WAHID MIAN HIDDAN MIAN Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The applicant has been convicted under Section 14 of the Foreigners Act, 1946, for the act of not departing from India before the expiry of the period mentioned in his visa and extended by the District Magistrate, Rampur.

(2.) The applicant was a resident of Rampur. He went from India to Pakistan, though it is not known when, and whether before, or after, 26-1-1950. It may be conceded that he was an Indian national before he went to Pakistan, On 19-7-1955 he obtained a passport for India as a Pakistani national and on 7-2-1957 he obtained from the High Commissioner for India at Karachi a visa permitting him to stay in India for three months. He came from Pakistan to India on 15-2-1957 and according to the period mentioned in the visa he was bound to depart from India on or before 14-5-1957. This period was extended by the District Magistrate, Rampur, through an endorsement on the visa itself, by one month; so he became liable to depart from India on or before 14-6-1957. He did not depart from India and a notice was served upon him to depart from India within a certain time but he refused and, thereupon, he was prosecuted under Section 14 of the Foreigners Act,

(3.) Section 2 (a) of the Act defines a "foreigner" to be a person who is not a citizen of India. Uptill 1956 the word was defined differently, but it is. not in dispute that the applicant's case is governed by the definition as it stands now. If he was not a citizen of India on 15-2-1957 he was a foreigner. Section 3 authorises the Central Government to make provision with respect to foreigners for, among other matters, their continued presence in India and their departure from India. In exercise of this power the Central Government made the Foreigners Order, 1948. In this case I am concerned only with Rule 7 of the Order, which reads an follows :