SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1958 Supreme(Bom) 136

HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
DATAR, TARKUNDE, JJ.
State
Versus
Mahmadkhan Navrangkhan Accused
Criminal Appeal No. 340 of 1958, against order of Judicial Magistrate, Aukleshi war in Criminal Case No. 996 of 1957.
Decided On : 23-09-1958

Advocates:
Y.V. Chandrachud, Government Pleader, for State; V.I. Desai (appointed), for Accused.

A natural born British subject was not a foreigner within the meaning of the Foreigners Act, 1946, and was not obliged to comply with the provisions of R. 7 of the Foreigners Order, 1948.

Headnote:

FOREIGNERS ACT, 1946 - S. 2(A) - FOREIGNERS ORDER, 1948 - R. 7 - CITIZENSHIP ACT, 1955 - S. 18, SCH. III, R. 3 - A person who was a natural born British subject as defined in S. 2(a)(i) of the Foreigners Act, 1946, was not a foreigner within the meaning of the Act and was not obliged to comply with the provisions of R. 7 of the Foreigners Order, 1948.

Fact of the Case:

The respondent, a natural born British subject, entered India on a Visa issued by the High Commissioner for India in Pakistan. He did not leave India even after the expiry of the Visa and was served with a notice to quit India within one month. He failed to do so and was charged with contravening R. 7 of the Foreigners Order, 1948, and S. 13 of the Foreigners Act, 1946.

Finding of the Court:

The respondent was not a foreigner as defined in the Foreigners Act, 1946, and therefore was not obliged to comply with the provisions of R. 7 of the Foreigners Order, 1948. Even assuming that the respondent was a foreigner, there was no contravention of R. 7 of the Foreigners Order, 1948, as the respondent had not obtained a permit from the Registration Officer indicating the period during which he was authorised to remain in India.

Issues: Whether the respondent was a foreigner within the meaning of the Foreigners Act, 1946.

Ratio Decidendi: The definition of "foreigner" in S. 2(a) of the Foreigners Act, 1946, excluded natural born British subjects. The respondent was a natural born British subject and therefore was not a foreigner.

Final Decision: The respondent was acquitted of the charges against him.

Judgement

DATAR, J. :- This is an appeal filed by the State of Bombay against the order of acquittal passed by the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Ankleshwar in Criminal Case No. 996 of 1957.

2. The case of the prosecution was that the present respondent Mahomedkhan Navarangkhan is a foreigner being a National of Pakistan. As such national he obtained a Passport from the Government of Pakistan at Karachi on 9-6-1952 which was valid upto 9-6-1957.

3. On 3-7-1956 he applied for Visa for India to enable and authorise him to enter the Indian territory to see his father and other relatives in the State of Bombay. The High Commissioner for India in Pakistan granted him Visa of the Category C being No. 49900 and dated 3-7-1956. It was stated in the Visa that it was valid for three months from the date of entry, which meant that the respondent, in whose favour it was issued, was to remain in India for a period of three months from the date of his arrival on the Indian territory. The respondent entered India on 12-7-1956, and accordingly he was allowed to stay in India till 11-10-1956. But he did not leave India even after 11-10-1956.

4. On 21-6-1957, the District Police Superintendent, Broach, gave him a notice stating that in spite of the last date of the Visa obtained from the High Commissioner for India in Pakistan, he was illegally staying in Bharat, and he was therefore ordered to quit Bharat within one month from the data of the receipt of the notice, failing which legal steps would be taken against him in a Court of law and thereafter he would be deported from India. This notice was served upon the respondent on 22-6-1957.

5. Even after the period mentioned in the notice expired, the respondent did not leave India. Hence, the Police Sub-Inspector of Ankleshwar filed a complaint on 31-7-1957 against the respondent stating that he was a foreigner under S. 2(a) of Foreigners Act of 1946 and that he had not left Bharat in spite of the notice served on him on 22-6-1957 and had continued to stay in Ankleshwar (Bharat) illegally in spite of the expiry of the notice and had therefore committed a breach of R. 7 of the Foreigners Order, 1948, and S. 13 of the Foreigners Act, 1946, and thus committed an offence punishable under S. 14 of the Foreigners Act, 1946.

6. The Judicial Magistrate, before whom the case came up for trial, framed a charge against the respondent as follows :

"That you on or about the 25th day of July 1957 at Ankleshwar being a foreigner entered into India under the authority of C Visa No. 49900 dated 3-7-1956 on 12-7-1956 and were permitted to stay in India upto 11-10-1956 but you did not leave India even after the D.S.P. Broach gave you notice which was served on you on 22-6-1957 and thereby contravened R. 7 of the Foreigners Order, 1348 and also S. 13 of the Foreigners Act, 1946, and thereby committed an offence punishable under S. 14 of the Foreigners Act, 1946."

7. The respondent resisted the charge. His defence was that he was not a National of Pakistan but was a citizen of India. He was born at Ankleshwar and was officiating as Talathi till 1951 when he resigned from his office. Then he started business, but due to loss in the business he had to stop it in a short time. Thereafter he could not secure a good job or any good business and in search of good service and for a short time he went to Pakistan (Karachi). He did not go to Pakistan permanently. He had no reason, except for service, in going to Pakistan. After going to Pakistan, he found that it was not suitable for him to stay there, He intended to come back to Bharat in a short time; and when he made movements to return to Bharat, he was informed that it was impossible to return to Bharat, unless he obtained the passport of Pakistan for returning to Bharat. At last he obtained the passport from Pakistan. Thereafter, he applied for Visa. He further says that he was not informed that he would be considered as national of Pakistan when he obtained the passport an























Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top