Bapna, J.—This is an appeal by the State against the acquittal of Mst. Bashiran on a charge under sec. 5 of the Influx from Pakistan (Control) Act, 1949.

2. The facts are not disputed. Mst. Bashiran entered India from West Pakistan under a temporary permit dated the 22nd of September, 1948, and the duration of visit was one month. She was permitted to stay in India from 24th September, 1948, to 23rd October, 1948. She, however, did not return to Pakistan, and a chalan was presented on the 29th October, 1949, that she had violated the provisions of the Rule 19 of the Permit System Rules of 1949 framed under sec. 4 of the Influx from Pakistan (Control) Act, 1949 (Act No.XXIII of 1949), inasmuch as she stayed in India after the date of the expiry of the permit. Only certain formal evidence was produced on behalf of the prosecution, and Mst. Bashiran was examined on the close of the prosecution case. She admitted that she had come to Jaipur from Pakistan under a temporary permit, Ex. P. 1, on 2nd of October, 1949. She also admitted that she did not go back to Pakistan as she should have done under the terms of the permit, Ex. P. 1, and had been staying at Jaipur after the 24th October 1948. She was asked if she had anything further to say, and she replied that her husband had died, and she was living with her father. The trial court acquitted the accused on the ground that the law applicable on the date of the return of the accused was the Influx from West Pakistan (Control) Ordinance, 1948 (Ordinance No. XVII of 1948), promulgated by the Governor General, and the first Rules framed on 4th September, 1948, did not provide for any punishment for staying in India beyond the period allowed by the permit, and the subsequent Rules (Permit System Rules, 1948) framed by the Central Government on the 7th of September 1948, did not, according to the Magistrate, come into operation before the 1st of December, 1948, when they were published in the Jaipur Rajpatra. According to the learned Magistrate no offence had been committed by the accused by overstaying beyond the 24th of October, 1948, as Rule 12, which prohibited the stay in India after the date of expiry of the permit, came into force when the accused was already in India. The State has filed the appeal against the order of acquittal.

3. The view taken by the learned Magistrate is wrong for more than one reason. In the first place, the Influx from West Pakistan (Control) Ordinance, 1948 (No. XVII of 1948) was promulgated by the Governor General and extended to the whole of India, and became the law of India as soon as it was published in the Gazette of India. Originally a few rules regarding permit system between West Pakistan and India were framed along with the Ordinance, but they were made elaborate on the 7th of September, 1948. On this date, the Central Government in exercise of the power conferred by sec. 3 of the Ordinance framed Rules known as the Permit System Rules, 1948, and they became the law in India irrespective of the fact that they were published in the Jaipur Rajpatra later on, on 1st December, 1948. The publication which was important was the publication in the Gazette of India, and the learned Government Advocate has pointed out that they were so published on the 7th of September, 1948. This is not disputed by the learned counsel appearing for the accused. The lower court was, therefore, not right in holding that these Permit System Rules, 1948, came into force on the 1st of December, 1948.

4. Even assuming, for the sake of argument, that the Rules came into force after the accused had come to India, Rule 12 said that

"No person holding a temporary permit shall stay in India after the date of expiry of such permit."

and a contravention of the Rules was made an offence by sec. 4 of the Ordinance. That section was as follows:—

"Any person who contravenes the provisions of sec. 3 or of any rule made thereunder shall be punishable with imprisonment which may extend to one y

Click Here to Read the rest of this document