LexSTATE OF MADHYA PRADESH versus PEER MOHD. & ANOTHER
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
1 S.C.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
.J:,!!l
Along with this appca I Crimin<:I Appeal N?.
;{5 of 1961 was also heard and this judgment will
govern the decision of that appeal also.
Th~re the
facts are slightly different only in one respect, m that
the account book which was snatched away from the
hands of the Assistant Superintendent of Commercial
Taxes was in the process torn, part of it remaining
in the hands of the Assistant Superintendent and a
part in the hands of the dealer who snatched it a'-1'.ay.
Apart from that, there is no difference and the pomts
which were urged before us were identical.
For the
reasons given by us we dismis' this appeal also.
Appenls dismissrd.
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
·1·.
PEER MOHD. & ANOTHER.
(B. P. SINHA, c. ]., P. B. GA.JESDRAGADKAH, K. N.
WANf'HOo, K. C. DAS GFPTA and J.C. SHAH, JJ.)
Gitizenship-Foreigner-lrulian going
to ]Jakistan after
r1on8fitution-Return on Paki.>1f.ani JHf8Rport-If reas"'s to
be
ritizen of India-l
1on.'5titutinn of /11,rlirt, .4t!.
7-ffif1"zen~'fh1'.7;
Act, 1955 (-57 of 19•i•j).
The respondents who were citizens of India left India
for Pakistan sometime after January 26, 1950.
They returned
to India in 1956 on the strength of a Pakistani passport and
visa.
They continued to stay in Io.dia even after the period of
the visa had expired and were prosecuted under s. 14 Foreigners
Act, 1_946, read with cl. 7 Foreignei 's Order, 1948, for un-
authonsed and illegal overstay in
India. The High Court
acquitted them holding that they had not become foreigners
on account of their leaving India after January 26, 1950, and
the question whether they had lo~t their Indian citizenship on
account of acquisition of Pakistani citizenship could not be
agitated before a court of law. The appellant contended that
in view of Art. 7 of the Constitution the respondents could
~962
Haz.ari Lal
v.
Stale of Bihat
Mudholkar, J.
1962
September, 29•
1962
State of Madhya
Pradesh
v.
Peer Mohd.
Gajendragadkar, J.
430 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1963]SlJPP.
not be deemed to be citizens of India as they had migrated to
Pakistan after March 1, 1947, within the meaning of Art. 7.
Held, that Art. 7 was applicable only to persons who had
migrated to Pakistan between March 1, 1947, and January 26,
1950, and under this Article the respondents had not ceased to
be citizens of India. The words "has migrated" in Art. i
could not include cases of persons who would migrate after the
commencement of the Constitution, they refer only to persons
who had migrated at the date when the Constitution came into
force. The absence of the words "at the commencement of the
Constitution" in Art. 7 has no significance. Cases of acqui-
sition of foreign citizenship after January 26, 1950, were covered
by the provisions of the Citizenship Act, 1955, and uf the rules
made thereunder. The Central Government or its delegate
was the appropriate authority to deal with such questions and
they could not be tried in courts.
lzhar Ah;,.ad Khan v. Union of India, referred to.
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal
Appeal No. 12 of 1961.
Appeal from the judgment and order dated
April 26, 1960, of the Madhya Pradesh High Court
Jabaipur in Criminal Appeal No. 388 of 1958.
R. t)en and I. N. Shroff, for the appellant.
The respondent did not appear.
1962. September 28. The Judgment of the Court
was delivered by
GAJENDRAGADKAR, J.-A charge-sheet
was
presented by the appellant the State of Madhya
Pradesh against the respondents Peer Mohammad
and his wife Mst. Khatoon under s. 14 of the Foreig-
ners Act, 1946 (hereinafter called the Act) read with
cl. 7 of the Foreigners Order, 1948 (hereinafter called
the Order) in the Court of the Magistrate lst Class,
Burhanpur. The case against the respondents was
that they had entered India on May 13, 1956, on the
strength of a Pakistani passport and a visa issued
in their favour.on .May 8, 1956, and reached Burhan-
pur on May 15, 1!}56. Even after the period of the
t S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS
.Jill
visa had expired, they continued lo slay in India.
Consequently, the District .Magistrate, Burhanpur,
served a notice on them on May 14, 1957 calling
upon them to leave India on or before May 28, 1957.
The respondents did not comply with the notice and
by their unauthorised and illegal over-stay in India,
they rendered themselves liable under s. l 4 of the
Act and cl. 7 of the Order.
The respondents pleaded tExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.