STATE OF ASSAM Vs. NIRODE RANJAN DEY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an appeal against an order of acquittal. The respondent was prosecuted under Section 14 of the Foreigners Act, 1946 for alleged violation of para 3 of the Foreigners (Restricted Areas) Order, 1963 (as amended).

(2.) THE following facts are not disputed by the parties :

(3.) IN the jungle of laws it is well-nigh impossible to know all laws and one cannot see the wood for the forest. What about a foreigner who arrives with a genuine passport? He is not supposed to know the ancillary laws made in the form of Orders, Rules and Notifications and/or constructions and restrictions imposed by them. It is true that they are supposed to know the provisions of the Foreigners Act. However, if there are Orders, Notifications, Rules, made under "the Act" there must exist some mechanism to inform them about the existence of the delegated legislations, on their arrival. The gravamen of the charge against the respondent is violation of a restriction imposed by para 3 of the "Order", made under Section 3 of "the Act". It follows, therefore, that it is not the case of direct or positive violation of "the Act" but that of a prohibition contained in a delegated legislation. "The Order" itself does not provide for any penalty but the provisions of Section 3 read with Section 14 of the Foreigners Act make a person liable for violation of the prohibition imposed by and under "the Order". Interestingly, even the Officer-in-Charge of the Police Station had no knowledge about the restrictions imposed by and under Clause 3 of the "the Order". The conduct of the Police Officer in making the endorsement on the passport and not asking the respondent to leave Kokrajhar forthwith is sufficient to show that even a policeman did not know the existence of such restriction. Therefore, on the facts and circumstances of the case and in the setting, it is not possible to convict the respondent under Section 14 of the Foreigners Act.