MARCEL RODRICK Vs. STATE
LAWS(CAL)-1960-12-13
HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
Decided on December 15,1960

Marcel Rodrick Appellant
VERSUS
STATE Respondents

JUDGEMENT

S.C.LAHIRI,C.J. - (1.) THE petitioner who has been convicted under Section 14 of the Foreigners Act. 1946, for infringement of paragraph 7 of the Foreigners Order, 1948, by the Presidency Magistrate, Seventh Court, Calcutta, and whose application for revision under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been summarily dismissed by a Division Bench of this Court asks for a certificate under Article 134(l)(c7 of the Constitution for a further appeal to the Supreme Court.
(2.) THE facts as found by the Trying Magistrate which are not in dispute are that the petitioner entered India on September 2, 1957, on a passport issued from Dacca on May 30, 1957, and 'C' category visa valid for a period of three months. On June 13, 1959, a complaint was lodged by the Special Branch of Police to the Officer in Charge of Taltola Police Station within the jurisdiction of which the petitioner was residing that the petitioner's stay in India was unauthorised and was in contravention of paragraph 7 of Foreigners Order, 1948. Upon that complaint the petitioner was placed on his trial, and he was convicted by the Trying Magistrate wider Section 14 of the Foreigners Act read with paragraph 7 of the Foreigners Order, 1948, and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for four weeks and also to a fine of Rs. 50/ -, in default, to suffer rigorous imprisonment for six weeks, The point which the petitioner intends to raise before the Supreme Court is that upon the findings arrived at by the learned Magistrate he cannot be said to have violated the provisions of paragraph 7 of the Foreigners Order, 1948. The material portion of that paragraph after omitting unnecessary details is follows: Every foreigner who enters India on the authority of a Visa ....shall obtain from the Registration Officer having jurisdiction...a permit indicating the period during which he is authorised to remain in India and shall depart from India before the expiry of the said period....
(3.) THIS paragraph contemplates two distinct offences. The first offence is the omission to obtain from the Registration Officer a permit indicating the period during which he is authorised to remain in India, and the second offence is his failure to depart from India after the expiry of the period granted by the permit. In this case, upon the findings arrived at by the Trying Magistrate, the petitioner is clearly guilty of the first offence contemplated by paragraph 7 of the Foreigners Order, 1948, because it has been found by the Trying Magistrate, and that finding is not disputed before us, that after his entry into India, the petitioner has not taken out a permit indicating the period during which he is authorised to remain in India.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.