Court : Gujarat
Reported in : AIR1963Guj226; 1963CriLJ265; (1963)0GLR1073
Raju, J.1. This is an appeal by the State against the acquittal of respondent Abdul Sattar Haji Ibrahim by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Godhra in Criminal Case No. 1807 under Section 14 of the Foreigners Act.2. The charge against the respondent was that having entered into India at Ahmedabad on 13-10-57 under the authority of Pakistani Pass-port bearing No. 351544 dated 11-8-55 and 'C' Visa bearing No. 22144 dated 5-10-1957 and having obtained Residential Permit No. 322/57 from the Registration Officer, Ahmedabad which permitted him to stay in India upto 12-12-1957, he failed to leave India. It was also mentioned in the charge that the period of stay in India had been extended upto 12-1-1958 by the District Magistrate, Panchmahals and further extended upto 12-4-1958 by the Secretary to the Government of Bombay.3. In his examinatipn at the trial, the respondent stated that he had committed no offence as he is a national of India and therefore, not bound to leave India. ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : AIR1959All79
V. Bhargava, J.1. The appellant, Aslam Khan, respondents Fazal Haque Khan, Abdul Hadi Khan and Sita Ram and one Tribeni Sahai Misra were candidates for election to the U. P. Legislative Assembly in the general elections held in February and March, 1957, from No, 60, Rampur constituency. All the live candidates filed nomination papers on 31-1-1957, and, after scrutiny, they were declared duly nominated on 1-2-1957. Tribeni Sahai Misra, who is not a party to this appeal, withdrew his candidature within the time permitted by law.The polling in the constituency took place on 22-2-1957, and the counting on 1-3-1957. The same day the result was announced and Aslam Khan appellant was declared duly elected. Thereupon Fazal Huque Khan respondent No. 1 filed an election petition before the Election Commission challenging the election of Aslam Khan appellant. The election petition was sent for trial to the Election Tribunal, Rampur. The main ground, on which the election was challenged, was that ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Reported in : AIR1959P& H261
ORDERBishan Narain, J.1. On 19-5-1957 a notice on behalf of the Delhi State was issued under Section 3(2)(c) of the Foreigners' Act, 1946 read with Foreigners Laws (Amendment) Ordinance, 1957 whereby the Chief Commissioner directed Nasir Ahmad, his wife Mrs. Aziz Fatima and their minor daughter not to remain in India after the expiry of three days from the date on which the notice is served on them and shall not thereafter re-enter India. This notice was issued on the ground that Nasir Ahmad, his wife and their minor daughter were Pakistani nationals.Nasir Ahmad thereupon filed this petition on (31-5-1957, under Article 226 of the Constitution challenging the validity of this order on the ground that the petitioner, his wife and their miner daughter were not Pakistani nationals. The petitioner in this petition has alleged that besides himself, his wife and their minor daughter, the petitioner has four other children residing with him in Delhi. He has also alleged that they were all bor...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : AIR1959AP241; 1959CriLJ561
ORDERMuni Kanniah, J.1. The petitioner was convicted by the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Adoni for all offence under Section 14 read with Clause (c) of Sub-section (2) of Section 3 of the Foreigners Act of 1940, and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for eighteen months. On appeal, the Sessions Judge of Kurnool confirmed the conviction and sentence imposed on the accused. Hence this revision application.2. The petitioner came to Adoni from Pakistan on 20-1-1955. He had a Pakistan passport No. 250660 dated 10-1-1955 and 'C' visa No. 2657 dated 14-1-1955 which was valid upto 14-4-1955. He did not go to Pakistan after the expiry of his visa but applied for extension on medical grounds till 2-9-1957. He had therefore to be served with a quit order directing him to leave India after One month from the date of service of that order. This quit order dated 9-8-1957 was served on him on 3-9-1957. As he disobeyed this order and still remained at Adoni, he was prosecuted.The defence i...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : AIR1961MP110; 1961CriLJ516
Shrivastava, J.1. This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution by which the petitioner challenges the order passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Mahasamund, on 11-4-1958 ordering the petitioner to leave India on the ground that he is a Pakistan citizen and has overstayed the period of his visa. Ten other similar petitions involving commonquestions of law were heard along with this petition. They are: S. No.Case No.Filed by.1.Misc. Pet. No. 290/1958Mohammad Murtaza Khan2.Misc. Pet. No. 61/1959Issab alias Yusuf3.Civil Misc. Pet. No. 39/1958Akbarkhan Alam Khan4.Civil Misc. Pet. No. 59/1958Maujmabibi & others5.Misc. Pet. No. 139/1957Kalloo s/o Noor Mohd.6.Misc. Pet. No. 206/1957Gulam Rasool7.Misc. Pet. No. 6/1958Mohammd Yusuf8.Misc. Pet. No. 168/1958Mohammad Abbas9.Misc. Pet. No. 70/1959Shabrati s/o Mangoo10.Misc. Pet. No. 371/1958Ghulam Mahmmmod KhanAll these petitions, except S. No. 3, are directed against the orders of the District Superintendent of Police or the Collector ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : AIR1963All260; 1963CriLJ724
Dhawan, J.1. This is a second appeal by Smt. Abida Khatoon and her husband Abdul Shakoor against the decision of the IInd Additional Civil Judge, Agra dismissing their suit for a declaration that they are Indian citizens not liable to be deported to Pakistan. In their plaint the appellants made the following allegations: They were born and brought up at Agra and their parents too were born there. They were citizens of India at the commencement of the Constitution and have continued to enjoy this status ever since. In February, 1950, both of them went on a visit to Pakistan but without any intention to migrate or settle there permanently. After staying in Pakistan for some time they were anxious to return to India and applied to the Refugee department of the Pakistan Government for repatriation to India under the Delhi agreement of 1950 (the so called Nehru-Liaqat Pact). Under that agreement the Governments of India and Pakistan had agreed to the return of the nationals who had fled to ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : AIR1964Guj128; 1964CriLJ24; (1964)0GLR273
Miabhoy, J.1. This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by one Hebatullah Haji Fazlehussain of Rajpipla. It is directed against the order, dated 2nd of August, 1963, passed by Shri N.H. Shethna, Deputy Inspector-General of Police, C. I. D., Gujarat State, Ahmedabad, respondent No. 2 herein, under Section 3, Sub-section (2), Clause (c) of the Foreigners Act, 1946, directing petitioner not to remain in India after the date on which the order is served on him and calling upon him to leave India immediately thereafter. Respondent No. 1 is the State of Gujarat. Petitioner prays that a writ in the nature of mandamus or writ, direction or other order may be issued against the respondents quashing or setting aside the impugned order, dated the and of August, 1963, and that the second respondent may be restrained from deporting the petitioner from India.2. The facts may, at first, be shortly stated. Petitioner was born at Baroda. He was educated at Rajpipla High School a...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1965SC1623; [1965]2SCR884
Shah, J.1. The appellant Mohd. Ayub Khan petitioned the High Court of Madras for a writ of mandamus restraining the Commissioner of Police, Madras, from taking action pursuant to the order of the Government of Madras. Home Department, No. 83546, dated May 28, 1958 and from interfering with the appellant's rights as a citizen of India. The petition was dismissed by Balakrishna Ayyar, J., and the order was confirmed in appeal by a Division Bench of the High Court. With certificate granted by the High Court, the appellant has appealed to this Court. 2. The appellant, who claims that he had acquired the status of an Indian citizen on the commencement of the Constitution as a person who had been ordinarily resident in the territory of India for not less than five years immediately preceding the date, was served with a notice dated July 17, 1957 informing him that as he had obtained Pakistan Passport No. 071377, dated April 1, 1953 he should leave India within one month from the date of serv...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : 1968WLN8
L.S. Mehta, J.1. This is a criminal revision filed by Hari Khan and his son Hakim Maeos against the judgment of learned Sessions Judge, Bharatpur, dated October 25, 1967, maintaining their conviction under Section 14 read with Section 3 of the Indian Foreigners Act, 1946, as also under Rule 6 read with Rule 3 of the Indian Passport Rules 1950, made by Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Deeg.2. The prosecution story is that the accused Hari Khan left India sometime in the year 1947 for Pakistan He came back to India with his son Hakim with passport No SSC-008225, dated August 20, 1956 and visa No. 156050, dated December 26, 1960. His entry into India was recorded at the Check-post-Riilway Station, Amritsar, on February 8, 1961 vide entry No. 2/247-C. Residential permit No. DSB/BPR/RP/51, dated February 10, 1961, was issued to him from the office of the Superintendent of Police, Bharatpur, as required under para 7 of the Foreigners Order, 1948, authorising him to stay in the village Faraska, Pol...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : AIR1973All44
M.N. Shukla, J. 1. This Government appeal is directed against the order dated 16-9-1968 passed by the 1st Temporary Civil & Sessions Judge, Aligarh setting aside the conviction and sentence of the respondent under Section 14 of the Foreigners Act The respondent was convicted by thetrial Magistrate under Section 14 of the Foreigners Act and sentenced to one year's rigorous imprisonment; he was also directed to be deported to Pakistan thereafter. The appellate Court set aside the conviction and sentence and with regard to the direction about deportation it observed that the order of deportation or externment was not one which could be passed by that Court, as it was within the competence of the 'civil Authority' as defined in the Foreigners Act. Aggrieved by this order the Government has preferred this appeal in which a point of law has been canvassed by the parties. 2. The peculiar facts of this case furnished the learned counsel for the respondent with an ingenious argument which was p...
Tag this Judgment!