Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 13 (1.22 seconds)
Documents citing State Of U. P vs Rahmatullah on 23 April, 1971

State vs . Mohd Sharif. on 27 August, 2016

In view of the judgments discussed above, Govt of Andhra Pradesh Vs. Syed Mohd. Khan SCR 1962 & State of UP Vs Rahmatullah Crl. Appeal No. 167 of 1968, DoD 23.04.1971, without referring the matter to the government and without Central FIR No. 140/003 PS Roop Nagar Page no. 12 of 13 Government deciding whether accused persons had become Pakistani citizens and were foreigners at the time of alleged incident no penal action was warranted against them. Therefore, in my considered view, offence u/s 14 Foreigners Act 1946 is not proved against accused persons and both of them are acquitted from the charge framed for the offence u/s 14 of Foreigners Act 1946.
Delhi District Court Cites 17 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Rahamullah Alias Rahmatulla And 7 ... vs State Of U.P. Thru. The Prin Secy. Home ... on 18 November, 2025

9. Accordingly, application is allowed and the entire proceedings of Criminal Case No.5431 of 2024, State Vs. Rahmatullah and others, arising out of Case Crime No.24 of 2021, under Sections 147, 323, 352, 504 and 325 IPC, Police Station Aliganj, District Ambedkar Nagar, pending in the court of Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division)/Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ambedkar Nagar, are hereby quashed so far it relates to the applicant(s).
Allahabad High Court Cites 15 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Fida Husain vs The Senior Superintendent Of Police And ... on 22 September, 1972

14. The learned counsel for the petitioner relied on the case of State of U. P. v. Rahmatullah, AIR 1971 SC 1382 wherein it was held that the decision of the Government of India was a condition precedent to the prosecution by the State of any person on the basis that he had lost the citizenship of India and had acquired that of a foreign country. In that case the petitioner advanced the defence that he was born in India in 1932, that he had gone to Pakistan and re-entered India on April 1, 1955 on a Pakistani passport dated the 15th March, 1955. In that view of the matter it was held that the petitioner could not come within the amended definition of the term "Foreigner" which came into effect from the 19th January, 1957. He was given the benefit of Article 5 in view of the fact that he was a natural born British subject. He was held to be not a foreigner. But that case is clearly distinguishable inasmuch as Article 7 of the Constitution did not apply to its facts. It is clear from paragraph 5 of the Reports that according to the finding recorded by the City Magistrate, Varanasi the respondent had voluntarily gone to Pakistan and had stayed there for eight or nine months. He had returned to India on April 1, 1955 which implies that be must have gone to Pakistan round about July or August, 1954 i.e. not between 1st of March, 1947 and 26th January, 1950. He, therefore, did not cease to be a foreigner by virtue of the provision of Article 7. That case obviously cannot assist the present petitioner.
Allahabad High Court Cites 16 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

State (Delhi Administration) vs Master Tameej on 9 March, 1973

If that be so, till such a decision is made under Citizenship Act, no prosecution under Section 14 could be launched, as laid down by the Supreme Court in. State of U.P. v. Rahmatullah, . For the moment as already observed earlier, we are only concerned with whether the respondent had migrated, as contended, or could .be regarded as having migrated from India to Pakistan within the meaning of Article 7 of the Constitution (13) It is a settled rule of Private International Law that nobody shall be without a domicile and in order to make this effective the law assigns what is called a domicile of origin to every person at his birth, namely, to a legitimate child the domicile of the father, to an illegitimate child the domicile of the mother and to a foundling the place where be is found. This prevails until a new domicile has been acquired, so that if a person leaves the country of his origin with an undoubted intention of ever returnig to it again, nevertheless his domicile of origin adheres to him until he actually settles with the requisite- intention in some other country. As has been observed in Che shire's Private International Law "a person cannot have two domiciles. Since the object of the law in insisting feat no person shall be. without a domicile is to establish a definite legal system by which cirtain of his rights and obligation nay be: governed, and since the facts and events of his life frequently impinge upon several countries, it is necessary on practical grounds, to hold that he cannot possess more than one domicile at the same time." It is in keeping with the established principle of law that even Indian statutes have laid down rules regarding domicile. For example. Part It of the Indian Sucecssion Act. 1935 deals with domicile. No doubt, the statute deals with succession but it lays down, as far as a minor is concerned, that the domicile of a minor follows the domisile of the parents from. whom he derived his domicile of origin (Section 14). Section is of the Succession Act provides that a person cannot during minority acquire a new domicile save as otherwise provided in Part Ii of this Act. "This if a minor has Indian domicile it cannot be changed unless there is a positive act performed by virtue , of which the minor can be regarded as having voluntarily left the country of his origin with an undoubted intention of never returning to it again and he actually settles with the requisite intention in the other country.
Delhi High Court Cites 24 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Sayed Ahmed Kabuli vs The State Of Maharasthra on 18 September, 1973

State of U.P. v. Rahmatullah was an appeal by the State against the acquittal by the High Court of respondent-accused who the Foreigners Act, 1946, on the ground of his having entered India on 1.4.1955 on Pakistan passport and having over-stayed in India illegally. That he was a citizen Constitution was not disputed. During the pendency of the Criminal Proceedings inquiry under Section 9(2) of the Citizenship Act read with Rule 30 of the Rules thereunder was held and by an order of the Central Government dated 5th November 1964 he was held to have acquired January 1950 and before 15th March 1955. Rahmatullah's acquittal by the High Court was based on the fact that question of his acquisition of Pakistani citizenship was not determined before the date of the prosecution. Dua J., speaking for the Court, after the referring to its some reported and unreported judgments made the following observations:
Bombay High Court Cites 15 - Cited by 1 - Full Document

S. Nalini Srikaran vs Union Of India (Uoi), Rep. By Its ... on 7 March, 2007

16. A plain reading of the ratio laid down in the above judgments implicitly spells out that only an order passed by the Central Government under Section 9(2) of the Citizenship Act which operates cession of the citizenship of a person and not his acquisition of the passport of a foreign country, notwithstanding the conclusive presumption raised under the Rules. In other words a person found to be a citizen of India cannot be treated as foreigner as long as the Central Government does not record a decision to that effect under Section 9(2) of the Citizenship Act. We hasten to add that Section 9(2) does not provide for filing of any application by such person as suggested by the learned Assistant Solicitor General, but what the Section contemplates is the determination of the question of cessation of citizenship by the Central Government and only upon such determination he would be ceased to be citizen of India. Further, the provision for prescribing rules of evidence, having regard to which the question of acquisition of citizenship of another country has to be determined, clearly indicates that the order is not to be made on the mere satisfaction of the authority without enquiry as to whether the citizen concerned has obtained a passport of another country. The authority has also to determine as to whether the person has voluntarily acquired foreign citizenship. The enquiry would be quasi judicial in nature and reasonable opportunity must be afforded to the citizen to convince the authority that what is alleged against him is not true. Thus, the termination of Indian citizenship does not merely depend upon the action of a foreign country in issuing a passport.
Madras High Court Cites 29 - Cited by 0 - A P Shah - Full Document

S. Nalini Srikaran vs Union Of India on 7 March, 2007

In State of U.P. Vs. Rahmatullah reported in A.I.R. 1971 S.C. 1382, the Supreme Court was concerned with an appeal by the State against the acquittal by the High Court of the respondent-accused who was tried for an offence under Section 14 of the Foreigners Act, 1946 on the ground of his having entered India on 1.4.1955 on a Pakistan passport and having overstayed in India illegally. The fact that he was a citizen of India at the commencement of the Constitution was not disputed. During the pendency of the criminal proceedings, an enquiry under Section 9(2) of the Citizenship Act read with Rule 30 of the Rules thereunder was held and by the order of the Central Government, he was held to have acquired the citizenship of Pakistan after 26th January, 1950 and before 15th March, 1955. Rahmatullah's acquittal by the High Court was based on the fact that the question of his acquisition of Pakistani citizenship was not determined before the date of the prosecution. Dua, J., speaking for the Court, after referring to some reported and unreported judgments, made the following observations :
Madras High Court Cites 29 - Cited by 16 - Full Document

Jagdish Narain vs Shyam Sunder And Ors. on 7 August, 1984

3. Mr. Gupta, appearing on behalf of the petitioners, has referred the case of State of UP v. Rahmatullah and Tejmal Madan v. Motilal Sankhla (1981 Cr. LR (Raj) 431). The proposition laid down in both the cases is not in dispute at all. For determining the question whether any process should be issued to the accused, or not, the Magistrate has to be satisfied as to whether there is sufficient evidence for proceeding or not. If there is a prima facie case, even then the accused may have a defence which may be inquired into at the stage of trial. The matter should be left to be decided at the appropriate stage and the issuance of process cannot be disputed merely on the ground that the accused had a defence. The process is issued only for the determination whether the complainant has succeeded in making out a prima facie case, or not. At the same time, it is to be kept in mind that the complaint must narrate the facts constituting the offence and, if the facts have not been narrated in the complaint constituting an offence and any of the ingredients of the offence is missing, this Court should not interfere and should not issue a process.
Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur Cites 8 - Cited by 1 - Full Document
1   2 Next