Point of Law : Deportation of a foreign citizen - Quash of - Deportation of a foreign national for any violation is specifically mentioned in the Act and Regulations mentioned therein - Police have already invoked said procedure and an order was passed by FRRO - Efforts are being made to send petitioner to his native place.

ORDER :

Mr.Baily Gui Landry, petitioner, has filed these two Criminal Petitions under Section - 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short ‘Cr.P.C.’) to quash the order of deportation in the judgments both dated 06.05.2021 in C.C.No.36 of 2020 and C.C.No.27 of 2020 passed by the I Additional Junior Civil Judge-cum-IX Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad at Kukatpally and also release him from custody of Cyber Crime, Cyberabad immediately.

2. Since the petitioner is common, the issue involved is common and the contentions raised by the parties are also common, both the Criminal petitions are heard together and decided by this common order.

3. Heard Sri P.Shashi Kiran, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Public Prosecutor for State and perused the record.

4. In both the Criminal Petitions, the order of deportation of the petitioner in the judgments in C.C.No.27 of 2020 and 36 of 2020 both dated 06.05.2020 is under challenge.

5. Sri P.Shashi Kiran, learned counsel for the petitionerwould submit that the Magistrate while dealing with the Calendar Case and vide pronouncing judgment under Section 248 of Cr.P.C. is not having power to order deportation of any or foreign citizen for any kind of violation.

6. According to him, there is procedure prescribed under the Foreigners Act, 1946 (for short, ‘the Act’) for deportation of a foreign citizen for violation of the provisions of the said Act, but learned Magistrate is not having power to order deportation of any foreign citizen for violation of the provisions of the Act.

7. A perusal of the judgments in both the C.C.Nos.27 of 2020 and 36 of 2020 would reveal that the petitioner belongs to Ivory Coast. He is having passport of the said country bearing passport No.17AP188083 valid till 30.10.2022. He was holding Indian visa which was valid till 07.02.2020. He came to India on employment visa. He has involved in two cases i.e. Cr.No.198 of 2019 and Cr.No.137 of 2020 for the offences under Sections 417,419 and 420 IPC and Section 66 © and (D) of I.T.Act, 2000. The allegations in both the said crimes are almost same. He has induced the defacto-complainants herein saying that he will provide a job, he has taken money and cheated them.

8. After completion of investigation, the Investigating Officer has filed charge sheets in both the above said crimes and the same were taken on file as C.C.No.27 of 2020 and 36 of 2020. After conducting trial, learned I Additional Junior Civil Judge-cum-IX Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad at Kukatpally, has acquitted the petitioner herein in both the above said Calendar Cases, vide judgments both dated 06.05.2021. While acquitting the petitioner, learned Magistrate directed the jail authorities to release the accused forthwith, if he is not required in any other cases, he may be deported immediately to his native country, if there are no other cases were pending against him in India.

9. The petitioner, aggrieved by the order of his deportation in the said judgments both dated 06.05.2021, preferred these two Criminal Petitions for quashing the same.

10. In view of the said contention of the petitioner, it is relevant to refer relevant provisions of the Cr.P.C. Chapter XIX of the Cr.P.C. deals with trial of warrant cases by Magistrates. Section 248 of the Cr.P.C. deals with the acquittal or conviction. Therefore, as per the said proviso, the trial Court has to either acquit or convict the accused by giving reasons, after conducting full-fledged trial. In the present case, learned Magistrate, after conducting full fledged trial, acquitted the petitioner herein in the Calendar Cases vide judgments both dated 06.05.2021. But in the said judgments, learned Magistrate has ordered for deporting the petitioner immediately to his native country.

11. A perusal of both the judgments would reveal that learned Magistrate did not give any reasons for ordering deportation of the petitioner. There is no reason mentioned by the learned Magistr