LAWS(P&H)-2017-5-206

FRIANK MOSES Vs. U.T. OF CHANDIGARH

Decided On May 26, 2017
Friank Moses Appellant
V/S
U.T. OF CHANDIGARH Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In terms of the order dated 24.04.2017, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor, U.T., Chandigarh, submits that the process for deportation of a foreign national is by admitting him to the transit camp at Amritsar (as regards foreign nationals in Punjab and Haryana), from where the embassy concerned, of the country to which the foreign national belongs, is contacted through the Ministry of External Affairs, and after the embassy agrees to accept the foreign national, he is released from the transit camp for deportation to his country of origin.

(2.) The present appeal has been filed by the appellant impugning the judgment of the learned Judge, Special Court, Chandigarh, convicting him for the commission of offences punishable under Section 21 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 and Section 14 of the Foreigners Act, 1946. He was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 3000/- for the commission of the offence under the Act of 1985 and to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay a like fine of Rs. 3000/- for the commission of the offence punishable under the Act of 1946. In respect of both the offences, in default of payment of fine in each, he has to further undergo imprisonment for one month (in each case). Both the substantive sentences were ordered to run concurrently and it was further ordered by the learned Special Court that upon completion of his sentence, the appellant-convict be deported to his native country, as per the relevant provisions and rules. Thus, in other words, effectively upon completion of his sentence, he is to be released from custody to be free in India, but is to be deported to his native country, which is stated to be Nigeria.

(3.) On 24.04.2017 learned counsel for the appellant had sought time to take instructions as to whether the appellant wishes to press the appeal against his conviction, or wishes to limit his prayer in the appeal to the question of the quantum of sentence alone.