LexFATEH MOHD. SON OF NATHU versus DELHI ADMINISTRATION
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
1962 p...,..,,, 27. .5 60 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1963] SUPP . FATEH MOHD, SON OF NATHU v. DELHI ADMINISTRATION (S. J. IMAM, K. SuBBA RAo, N. RAJAGOPAJ,A AYYANGAR and J. R. MUDHOLKAR, JJ.) Foreigna-De.finition-A1t1end>ne11t, Effect of-Offence committed hy fordgner aftrr n111en,fo><nt-On1t• of proof- Fol'eigners hi, 194G, (•11 of I.?4fi), ""· .1, 74-Tlte For,ignu• fo10.• (Amen!l11mit) Act, 19•i7 (11of1.957), s . . ? (a)-Cmi.,titu- tion of b!dia, Ari. 5. The appellant entered India on May 9, 1956, on a Pakistani passport. He had a visa permitting him to stay in India for three months. He had to leave India on or before August 8, 1956. As he failed to do so, a notice under s. 3 (2) of the Foreigners .i\ct, 1946, as amended in 19:l7, was served on him on November 19, 1959, by the Delhi Administration. As he did not comply with the requirements of the notice, he was prosecuted under s. 14 of the Foreigners Act and convicted. His appeal and revision were dismissed. He came to this court by specir I leave. His contention was that he was not a foreig- ner within the meaning of the definition of a foreigner as it existed at the time he entered India, and he was not a foreigner even under the amended definition. }/Pld, that the appellant was a forcjgner under the amend- ed definition and he had committed a bre:Lch of the order served on him after the ·11nen<lcd definition of foreigner came into force. In disobeying the directions given to him by the Delhi Administration, he had conunitted an offence within the mean- ing of s. 14 of the Foreigners Act. Before the amendment of the definition in 1957, a person born within His Majesty's Dominion and owing allegiance was a citizen of India, but after the amendment inJanuary, 1957 a person who was not a citizen of India became a foreigner. After that date, if all order was issued by the Central Government in exercise of powers conferred on it under s. 3 of the Act, it was the duty of such a foreigner to obey that order and if he did not do so, he commit- ted an offence within the m•aning of s. 14 of the Act. The appellant was certainly not a foreigner when he entered India, but in view of the amendment of the definition, he became a foreigner after January 19, 1957. He could not be convicted for .an offence for an act done by him before the amendment on the 2 s.c.R. StJl'REME COURT REPORTS 661 basis that he was a foreigner, but in the present case he had been punished for not complying with an order passed after the amendment. The burden of proving that he was not a foreigner \Vas on the appellant an<l he had failed to discharge that bunle11. Tl1c legality of an acl done by a person 1nust be judgc<l on the basis of the existing law at the thne the act is done. Uni<m of India v. G!taus JJ!ohammad, [l9G2J I S.C.R. 714 followed Fida Hussain v. State of Uttar Pradcslt 1.1962] I S.C.R. 776, distinguished. CmMINAL APl'ELLA'rE .JumsDI<.J'l'IUN : Criminal Appeal No. 121 of 1961. Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated May 26, 1961 of the Punjab High Court, Circuit Bench at Delhi in Criminal Revision No. 159-D of 1961. Nur·iul-d·in Ahrned and N1mnit Lal, for the appellant. V. JJ. .}/,,,/uijcrn and l'. D. 1lfenon for R. N. Saol!they, for the respondent. H.162. November :l7. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by SUBBA RAO, J.~This appeal by special leave is directed against the order of the Punjab High Court dismissing the Revision petition filed against.the order of the Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi. The appellant entered India on May !J, l!J5ti, on a Pakistan passport dated February 11, l!l56. He had a visa endorsed on the said passport permit ting- him to stay in India for three months. Under that visa he had to leave India ou or before August 8, l!J56i As he failed to do so, a notice under s. 3 (2) of the Foreigners Act, ]!)Jfi, as amended in I fJ!'i7, hereinafter called the Act, was served on him on F•leh Mfllrd Son •f JValhl' v. Dtllii Aliminslratian Sul:ia ll•o, I. 1962 Fateh Mohd Srua of Naehu •• D1lhi .fdministration Subba Rao, J. 562 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [l!J<i3] SUPP. November 19, 1959, by the Delhi Administration. By that notice he was asked to report his presence personally to the Foreigners Regional Registration Officer, Taj Barracks, Janpath, New Delhi, between II A. M. to 12 noon daily and enter into a personal bond iri the amount of R
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.