Ratti Khan vs State

H.R. Khanna, J.—This Criminal Revision filed by Ratti Khan is directed against the order of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi, refusing to interfere with the order whereby charge under para 7. of the Foreigners Order, 1948 punishable u/s 14 of the Foreigners Act. 1946, (Act XXXI of 1946) hereinafter referred to as the order and the Act has been framed against the petitioner.

The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner is a Pakistani national and holds Pakistan passport No. P.S.G. 7692/9 dated 12th June, 1963. On the strength of that passport the petitioner secured visa from the Indian High Commission, Karachi, for visiting Nagliaya (Alwar District) in Rajasthan for a period of three months. The petitioner entered India on 4th September, 1963 through Hussainiwala Check-post in Ferozepore district, Punjab. The petitioner was then issued a temporary residential permit by the Registration Officer at Hussainiwala under para. 7 of the order permitting the petitioner to remain in India at Nagliva until 17th September, 1963. The petitioner was further directed to exchange the temporary permit for a regular permit from the Registration officer direct having jurisdiction in Nagliya, or through the police-station having jurisdiction at that place not later than 17th September, 1963. On 5th September, 1963 at about 1-30 p.m. The petitioner was found in Chandni Chowk, Delhi. He was, accordingly, arrested and challaned for alleged contravention of para 7. of the Order. The trial Magistrate framed a charge against the petitioner under para 7, of the Order read with section 14 of the Act. Revision-petition was then filed by the petitioner stating that he had not contravened any of the provisions of the Order and the trial Magistrate was not justified in framing a charge against him. The revision petition was, as stated above, rejected by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi. The petitioner has, accordingly, come up in revision to this Court.

I have heard Shri Bajaj on behalf of the petitioner, and Shri Keshav Dayal on behalf of the State, and am of the view that the allegations made against the petitioner do not disclose any offence under para. 7 of the Order, which reads as under :

(1) Every foreigner who enters India on the authority of a visa issued in pursuance of the Indian Passport Act, 1920, (34 of 1920), shall obtain from the Registration Officer having jurisdiction, either at the place at which the said foreigner enters India or at the place at which he presents a registration report in accordance with rule 6 of the Registration of Foreigners Rules 1939, a permit indicating the period during which he is authorised to remain in India and also indicating the place or places for stay in India, if any, specified in the visa. In granting such permit, the said Registration Officer may restrict the stay of the foreigner to any of the places specified in the visa.

(2) Every foreigner resident in India to whom the provisions of sub-paragraph (1) do not apply shall, on or before the 15th January, 1960, obtain from the Registration Officer having jurisdiction at the place, at which he resides, a permit indicating the period during which he is authorised to remain in India.

(3) Every foreigner to whom a permit is issued under sub-paragraph (1) or sub-paragraph (2):

(i) shall not, if the permit indicates the place or places for stay in India, visit any other place unless the permit is extended by the Central Government to such other place; and

(ii) shall, unless the period indicating in the permit is extended by the Central Government, depart from India before the expiry of the said period; and at the time of the foreigner''s departure from India the permit shall be surrendered by him to the Registration Officer having jurisdiction at the place from which he departs.

As would appear from the resume of the facts given above, the petitioner arrive in Ferozepore district on 4th September, 1963. It is not disputed that in. order to go from Ferozapare to Alwar District one has to pass through Delhi. It is also not disputed that one can go from Delhi to Alwar either by train or by is it can also not be denied that a train leaving Ferozepore on the evening of 4th September 1963 would arrive in Delhi on the morning of 8th September, 1963. If the petitioner on his way from Ferozepore District to Alwar District was found in Chandani Chowk Delhi, which is quite close to Delhi main railway-station, it cannot, in my opinion be held that there was violation of the provisions of para. 7 of the Order. Shri Keshav Dayal has referred to clause (i) of sub-paragraph (3) of para. 7 of the Order, reproduced above, and has urged that petitioner having not been authorised to stay in Delhi, his presence at this place on 5th September, 1963 was in contravention of the Order. In this respect I am of the view that a Halt of a few hours at a place which falls on the way and from which the foreigner must catch a bus or train to arrive at the place of destination cannot be deemed to bo stay at another place so as to constitute an infringement of the Order. There is no allegation that it was the intention of the petitioner to stay in Delhi for some days before proceeding to Alwar District. I, therefore, am of the view that no case is made out against the petitioner.

I, accordingly, accept the revision, quash the charge framed against the petitioner and discharge him.