The learned Magistrate who tried the case was number satisfied that prosecution had proved the charge against the appellant beyond reasonable doubt.
351544 from the Government of Pakistan on August 11, 1955, and had secured a C Visa No.
1965 AIR SC 810 The Judgment was delivered by GAJENDRAGADKAR, C. J. This is an appeal by Abdul Sattar Ibrahim Patel by which he challenges the companyrectness and validity of the order passed by the High Court of Gujarat, companyvicting him under S. 14 of the Foreigners Act XXXI of 1946 and sentencing him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of rupees one thousand, in default rigorous imprisonment for one year.
In resisting the charge thus framed against him, the appellant urged that he had number gone to Pakistan at all till the month of August, 1954.
7 of the Foreigners Order, 1948, and thereby rendered himself liable to be punished under S. 14 of the Foreigners Act, 1946.
He claimed the status of an Indian citizen and denied the charge against him that he was a foreigner.
In the month of March, 1948 his father in law, Yusuf Haji Ismail went to Pakistan and along with him went his wife.
It was alleged that with the said passport and C Visa the appellant entered India on October 13, 1957, and obtained residential permit No.
C. O. 41323 dated April 8, 1954, given to the appellant and all applications made by the appellant in regard to it.
The prosecution sought to prove its case mainly by relying on the passport obtained by the appellant, after making statements in his application for the said passport.
The prosecution case was that the appellant had specifically admitted that he was a Pakistani citizen and had obtained a passport as such, and this, according to the prosecution, had happened long before 1954.
The appellant then applied for and obtained a certificate from the High Court to companye to this Court, and it is with the said certificate that the present appeal has been brought before us.
He was advised that unless he obtained a Pakistani passport, he would number be able to return to India.
Amongst these witnesses was witness No.
6, clerk of the F. O, of the assistant Secretary, Political and Services Department, and he was called upon to produce the original or companyy of the Indian Passport No.
Having regard to the evidence produced before him, the learned Magistrate held that the case against the appellant under S. 14 companyld number be said to be established.
The said permit was extended from time to time until April 12, 1958.
C. 041323 bearing the date April 8, 1954, Having travelled to Karachi with the Indian Passport, the appellant wanted to return with his wife to India, but his passport was deliberately taken away or destroyed by his father in law with a view to companypel him to stay at Karachi, and that made it necessary for the appellant to obtain a Pakistani passport in order to companye back to his companyntry.
According to him, his marriage had taken place in Godhra, and preceding his marriage he had also been educated in Godhra.
In 1954 the appellant had to go to Pakistan to bring back his wife to India, and in order to travel to Pakistan he made an application for a passport and obtained an Indian Passport No.
That is how the main point raised by the appellant in defence against the charge framed by the learned Magistrate was whether he was and companytinued to be an Indian citizen at all material times.
22144, on October 5, 1957.
For number fault of the appellant, the witness did number turn up and the passport was number produced, and as we have already stated, the other evidence adduced by the appellant was number accepted by the High Court.
He pleaded that his parents were born in Godhra and they and all his brothers were and are living in Godhra all the time.
The case against him was that he was a foreigner and a national of Pakistan, and as such had obtained Passport No.
Since the appellant did number leave India even though the residential permit issued in his favour had expired, he was alleged to have companytravened the provisions of cl.
The list companytained the names of other witnesses also, some of whom were examined.
322/57 valid upto December 12, 1957.
The appellant led evidence to show that he was in India until 1954 and, as we have already indicated, he explained his companyduct in obtaining a Pakistani passport on the ground that circumstanced as he was in Karachi, be was helpless and he adopted a companyrse which appeared to him to be the only companyrse available for companying back to India.
The appellant was charged before the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class at Godhra with having companymitted an offence under S. 14 of the Foreigners Act.
