SHRI GAURANGA CHANDRA DEB Vs. TRIPURA ADMINISTRATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner was convicted under Rule 6(a) of the Indian Passport Rules, 1950, read with Rule 3 and with Section 3 of the Indian Passport Act, 1920 and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 55/ - by the S. D. M., Sadar. His appeal to the Sessions Judge was dismissed. Hence, he has come up in revision,

(2.) THE case against the petitioner was that he was a Pakistan national and that he entered India without any valid travel document between 16 -9 -59 and 20 -11 -59. He was arrested on 20 -11 -59 at Joynagar in Agartala by the Police. The defence of the petitioner was that he is an Indian national and that he did not enter India from Pakistan between 16 -9 -59 and 20 -11 -59, but that he has always been a resident of Joynagar in Agartala.

(3.) IN coming to that conclusion the lower Courts relied on Exts. P/1 and P/2 and on the evidence of P. Ws. 1, 2, 4 and 6. Ext. P/l showed that one Gauranga Chandra Deb, son of Raj Kumar Deb of New Choudhurv Para in East Pakistan born on 25 -5 -1933 at Kaimpur and occupation Kabiraj had entered India on 11 -9 -59 on a Pakistan Passport No. 371610 dated 12 -6 -58 and visa No. 516259 dated 25 -11 -58, through the Akhaura Check Post. It also contained an entry for the exit of this Gauranga Chandra Deb on 16 -9 -59. Ext. P/2 is an application for visa, dated 23 -6 -58, by this Gauranga Chandra Deb, son of Raj Kumar Deb of New Choudhury Para in District Tippeira, date of birth shown as 25 -5 -33, place of birth as Kaimpur and occupation Kabiraj. The Passport number is mentioned as 371610. Thus there can be no doubt that the entry in Ext. P/1 relating to Gauranga Chandra Deb is of the same person who applied for the visa by Ext. P/2. On this application, he was given a visa valid from 30 -6 -58 to 11 -9 -58. The photo of Gauranga Chandra Deb is affixed to the visa Ext. P/2. The Magistrate; after seeing the petitioner was satisfied that the photo in Ext. P/2 was that of the petitioner. I may also say that the petitioner was present in Court at (he time of the arguments in this revision petition and I also found that the