MIST RIHANA PARVEEN Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a reference by a learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jhalawar, and arises in the following circumstances: - One girl Rihana Parveen is being persecuted in the Court of S. D. M. , Jhalawar, as being a foreigner, namely, a Pakistan national, who had contravened an order made under the Foreigners Act, 1946, (Act No. XXXI of 1946 ). It is not clear from the challan what order had been transgressed, but the facts stated are that the visa obtained was of category C, and the period of visit was restricted to 22nd December, 1955, which was later on extended by the District Magistrate, Jhalawar, to 20th January, 1956, but that nevertheless the said girl did not leave India after the extended period. That kind of order can amount to a restriction on the sojourn in India. The challan was presented on 16th of June, 1957. The learned Magistrate examined Mr. Jamil Ahmed, Advocate for the accused, as she had been exempted from appearance in court. After the examination of the accused under sec. 251 A, clause (2) Cr. P. C. the Magistrate framed a charge under sec. 14 of the Foreigners Act. The charge framed was that the said girl having entered India by Pakistan Passport, No. 359061 dated 30th August, 1955, with visa No. 58370 of 23rd September, 1955, remained in India even after the extended period ending 20th January, 1956, and did not leave India even when ordered to do so by the District Magistrate. The charge was framed on 29th July, 1957. A revision was filed on behalf of Rihana Parveen, and the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jhalawar, has recommended that the charge should be quashed. The ground for his recommendation is that she is the daughter of Mr. Jamil Ahmed, who is an Indian national, and Rihana Parveen being a minor daughter of Jamil Ahmed had under the law the same nationality as her father, namely, Indian, and, therefore, she had committed no offence by continuing to stay in India.

(2.) IN my opinion the recommendation is not justified on the present material on record. While there is no doubt that a minor acquires the domicile of his father, there are various questions which arise in this case, and which can only be thrashed out after evidence. The fact that Mr. Jamil Ahmed Khan is practising at Jhalawar as a lawyer, and had been in INdia for a long time is not conclusive of the fact whether he is or is not an INdian national. The matter has to be decided by reference to the provisions of the Constitution of INdia a)nd the INdian Citizenship Act.