahim Patel by which he challenges the correctness and validity of the order passed by the High Court of Gujarat, convicting him under S. 14 of the Foreigners Act (XXXI of 1946) and sentencing him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of rupees one thousand, in default rigorous imprisonment for one year. The appellant was charged before the Judicial Magistrate (Ist Class) at Godhra with having committed an offence under S. 14 of the Foreigners Act. The case against him was that he was a foreigner and a national of Pakistan, and as such had obtained Passport No. 351544 from the Government of Pakistan on August 11, 1955, and had secured a C Visa No. 22144, on October 5, 1957. It was alleged that with the said passport and C Visa the appellant entered India on October 13, 1957, and obtained residential permit No. 322/57 valid upto December 12, 1957. The said permit was extended from time to time until April 12, 1958. Since the appellant did not leave India even though the residential permit issued in his favour had expired, he was alleged to have contravened the provisions of cl. 7 of the Foreigners Order, 1948, and thereby rendered himself liable to be punished under S. 14 of the Fereigners Act, 1946.
2. In resisting the charge thus framed against him, the appellant urged that he had not gone to Pakistan at all till the month of August, 1954. He pleaded that his parents were born in Godhra and they and all his brothers were and are living in Godhra all the time. He claimed the status of an Indian citizen and denied the charge against him that he was a foreigner. According to him, his marriage had taken place in Godhra, and preceding his marriage he had also been educated in Godhra. In the month of March, 1948 his father-in-law, Yusuf Haji Ismail; went to Pakistan and along with him went his wife. In 1954 the appellant had to go to Pakistan to bring back his wife to India, and in order to travel to Pakistan he made an application for a passport and obtained an Indian Passport No. C. 041323 bearing the date April 8, 1954, Having travelled to Karachi with the Indian Passport, the appellant wanted to return with his wife to India, but his passport was deliberately taken away or destroyed by his father-in-law with a view to compel him to stay at Karachi, and that made it necessary for the appellant to obtain a Pakistani passport in order to come back to his country. He was advised that unless he obtained a Pakistani passport, he would not be able to return to India. That is how the main point raised by the appellant in defence against the charge framed by the learned Magistrate was whether he was and continued to be an Indian citizen at all material times.
3. The prosecution sought to prove its case mainly by relying on the passport obtained by the appellant, after making statements in his application for the said passport. The prosecution case was that the appellant had specifically admitted that he was a Pakistani citizen and had obtained a passport as such, and this, according to the prosecution, had happened long before 1954. The appellant led evidence to show that he was in India until 1954 and, as we have already indicated, he explained his conduct in obtaining a Pakistani passport on the ground that circumstanced as he was in Karachi, be was helpless and he adopted a course which appeared to him to be the only course available for coming back to India.
4. The learned Magistrate who tried the case was not satisfied that prosecution had proved the charge against the appellant beyond reasonable doubt. Having regard to the evidence produced before him, the learned Magistrate held that the case against the appellant under S. 14 could not be said to be established. In the result, the appellant was acquitted under S. 251-A (11) of the Criminal Procedure Code. The respondent, the State of Gujarat, then preferred an appeal against the said ord
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
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.