GANESH CHANDRA KAPURIA Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This application under S. 482 Cr. P. C., heard as contested application, is for quashing a proceeding, being C. G. R 3876/84 (Alipore P. S. Case NO. 296 dated 9-11-1984) under S. 17 of the Citizenship Act, 1955, S. 14 of the Foreigners' Act and S 420 IPC as well as for quashing or setting aside a letter of complaint dated 9-11-1984by one Ashis Sen Gupta, Sub Inspector (S.B.) and a formal FIR dated 9-11-1984 drawn up on the basis of the letter of complaint from S I, Ashis Sen Gupta.

(2.) On 9-11-1984, St, Ashis Sen Gupta, attached to the Special branch, lodged a complaint with the O/C, Alipore P.S. To the effect that the petitioner Gandsh Chandera Kapuria, being a Bangladesh national, procured an Indian Citizenship Certificate on 18-10-1977 on suppressing facts and documents relation to his Bangladesh nationality and thereby committed offences punishable under S. 17 of the Citizenship Act, S. 14 of the Foreigners' Act and S. 420 IPC. The letter of complaint was treated as the FIR, and Alipore P.S Case No. 296 dated 9-11-1984was started against the petitioner. In the formal FIR, there was also an allegation that the petitioner knowingly made a representation, which was false, to secure an Indo-Bangladesh passport and that he, thus, cheated the government of India. It is for quashing this Alipore P.S case no 296-dated 9-11-1984 and the letter of complaint from S. I Ashis Sen Gupta, that the present application has been filed. Mr. Dipankar Ghose, learned Counsel appearing form the petitioner, has contended that when the FCIR or the letter of complaint did not disclose the commission of any of the offences under S.17 of the Citizenship Act, S 144 of the Foreigners' Act and S 420 IPC none of these offences was committee by the p0eutioner and hence, the letter of complaint, the formal FIR and the Alipore P.S .Case NO. 296-dated 9-11-1984 should be quashed.

(3.) After hearing the submissions of Mr. Ghosh as well as Mr. Ramendra Nath Basu, learned Counsels for the State, I am of the opinion that the contention of the petitioner is to be accepted. This was a case of registration as a citizen of India under S. 5(1)(a) of the Citizenship Act, 1955. Under Rule 3 of the Citizenships Rules, 1956, an application or registration as a citizen under S 5(1)(a) of the Citizenship Act is to be in Form I There is nothing in Form. I to show hat at the time of making the application for registration as a citizen of India under S. 5(1)(a) of the Citizenship Act, the petitioner was to disclose that he was a citizen of Bangladesh or any other foreign county. The very fact that the petitioner applied for registration as an Indian citizenship goes to show that the petitioner was not an Indian Citizen on the date of his application. In the case of Abdus Samad v State of West Bengal (AIR 1974 SC 505), it was decided that an application for registration as an Indian citizen under S. 5(1)(a) of the Citizenship Act repels any plea of Indian citizenship of the person making the application. If the law does not require disclosure if a particular fact, non-disclosure of such, fact, such as, citizenship of Bangladesh of the petitioner, cannot amount to suppression or misrepresentation. The non-disclosure of the fat for the petitioner's. Bangladesh nationality at the time of obtaining the Indian Citizenship Certificate on 18-10-1977 does not constitute a violation of S. 5 of the Citizenship Act or any other provision of that Act and hence, it is not punishable under S. 417 of the Citizenship Act. The non disclosure of his Bangladesh nationality by the petitioner for the purpose of obtain ring the Indian Citizenship Certified dowse not constitute any violation of any of the provisions of the Freighters.' Act and is not punish be under S.14 of the Foreigners' Act. So far as the accusation under S. 420 IPC is concerned, it is to be stated that the allegation in the formal FIR is that the petitioner made false repaired notation to procure an Indo-Bangladesh passport and thus, cheered the Government of India. This accusation cannot also stand as no Indo Bangladesh passport was delivered to the petitioner and the concerned authority did not do or omit to do anything in consequence of any alleged misrepresentation of the petitioner. There is no allegation in the formal FIR that the petitioner deceived anybody. As already stated, when the law does not require disclosure of the fat of Bangladesh citizenship of the petitioner at the time of making the application in Form-I for obtaining the Indian Citizenship Certificate, non disclosure of this fat cannot amount to any misrepresentation by the petitioner. The formal FIR or the letter of complaint by S. I, Ashis Sen Gupta, does not, thus, disclose the commission of any of the offence under S. 17 of the Citizenship Act, S. 14 of the Foreigners' Act and S 420 IPC.