Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2003 DIGILAW 683 (PNJ)

Kennath Chikezie Chijioke v. U. T. Chandigarh

2003-05-12

VIRENDER SINGH

body2003
JUDGMENT Virender Singh, J. - Kennath Chikezie Chijioke (Nigerian National), the petitioner herein was convicted by the learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Chandigarh, under Section 14 of Foreigners Act, 1946, (hereinafter referred to as the "Act") and was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of two months and to pay a fine of 500/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo simple imprisonment for a period of seven days, vide impugned judgment dated 13.5.1999. His appeal was also dismissed vide judgment dated 25.1.2001 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge. Hence, the present revision petition. 2. The briefs facts of the prosecution case are that the petitioner was holder of visa No. P.P.A. 524273 dated 6.1.1994, which was valid upto 4.7.1999. His period of stay in India was valid upto 5.3.1996. The petitioner thereafter did not turn up to extend his stay in the office of Regional Passport Authorities. In this way, the petitioner has committed an offence punishable under Section 14 of the Act. The learned trial Court on consideration of entire evidence recorded conviction of the petitioner which was maintained by the learned Appellate Court. 3. I have heard Mr. U.K. Agnihotri, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Gautam Dutt, learned counsel for U.T., Chandigarh and with their assistance have gone through the record. 4. Mr. U.K. Agnihotri, learned counsel for the petitioner at the very outset states that he does not want to assail the impugned judgments on merit and instead prays for release of the petitioner on probation. He further contends that so far as the period of substantive part is concerned, the petitioner has already undergone the same because he remained in custody for a pretty long time during trial. He then contends that the petitioner was a student at Chandigarh and had joined various courses and due to over burden, he could not get his stay extended from the concerned office and he himself after a lapse of five months went to the office and moved an application for extension, but was booked in this case. Learned counsel for the petitioner further contends that there was no malafide intention of the petitioner and that this was unintentional because his visa was valid upto 4.7.1999. 5. On the other hand Mr. Learned counsel for the petitioner further contends that there was no malafide intention of the petitioner and that this was unintentional because his visa was valid upto 4.7.1999. 5. On the other hand Mr. Gautam Dutt, learned Counsel for UT, Chandigarh has contended that the petitioner should be released on probation because of the proviso contained in Section 4(1) of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958. 6. After hearing the rival contentions of both the parties, I am of the considered view that the petitioner is not entitled to be released on probation under the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958. Section 4(1) of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 reads as under :- "4. Power of court to release certain offenders on probation of good conduct - (1) When any person is found guilty of having committed an offence not punishable with death or imprisonment for life and the court by which the person is found guilty is of opinion that, having regard to the circumstances of the case including the nature of the offence and the character of the offender, it is expedient to release him on probation of good conduct, the, notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force, the Court may, instead of sentencing him at once to any punishment direct that he be released on his entering into a bond, with or without sureties, to appear and receive sentence when called upon during such period, not exceeding three years, as the court may direct, and in the meantime to keep the peace and be of good behaviour : Provided that the court shall not direct such release of an offender unless it is satisfied that the offender or his surety, if any, has a fixed place of abode or regular occupation in the place over which the court exercises jurisdiction or in which the offender is likely to live during the period for which he enters into the bond." 7. In the present case, the petitionr has no fixed place of abode or even regular occupation in the place over which this Court can exercise the jurisdiction. Concededly, the present position is that the petitioner has gone back to Nigeria and even if any concession as sought is shown towards him, it would be very difficult to secure his presence. In the present case, the petitionr has no fixed place of abode or even regular occupation in the place over which this Court can exercise the jurisdiction. Concededly, the present position is that the petitioner has gone back to Nigeria and even if any concession as sought is shown towards him, it would be very difficult to secure his presence. There is no dispute that the petitioner is not having any fixed place of residence or any regular occupation in this country. For this reason, the concession of releasing him on probation cannot arise. The argument of the learned counsel is thus repelled. 8. I do not find any illegality or infirmity in the impugned judgments passed by both the Courts below. Resultantly, the present revision petition is dismissed being devoid of any merit. Revision dismissed.