KENNATH CHIKEZIE CHIJIOKE Vs. U.T. CHANDIGARH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) KENNATH Chikezie Chijioke (Nigerian National), the petitioner herein was convicted by the learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Chandigarh, under Section 14 of Foreigners Act, 1946, (hereinafter referred to as the "Act") and was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of two months and to pay a fine of 500/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo simple imprisonment for a period of seven days, vide impugned judgment dated 13.5.1999. His appeal was also dismissed vide judgment dated 25.1.2001 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge. Hence, the present revision petition.

(2.) THE briefs facts of the prosecution case are that the petitioner was holder of visa No. P.P.A. 524273 dated 6.1.1994, which was valid upto 4.7.1999. His period of stay in India was valid upto 5.3.1996. The petitioner thereafter did not turn up to extend his stay in the office of Regional Passport Authorities. In this way, the petitioner has committed an offence punishable under Section 14 of the Act. The learned trial Court on consideration of entire evidence recorded conviction of the petitioner which was maintained by the learned Appellate Court.

(3.) MR . U.K. Agnihotri, learned counsel for the petitioner at the very outset states that he does not want to assail the impugned judgments on merit and instead prays for release of the petitioner on probation. He further contends that so far as the period of substantive part is concerned, the petitioner has already undergone the same because he remained in custody for a pretty long time during trial. He then contends that the petitioner was a student at Chandigarh and had joined various courses and due to over burden, he could not get his stay extended from the concerned office and he himself after a lapse of five months went to the office and moved an application for extension, but was booked in this case. Learned counsel for the petitioner further contends that there was no malafide intention of the petitioner and that this was unintentional because his visa was valid upto 4.7.1999.