JUDGMENT 1. - This state appeal is directed against the judgment dated 5.5.1982 passed by the learned Cheif Judicial Magistrate, Badmer Camp Balotra acquitting the accused respondent herein of the offence under Section 13(2) of the Foreigners Act, 1946. 2. The necessary facts are that on 24.11.1970 one Shri Ram Swroop of B.S.F. reported that he received an information from reliable source about a person going to Pakistan after collecting information from India. On this information Shah Nawaj Ajij @ Anwar Ajij was arrested, he explained that he came to meet his relative Masrur Husain of Bhimganj, Kota. It is alleged that Shah Nawaj also met with Wajid Ali Shah accused respondent, who had taken him to different places including public library in Ram Niwas garden at Jaipur and supplied secret information about India and the same information was carried by Shah Nawaj to Pakistan. The case was registered against Anwar Ajij under section 14 of the Foreigners Act but he was sent to Pakistan due to Shimla Pact and the case was proceeded only against Wajid Ali Shah for the offence under Section 13(2) read with Section 14 of the Foreigners Act. The prosecution examined 10 witnesses. The trial court by impugned order acquitted the accused respondent on the ground that the prosecution failed to establish the case against Wajid Ali Shah. In the opinion of the Court, simple statement of PW/4 Jai Singh was not sufficient to hold him guilty of offence under Section 13(2) of the said act. 3. I have read the prosecution evidence on record. PW/4 Jai Singh has stated that he was Engineer in the office of the Director, Public Relations. The department of Public Relations had given community receivers sets to the Panchayat Samities for sale. The sets which could not be sold, were to be collected from different Panchayat Samities. In this connection, he had gone to Kota to meet Public Relation Officer. He was told that some of the sets were in Ladpura Panchayat Samiti. He therefore, went to Ladpura Panchayat Samiti, there, he met the Clerk, Incharge of the receiver sets. The said Clerk was non else but the accused Wajid Ali. They became friendly. He stayed there for 2-3 days. Wajid Ali asked him to give his address. On which he gave address. Thereafter, he returned to Jaipur. He therefore, went to Ladpura Panchayat Samiti, there, he met the Clerk, Incharge of the receiver sets. The said Clerk was non else but the accused Wajid Ali. They became friendly. He stayed there for 2-3 days. Wajid Ali asked him to give his address. On which he gave address. Thereafter, he returned to Jaipur. On 8.11.1970, Wajid Ali came to his house at Jaipur on Sunday. He was accompanied by a unknown person, named Anwar Ajij. He introduced him as his relative. Out of courtesy, he offered them tea. Both of them stayed with him for about an hour. They wanted to know some information with regard to certain libraries. He referred to Maharaja Public Library. He also stated that he identified both the persons in December, 1970 at the Police Interrogation Centre. PW/5 Ram Swaroop stated that from 24.11.1970, he was posted with Boarder Security Force. He had received an information that a Pakistani Spy was carrying material information out of the country. PW/6 Bhagirath is also a Police Constable. In his presence, certain objectionable papers were recovered from the possession of accused respondent Wajid Ali. Some of the papers, in Urdu were carrying the seal of the Government of Pakistan. PW/10 Ummed Singh is Sub Inspector who carried the investigation. He stated that in pursuance of the information given by the accused, number of documents were recovered from the possession of accused. The recovery of the objectionable documents is proved by the statements of PW/6 Bhagirath and PW/7 Chandmal. Many of the documents were having direct relations with the documents recovered from the possession of Pakistani spy Anwar Ajij. On the basis material on record, referred to above, there can be no escape from concluding that the accused respondent had knowledge that Anwar Ajij was a foreigner indulged in activities against the interest of the country. The accused respondent allowed Anwar Ajij to carry on his spying activities by extending unwarranted assistance. He even introduced him as one of his relative. The learned Magistrate was obviously in error in saying that there is no sufficient evidence to bring home the guilt of the respondent under Section 13(2) of the Foreigners Act. 4. In view of the aforesaid, the State appeal is allowed and the judgment dated 5.5.1982 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate Badmer Camp Balotra is quashed and set-aside. The learned Magistrate was obviously in error in saying that there is no sufficient evidence to bring home the guilt of the respondent under Section 13(2) of the Foreigners Act. 4. In view of the aforesaid, the State appeal is allowed and the judgment dated 5.5.1982 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate Badmer Camp Balotra is quashed and set-aside. Respondent herein Wajid Ali is convicted under section 13(2) of the Foreigners Act and sentenced to 5 years R.l. It appears from the impugned judgment that the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate found that maximum sentence of offence under Section 13(2) of the Foreigners Act is 5 years and the accused has remained in custody for about 6 years, in view of this, by order dated 20.1.77 he had stopped the proceedings. However, the said order was set in appeal and the trial judge was directed to decide the case on merit. Thus the respondent herein has already undergone the sentence. In this view, no further direction is required to be given.State Appeal Allowed. *******