SONAM TSHERING Vs. STATE OF SIKKIM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE accused -appellant has been convicted on his own plea of guilty to a charge under Section 5 of the Registration of Foreigners Act, 1939, on the allegation that he entered Indian territory from Tibet and failed to report his presence to the prescribed authority and he has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year. He has also been convicted on a similar plea to another charge under the provisions of the Indian Passport Rules, 1950, framed under Section 3 of the Indian Passport (Entry into India) Act, 1920, on the allegation that he entered Indian territory from Tibet without a passport and he has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months and both the sentences are to run concurrently.

(2.) THE Registration of Foreigners Act, 1939, has been extended to Sikkim under the provisions of clause (n) of Article 371F of the Constitution of India on the 16th of May, 1975, and has been enforced on the 1st Feb., 1976. But the corresponding Sikkim Law, being the Registration of Foreigners Rules of 1960, has not been at any time expressly repealed either before or simultaneously with or after the extension and enforcement of the Central Registration of Foreigners Act, 1939. The question as to whether the extension and enforcement of any enactment under Article 371F (n) of the Constitution, without repealing the corresponding Sikkim Law on the subject would be valid and effective, has been considered by me in details in Raj Kumar Rai v. State (Criminal Appeal No. 2 of 1978, decided on 15.9.1978) and I have held in that case that the extension and enforcement of the Indian Arms Act, 1959 to and in Sikkim under the provisions of Article 371F (n) of the Constitution without expressly repealing the corresponding Sikkim Law, being the Sikkim Arms Rules, 1952, has been valid and effective and that on and as a result of such extension and enforcement, the corresponding Sikkim Law stood overborne, overthrown and impliedly repealed. In this case also I would, therefore, hold that the Central Registration of Foreigners Act, 1939 has been validly extended to and enforced in Sikkim even though the corresponding Sikkim Law, being the Sikkim Registration of Foreigners Rules of 1960, has not been repealed at any time before such extension and enforcement and that on and as a result of such extension and enforcement, the Sikkim Registration of Foreigners Rules of 1960 have stood, overborne, overthrown and impliedly repealed.

(3.) THIS question has not arisen in respect of extension and enforcement of the Indian Passport (Entry into India) Act, 1920 to and in Sikkim, which has been extended on 16th May,1975 and enforced on 20th Sept. 1976, as there does not appear to be any corresponding law in Sikkim on this subject relating to entry into Sikkim without passport or other similar document. But even if there was any such law, such law would also be deemed to have been overborne, overthrown and impliedly repealed by the extension and enforcement of the Indian Passport (Entry into India) Act, 1920 and the said Act is to be deemed to be validly extended and enforced without express revealment of the corresponding Sikkim Law.