1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA CRIMINAL APPLICATION(MAIN) NO. 178 OF 2009 AND CRIMINAL APPLICATION(MAIN) NO. 180 OF 2009 CRIMINAL APPLICATION(MAIN) NO. 178 OF 2009 Mr. Levi Anyanwu ... Applicant versus State ... Respondent CRIMINAL APPLICATION(MAIN) NO.180 OF 2009 Mrs. Helen Uzoma Anyanwu ... Applicant versus State ... Respondent Shri Menino Teles, Advocate for the Applicants. Ms. Winnie Coutinho, Public Prosecutor for the Respondent. CORAM : N. A. BRITTO, J. DATE : 22ND JUNE, 2009. P.C.:- Heard Shri Menino Teles, learned Counsel on behalf of the applicants. The applicants/accused were prosecuted under Section 14 of the Foreigners Act, 1946 r/w Section 7(3)(III) of Foreigners Order 1948 for having overstayed in India without a valid permit/visa. The accused appeared and filed an application dated 13-11-2007 for discharge but the same came to be rejected by 2 Order dated 17-4-2008 which was challenged by them in revision before the Court of Sessions, Panaji, and the learned Sessions Judge by his Order dated 24-9-2008 rejected the said revision petition. In rejecting the revision, the learned Sessions Judge observed that from the documents produced it was seen that the subsequent permissions were obtained, after 10-7-2002, and that otherwise there was sufficient material for framing the charge against both of them. 2. Apparently, the Applicants were directed by the Foreigners Registration Officer by letter dated 17-6-2002 to leave the country by 6-7-2002, and that was done pursuant to the communication dated 28-5-2002 from the Under Secretary(Home) which was in turn based on a communication issued by Ministry of Home Affairs,Government of India, New Delhi. The Applicants thereafter filed a Writ Petition before the High Court at New Delhi on or about 14-8-2002, and the High Court was pleased to stay the said order by directing the Foreigners Registration Officer not to insist upon the Applicants to leave India. Learned Counsel on behalf of the Applicants is unable to make any statement as to what ultimately happened to the said Writ Petition No.494/2002 filed before the High Court at New Delhi. There also appears to be no dispute that thereafter from 30-9-2004 the Applicants were granted visa with certain conditions. If the said visa had restricted the Applicants residence to New Delhi, one does not know on what basis one of the Applicants was found in Goa, prior to the filing of the charge-sheet. However, it is to be noted that it is not the case of the Applicants that their stay in India was at any time regularized retrospectively by the 3 Foreigners Registration Officer under the instructions of the Ministry of Home Affairs, New Delhi. It is therefore obvious that the Applicants residence from 6-7-2002 upto 14-8-2002 or for that matter 30-9-2004 was unauthorized without any valid permission. In this view of the matter, the orders of both the Courts cannot be faulted. In any event, the Applicants are bound to prove during the course of the trial whether their visa was retrospectively extended at any time, after they have been directed to leave the country. 3. Petitions are therefore dismissed with no order as to costs. N. A. BRITTO, J. RD