Case: Habib Ibrahim Vs. State of Rajasthan

3. Background facts in a nutshell are as follows:SHO Vidhadhar Nagar, Jaipur acting upon the information of informant on 13.1.2004, the then SHO Richpal Singh alongwith Superintendent of Police reached at Vidhyadhar Nagar bus stand No. 15 and verified the information given that the persons accompanying with Bhagwan Sahai Sain R/o Village Aakedadugar is a Pakistani resident who is living in India illegally. Thereafter at about 8.15 am he reached at Bus stand No. 1t along with two witnesses. He found one person with Bhagwan Sahai. Upon inquiry, he told his name to be Habib Ibrahim, son of Ibrahim Rahamtullah R/o Gali No. 3 Mullah Allah Dadlen Gobol Road, Liyari, Karachi, Pakistan. The documents authorizing stay in India were demanded from Habib Ibrahim and he was asked the reasons for coming to India. He did not give any satisfactory answer. On the basis of suspicion he was searched in the presence of witnesses and a Pakistani passport was recovered from his pocket and tourist visa for six months for Nepal, telephone bills were recovered from him. Bhagwan Sahai and Smt. Sunita @ Sonu @ Nagma were also arrested as they were helping Habib Ibrahim who was living in Indian illegally. FIR No. 14/2004 was registered and investigation started. During investigation a spot map was prepared and the statement of accused were recorded and they were arrested. On the information of accused Habib Ibrahim, Nepalese currency, a reliance mobile of Nokia company and tickets of airlines, documents and cash relating to Bangladesh and Indian currency were recovered from his house at 8/37 Vidhyadhar Nagar which were seized and produced before the court. After complication of investigation, charge sheet was filed.4. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jaipur found that the accusations against the accused appellants were fully established. Accordingly conviction was recorded and sentence was imposed. In the Criminal revision filed before the High Court, stand taken was that he had come to meet his wife and children who were residing at Jaipur. It was further submitted that since the accused had suffered custody for more than three years and nine months, a liberal view has to be taken. The State opposed the stand contending that the appellant knowingly and willfully came and stayed in India without any passport. Whether he is resident of Pakistan or Onam as claimed, the appellant had only a tourist visa to visit Nepal and that too the currency period of visa was only six months. Long thereafter the appellant was found in India without a passport.5. The High Court found that the conviction was well founded and there was no scope for reducing the sentence.6. The stand taken by the parties before the High Court was reiterated.

Reasoning:
7. Prosecution evidence clearly establishes that the appellant did not have passport to stay in India. This fact is not disputed by the appellant. The only plea to justify his presence was that he had come to visit his wife and children. As rightly noted by the courts below, the appellant had been issued a transit visa that too for Nepal for a period of six months. There was no valid document in possession of the appellant to stay in India. The only plea to justify his presence was that he had come to visit his wife and children. That does not give any right to him to stay illegally in India. As rightly noted by the courts below, the appellant had been issued a transit visa that too for Nepal for a period of six months. There was no valid document in possession of the appellant to stay in India. Therefore Section 3 read with Section 14 of the Act have been rightly applied. The conviction therefore cannot be faulted. So far as the sentence is concerned, considering the large number of infiltrators come to India without valid document, there is need for imposing stricter sentence. The reasons given by the appellant to justify his presence in India have hardly any substance. Appellants feeble plea that he did not know that he is required to be in possession of valid document is without substance. Otherwise, he would not have obtained any transit visa for Nepal.