Rigby J (delivering oral judgment):

The appellant in this case pleaded guilty to the charge preferred against him of making a false declaration on 10 June 1958, in connection with his application to be granted Federal citizenship He was sentenced by the learned President of the Sessions Court to six months' imprisonment. He now appeals against that sentence.

The appellant is a native of India. For the purpose of obtaining citizenship by registration it was a necessary condition that he should have resided in the Federation during the 12 year immediately preceding the date of his application for periods amounting in the aggregate to not less than eight years. In the declaration that he made the periods stated by him amounted to over the requisite period of 8 years and as a result his application for Federal citizenship was granted and he was registered as a Federal citizen. Subsequently, on 3 March 1959, the appellant went to the Immigration Department, with the object of obtaining a Malayan passport. The Indian passport which he then held was checked and it was ascertained from the entries in that passport that he had, in fact, been resident in the Federation for a total period of less than eight years within the 12 years immediately preceding the date of his application for registration. In consequence the appellant was charged with this offence, and he pleaded guilty to the charge.

Mr Triptipal Singh, who has appeared on behalf of the appellant, informs me that the appellant is illiterate and that be has, in fact, been residing in the Federation since 1930 for periods totalling in the aggregate, up to 1960, a matter of some 16 years. The relevant period for the purpose of the application is, however, 12 years immediately preceding the date of the application. Mr. Triptipal Singh informs me and, indeed, that was the statement made by the appellant in mitigation before the learned President of the Sessions Court - that for the purpose of preparing his application he went to a petition writer, whom he knew personally, and the information required for the purpose of the application was taken by the petition writer from the appellant's own passport. The appellant, therefore, attributes the blame for the inaccuracy contained in the declaration subsequently signed and sworn by him to the petition writer.

Mr Massie, Legal Adviser, seeks to support the sentence on the ground of the prevalence of this particular offence at the present time, and indeed the serious nature of the charge itself. It may well be that a different Court might have imposed a lesser sentence, but the question for my consideration is as to whether the sentence was so manifestly excessive or wrong in principle as to justify me in interfering. I am in agreement with the learned Legal Adviser and, indeed, with the learned President of the Sessions Court, that this is a serious type of offence and, in cases where it is discovered, requires exemplary punishment. In all the circumstances of this case, despite whatever sympathy I may have for the appellant having regard to the lengthy period of time that he has, in fact, resided in the Federation since he first came here in 1930, I find myself unable to say that the sentence of six months' imprisonment, having regard to the offence committed by him, is excessive. The appeal must accordingly be dismissed.

Appeal dismissed.