HARIDAS ROY Vs. STATE OF WEST BENGAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) An order dated 26.6.2000 passed by the learned Sub- Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Jalpaiguri in G.R. Case No. 80 of 1999 under Section 14 of the Foreigners Act, 1946 is the subject matter of challenge in this Revisional Application. The learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate by her Order dated 26.6.2000 at the time of delivery of the judgment found that no decision of Central Government with regard to the citizenship of the accused persons under Section 9(2) of the Citizenship Act, 1955 has been obtained as yet since the accused were facing a Trial under the Foreigners Act, 1946 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act) as such this is necessary that the Central Government should decide the said question.

(2.) Shri Subir Banerjee, learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner assisted by Shri Jayanta Banerjee submitted that after framing of the Charge the Defence was disclosed and at the stage of writing the Judgment the learned Magistrate should have either acquitted or convicted the accused on the basis of the existing material but she could not pass the impugned direction which was not accordance with law. Shri Banerjee further submitted that the learned Magistrate erred in law by passing the impugned direction in view of the fact that after the conclusion of the evidence and argument of both sides were completed and the Judgment was about to be delivered all the defence have been disclosed now at this stage the impugned direction would operate to the serious prejudice of the Defence.

(3.) Shri Banerjee submitted that the determination of citizenship by the Central Government is a condition precedent before starting of the case under the said Act and even, if such determination is made during the pendency of the proceeding under the said Act, does not meet the requirements of law. Further, Shri Banerjee pointed out that as the accused persons are languishing in Jail the learned Magistrate by passing the impugned direction has effect dragged the entire proceeding and it was incumbent upon her to pronounce a Judgment on the basis of the evidence already recorded.