Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 13 (0.29 seconds)Section 14 in The Foreigners Act, 1946 [Entire Act]
The Foreigners Act, 1946
The Amending Act, 1897
Mohd. Hanif Quareshi & Others vs The State Of Bihar(And Connected ... on 23 April, 1958
In support of his argument learned Counsel referred me to the cases Mohd. Hanif v. State, 1959 All LJ 895 : (1960 Cri LJ 878), State of Uttar Pradesh v. Mohd. Yasin AIR 1967 AH 320 : (1967 Cri LJ 833) and Gulam Rasool v. State, 1970 All LJ 1251, in support of his argument.
Section 2 in The Foreigners Act, 1946 [Entire Act]
Section 342 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
Mohd. Hanif Khan vs State on 8 September, 1959
14. Now. so far as the case of Mohd. Hanif Khan v. State, (supra) is concerned the charge against Mohd. Hanif Khan in that case was that being a Pakistani National he continued to stay in India till 20th of August 1954, without getting his visa extended and without obtaining a residential permit. It is worthy of notice that till 26th of August, 1954, the definition of the word 'Foreigner' had not been amended. In view of the definition of the word 'Foreigner' as it stood in 1954, Mohammad Hanif could not be treated to be a 'Foreigner' till 20th August, 1954. He could not, therefore, be prosecuted fot contravening Rule 7 of the Foreigners' Order, 1948.
Fateh Mohd, Son Of Nathu vs Delhi Administration on 27 November, 1962
The decision of the Supreme Court in case Fateh Mohd. v. Delhi Administration was available when my brother G. S. Lai, J., decided the case of Ghulam Rasool v. State but it appears that this de-cision was not brought to his notice. In view of the aforesaid decision of the Supreme Court it does not appear necessary to make a reference in this case to a larger Bench.
Ghulam Rasool Choari vs The State on 2 May, 1967
The decision of the Supreme Court in case Fateh Mohd. v. Delhi Administration was available when my brother G. S. Lai, J., decided the case of Ghulam Rasool v. State but it appears that this de-cision was not brought to his notice. In view of the aforesaid decision of the Supreme Court it does not appear necessary to make a reference in this case to a larger Bench.