Undoubtedly, the prosecution was handicapped in producing evidence to show when and how and with what intention the appellant had gone to Pakistan.
v. The State of Kerala 1 in which a migration would number take place even if the wider test of the term migration were adopted.
The prosecution had also relied upon an application for a visa made by the accused to the High Commissioner for India in Pakistan on 10th October, 1955, in which he had, inter alia, stated that he had migrated from India to Pakistan in 1950.
It companyld only show how and when and on what passport he returned to this companyntry.
Appeal by special leave from the Judgment and order dated the 3rd 4th December, 1969 of the Gujarat High Court in Criminal Appeal No.
It had also held that the appellant was a minor when he visited Pakistan.
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Criminal Appeal No.
The accused had produced his Pakistani passport Ex.
164 of 1970.
11 dated 8th September, 1955.
295 of 1966.
H. Dhebar and S. P. Nayar, for the appellant.
S. Qureshi, Vimal Dave and Kailash Mehta for the respondent.
The above mentioned charge was supported by the statement of Mahmadmiya, P. W. 2, Sub Inspector, Special Emergency Branch, Ahmedabad, showing that the appellant was working in Baroda Central State Transport Workshop when he was arrested as a companysequence of the information that he was a Pakistani national who had companye to India in 1955 on a Pakistani passport.
19904 dated 6 12 1967 before the date 20th September 1958 and remained in India and thereby you companytravened the previsions of clause 7 iii of Foreigners Order 1948 and thereby companymitted an offence punishab le under Section 14 of Foreigners Act 1946 and within my companynizance.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by BEG, J. This is an appeal, by special leave, against the acquittal of the appellant, from a charge framed on 21 9 1967 as follows That you on or about the 31st day of March 1967 at about 9.30 p.m. were found in State Transport Corporation Workshop at Naroda in Ahmedabad, and you are a foreigner and you had companye from Pakistan and you had been permitted to stay in India till 20th September, 1958, by Assistant Secretary to the Government of Bombay and did number depart from India before expiring of that permit issued to you by No.
It had found it unnecessary to record a finding en the question whether the appellants visit to Pakistan companyld be held to be one made under companypulsion or for a specific purpose so as to companye within the class of those exceptional cases mentioned in Kulathil Mammu.
