ABDUL RAHIM ISMAIL RAHIMTOOLA versus THE STATE OF BOMBAY

Citation: [1960] 1 S.C.R. 285 · Decided: 14-05-1959 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: SYED JAFFER IMAM · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

S.C.R. 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
ABDUL RAHIM ISMAIL RAHIMTOOLA 
v. 
THE STATE OF BOMBAY 
(JAFElt IMAM and J. L. KAPUR, JJ.) 
Criminal Trial-Entry into India without passport-Conviction 
- Interpretation of statute and rules-Reference to constitutional 
Bench, if and when necessary-Constitution of India, Art. z45(3)-
-Indian Passport Rules, z950, rr. 3 and 4-Indian Passport Act 
(34 of z9zo), s. 3. 
The appellant an Indian citizen entered India without a 
passport after and on the basis of the decision of the Supreme 
Court. The appellant's contention was that s. 3 of the Indian 
Passport Rules, 1950, were ultra vires the Constitution and that 
on a proper interpretation, the provisions of the section and rules 
did not apply to an Indian citizen ; and that when a case involves 
a constitutional question, it should be referred to a Bench of five 
Judges, described as "Constitution Bench." 
Held: Where there is a binding decision of the Constitution 
Bench of this Court on the question of law as to the interpretation 
of the Constitution, and if the same question is raised in another 
matter then it cannot be said that any substantial question of law 
arises regarding the interpretation of the Constitution and the 
matter need not be referred to a Constitution Bench. 
On. a reasonable interpretation of s. 3 of the Act and rr. 3 and 
4 of the rules, which say that "persons" entering India shall be 
in possession of a valid passport, there can be no manner of doubt 
that the provisions apply to all persons entering India including 
Indian citizen. 
The Act of entry into India without a passport was in 
contravention of the Rules and the appellant was rightly 
convicted. 
Ebrahim Vazir Mavat v. The State of Bombay, [1954] S.C.R. 
933, followed. 
-
CRIMINAL 
APPELLATE 
JtrRISDICTION: 
Criminal 
Appeal No. 182 of 1957. 
Appeal from the judgment and order dated July 4, 
1957, of the Bombay High Court, in Criminal Applica-
tion for Revision No. 278 of 1956, arising out of the 
judgment and order dated the 3rd January, 1956, of 
the Presidency Magistrate 16 
Court, 
Esplanade, 
Bombay, in Criminal Case No. 1913/P 6f 1955. 
0. N. Srivastava and J. B. Dadachanji, for the appel-
lant. 
G. 0. Mathur and R. H. Dhebar, for the respondent. 
I959 
Mayx4. 
286 
SUPREME COlJRT REPORTS 
[1960(1)] 
r959 
1959. May 14. The Judgment of the Court was 
delivered by 
, 
Abdul Rahim 
Ismail Rahimtoola 
IMAM J.-The appellant was convicted under r. 6(a) 
v. 
of the Indian Passport Rules, 1950, hereinafter referred 
The State of 
to as the Rules, made under s. 3 of the Indian Pass-
Bombay 
port Act, (34of1920), hereinafter referred to as the Act, 
Imani ]. 
and was sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 100. 
The High 
Court in exercising its revisional jurisdiction upheld 
the conviction but reduced the sentence to a fine of 
Rs. 25. It granted a certificate to the appellant that 
the case was a fit one for appeal to this Court. 
It is beyond dispute now that the appellant is a 
citizen of India. Admittedly he entered the territories 
of India without a passport. The sole question for 
determination is whether his act in so entering the 
territories of India amounted to an offence punishable 
under r. 6(a) of the Rules. 
The Act was passed in 1920 and has been the subject 
of amendment and modification tnereafter. Its pream-
ble states " whereas it is expedient to take power to 
require passports of persons entering India, it is hereby 
enacted as follows." 
"Passport " has been defined as 
a passport for the time being in force issued or renewed 
by the prescribed authority and satisfying the condi-
tions prescribed relating to the class of passport to 
which it belongs. Section 3 states : 
(1) The Central Government may make rules requir-
ing that persons entering India shall be in posses-
sion of passports, and for all matters ancillary or 
incidental tci that purpose. 
(2) Without prejudice to the generality of the fore-
go'ing power such rules may-
(a) prohibit the entry into India or any part 
thereof of any person who has not in his 
possession a passport issued to him ; 
(b) prescribe the authorities by whom passports 
must have been issued or renewed, and the 
conditions with which they must comply, for 
the purposes of this Act; and 
(c) provide for the exemption, either absolutely 
or on :111y condition, of any person or class of 
persons from any provision of such rules. 
S.C.li. 
SUPREME COUH.T HEPOliTS 
287 
(3) Rules made under this section 

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.