Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

14 On almost identical facts, a learned Single Judge of the Kerala High Court, in the case of Jonathan Baud vs. State of Kerala [2015 (1) KLT111] had the occasion to the consider a similar issue. In the said case, the petitioner was a citizen of Switzerland. He was sought to be prosecuted at the instance of the police, on the allegation that he attended a meting in violation of conditions of his visa. He had come to India on a tourist visa on 1st July 2014, and while on his way back, he attended a condolence meeting at Triprayar. He stepped into the meeting place and addressed the gathering voluntarily without being invited by anybody. The police of Valappad thought that he was a radical, because the meeting which he addressed was a condolence meeting organized by a political faction, recognised as a radical group. He was arrested on the spot and a crime was registered under Section 14(b) of the Act, 1946. While quashing the prosecution, the learned Single Judge held as under:

3 At the very outset I required the learned Director General of Prosecution to tell the court what condition of Visa was in fact violated by the petitioner. The learned Director General of Prosecution drew the attention of this Court to the copy of the Visa appended to the passport of the petitioner. The conditions in the said Visa are as follows: Non-extendable and non-convertible, Not valid for prohibited/restricted and contonment areas. The prosecution is not able to say whether the Visa contains any other condition. The unfortunate foreign national had to be in jail as remand prisoner for some time. However, now he is on bail. It requires to be examined thoroughly whether attending a meeting by itself will attract a prosecution under Section 14(b) of the Act. When the Court repeatedly asked the prosecution what exactly is the condition violated by the accused, the prosecution repeatedly answered that he attended a meeting when the Visa issued to him does not authorise him or allow him to attend any such meeting. Copy of the Visa appended to the petitioners passport does not contain any such condition that the tourist shall not attend any meeting in India. During arguments the learned Director General of Prosecution further submitted that if not under Section 14(b) of the Act, the prosecution can well proceed under Section 5 of the Registration of Foreigners Act 1939. This section provides that any person who contravenes, or attempts to contravene, or fails to comply with, any provision of any rule made under the Act shall be punished, if a foreigner, with imprisonment for a term which may extend to one year or with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees or with both. What is in fact made punishable under Section 5 of the Registration of Foreigners Act is violation of any Rule made by the Government under Section 3 of that Act. Section 3 of that Act provides the subjects on which Rules can be made by the Central Government. Such Rules may HC-NIC Page 9 of 16 Created On Thu Aug 17 02:37:37 IST 2017 R/SCR.A/9900/2016 JUDGMENT provide for:

8 Coming back to Section 14(b) of the Foreigners Act, I find that the prosecution does not have any clear or definite case, as to what condition of Visa was in fact violated by the petitioner. The copy of Visa appended to his passport does not contain any such condition, that he shall not attend any meeting here. Tourists visiting Kerala can see different meetings here, organized by different political or other groups. They cannot identify whether a particular meeting is one organised by any political group, or communal group or radical group. They, out of curiosity, may just step in and view such meetings. If that is understood as violation of Visa conditions, every tourist visiting Kerala will have to be prosecuted. This is not the object of the law, and this is not the spirit of the law also. The Visa issued to the petitioner does not contain any condition that he shall not attend any meeting anywhere in India. Practically the prosecution would concede that the police does not have a definite case as to what condition of Visa was in fact violated by the petitioner. As I observed earlier, it was simply on cynic suspicion the foreign national was apprehended here, and it is quite unfortunate that he had to undergo much mental harassment and detention.

9. I find that the prosecution brought by the Valappad Police as against the petitioner herein is legally unsustainable. The prosecution does not say what condition of Visa was in fact violated by the petitioner. The learned Director General of Prosecution repeatedly argued that attending a meeting by itself will amount to violation of Visa HC-NIC Page 13 of 16 Created On Thu Aug 17 02:37:37 IST 2017 R/SCR.A/9900/2016 JUDGMENT conditions, or violation of the Rules made under Section 3 of the Registration of Foreigners Rules. I find no such Rule prohibiting the alleged act of just attending a meeting. No doubt, continuance of this prosecution will be a sheer abuse of legal process, and the prosecution is liable to be quashed.