IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
M. C. Desai, J.
WAHID MIAN HIDDAN MIAN - Appellant
Versus
STATE - Respondents
Criminal Revn. 1477 Of 1958
Decided On : 09/24/1959
FOREIGNERS ACT, 1946 - SECTION 14 - A Pakistani national holding a valid visa permitting him to stay in India for three months, who failed to depart from India before the expiry of the period mentioned in the visa, was convicted under Section 14 of the Foreigners Act, 1946. The court held that the applicant was a foreigner within the meaning of the Act and was governed by Rule 7 of the Foreigners Order, 1948. The period mentioned in the visa was the period indicated in the permit under Rule 7, and the applicant was bound to depart from India before its expiry.
Fact of the Case:
The applicant, a Pakistani national, obtained a visa from the High Commissioner for India in Karachi permitting him to stay in India for three months. He entered India on 15-2-1957 and was bound to depart from India on or before 14-5-1957. The period was extended by the District Magistrate, Rampur, by one month, making it 14-6-1957. The applicant did not depart from India and was prosecuted under Section 14 of the Foreigners Act.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the applicant was a foreigner within the meaning of the Foreigners Act, 1946, and was governed by Rule 7 of the Foreigners Order, 1948. The period mentioned in the visa was the period indicated in the permit under Rule 7, and the applicant was bound to depart from India before its expiry.
Issues: 1. Whether the applicant was a foreigner within the meaning of the Foreigners Act, 1946? 2. Whether the applicant was governed by Rule 7 of the Foreigners Order, 1948? 3. Whether the period mentioned in the visa was the period indicated in the permit under Rule 7? 4. Whether the applicant was bound to depart from India before the expiry of the period mentioned in the visa?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the applicant was a foreigner within the meaning of the Foreigners Act, 1946, because he was not a citizen of India on the date of his entry into India. 2. The court held that the applicant was governed by Rule 7 of the Foreigners Order, 1948, because he was a foreigner who entered India on the authority of a visa issued in pursuance of the Indian Passport Act. 3. The court held that the period mentioned in the visa was the period indicated in the permit under Rule 7, because the Registration Officer had no power to fix or determine the period of the foreigner's stay in India, and the period mentioned in the visa was the maximum period for which the foreigner could stay in India. 4. The court held that the applicant was bound to depart from India before the expiry of the period mentioned in the visa, because Rule 7 required him to do so.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the applicant's appeal and upheld the conviction under Section 14 of the Foreigners Act, 1946.
( 1 ) THE applicant has been convicted under Section 14 of the Foreigners Act, 1946, for the act of not departing from India before the expiry of the period mentioned in his visa and extended by the District Magistrate, Rampur.
( 2 ) THE applicant was a resident of Rampur. He went from India to Pakistan, though it is not known when, and whether before, or after, 26-1-1950. It may be conceded that he was an Indian national before he went to Pakistan, On 19-7-1955 he obtained a passport for India as a Pakistani national and on 7-2-1957 he obtained from the High Commissioner for India at Karachi a visa permitting him to stay in India for three months. He came from Pakistan to India on 15-2-1957 and according to the period mentioned in the visa he was bound to depart from India on or before 14-5-1957. This period was extended by the District Magistrate, Rampur, through an endorsement on the visa itself, by one month; so he became liable to depart from India on or before 14-6-1957. He did not depart from India and a notice was served upon him to depart from india within a certain time but he refused and, thereupon, he was prosecuted under Section 14 of the Foreigners Act,
( 3 ) SECTION 2 (a) of the Act defines a "foreigner" to be a person who is not a citizen of India. Uptill 1956 the word was defined differently, but it is. not in dispute that the applicants case is governed by the definition as it stands now. If he was not a citizen of India on 15-2-1957 he was a foreigner. Section 3 authorises the Central Government to make provision with respect to foreigners for, among other matters, their continued presence in India and their departure from india. In exercise of this power the Central Government made the Foreigners Order, 1948. In this case I am concerned only with Rule 7 of the Order, which reads an follows :
"every foreigner who enters India on the authority of a Visa issued in pursuance of the Indian passport Act. . . . . shall obtain from the Registration Officer having jurisdiction, either at the place at which the said foreigner enters India of at the place at which he presents a registration report in accordance with Rule 6 of the Registration of Foreigners Rules 1939, a permit indicating the period during which he is authorised to remain in India and shall, unless the period indicated in the permit is extended by the Central Government, depart from India before the expiry of the said period. "
Section 14 of the Foreigners Act punishes a person who contravenes the provisions of the Act or of any order made thereunder. The Indian Passport Act, 1920, empowers the Central government, through Section 3, to make rules requiring that persons entering India shall be in possession of passports, and for all ancillary and incidental matters, and confers power to arrest any person who contravenes any provision of it or of a rule made thereunder and to remove him from India. The Central Government in exercise of the power conferred by Section 3 has made Indian passport Rules, 1950; Rule 3 prohibits entry into India without a valid passport conforming to the conditions of Rule 5, Rule 5 (iv-A) lays down that a passport issued by the Government of pakistan should be endorsed by a proper Indian Diplomatic, Consular or Passport Authority with the visa for India of category C if the intended stay in India does not exceed three months, Rule 5-A authorises Diplomatic, Consular or Passport Authority referred to above to make an order that the endorsement by way of visa made by it on a passport shall be of no effect and to require the production of the passport before it and cancel the visa endorsement on it, and Rule 6 provides punishment for any person who contravenes Rule 3. Neither the Act nor the Rules provide for a breach of the condition of the visa limiting the period of the foreigners stay in India,. e. for his staying in India beyond the period mentioned in the visa. Rule 3 only requires that he shall have a valid pa
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.