IBRAHIM versus STATE OF RAJASTHAN

IBRAHIM versus STATE OF RAJASTHAN

The appellant was proved to be the deported individual, re-entered India after being deported, and was a foreigner under the post-amendment Foreigners Act, having come into India without a passport in violation of s. 3, for which he is liable. The burden was on him to prove Indian citizenship, not discharged, and s. 9(2) of the Citizenship Act did not apply.

Parties
Appellant: Ibrahim; Respondent: State of Rajasthan
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
24 March 1964
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Supreme Court Appeal by Special Leave Against Conviction and Sentence by High Court
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Deportation, Foreigners Act Offences, Burden of Proof, Citizenship Determination
Criminal Law Immigration Law Deportation Foreigners Act Offences Burden of Proof Citizenship Determination

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Ibrahim

Appellant

State of Rajasthan

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Supreme Court Appeal by Special Leave Against Conviction and Sentence by High Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the appellant was correctly identified as the person deported in 1957
  2. 2 Whether the appellant, a Pakistani national, was a 'foreigner' under the Foreigners Act at the time of re-entry
  3. 3 Whether the courts had jurisdiction to determine if the appellant was a foreigner given s.9(2) of the Citizenship Act

Ratio Decidendi

The appellant was proved to be the deported individual, re-entered India after being deported, and was a foreigner under the post-amendment Foreigners Act, having come into India without a passport in violation of s. 3, for which he is liable. The burden was on him to prove Indian citizenship, not discharged, and s. 9(2) of the Citizenship Act did not apply.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Conviction and sentence by High Court upheld