Research › Search › Judgment

Kerala High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 679 (KER)

Ram Ballal, S/o Anil Ballal v. State Of Kerala

2025-03-20

V.G.ARUN

body2025
ORDER : V.G.ARUN, J. Petitioner is the 2 nd accused in C.C.No.136 of 2017 on the files of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Devikulam. The case originated from Crime No.266 of 2016 registered at the Devikulam Police Station alleging commission of offences punishable under Sections 7 and 14 of the FOREIGNERS ACT , 1946 ('the Act' for short). The crime is registered on the allegation that, contrary to the mandate of the Foreigners Order, 1948, the accused, while working as Licenced Manager, Area Manager and Receptionist respectively at the Vedanta Wake Up Resort in Devikulam, had, between 06.12.2015 and 09.09.2016, permitted 325 foreigners to stay in the resort without registering the details and submitting a copy of Form C to the Registration Officer, as mandated in paragraph 16 of the Foreigners Order, 1948. 2. Heard, Adv.Alex J.Pulimood for the petitioner and Public Prosecutor Smt.M.K.Pushpalatha for the respondents. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that his client was an employee of Blanket Hospitality Ventures Pvt.Ltd., which was trading under the name 'Vedanta Wake Up Resorts'. The petitioner joined the company on 20.08.2015 as its Area Manager-Operations and was given the charge of the properties at Fort Kochi, Kovalam, Varkala, Kanyakumari, Trivandrum and Alleppy. Petitioner was arrested on 10.09.2016 during his visit to the property at Devikulam on the allegation that he was also responsible for the failure to record the details of foreign visitors in the register and in submitting Form C to the Registration Officer. It is argued that the responsibility of maintaining the register and submitting Form C is of the 'keeper of a hotel' as defined in Paragraph 16(7)(b) of the Foreigners Order and an Area Manager in charge of resorts/hotels at different locations will not fall within the definition. As per Paragraph 16 of the Foreigners Order, it is for the 'keeper of a hotel' to obtain the particulars necessary for recording his name and nationality in the register maintained for the purpose from every visitor and if the visitor is a foreign national, to record the particulars mentioned at Sl.Nos.4 to 11 in the Form B Register. The keeper of the hotel should also collect the details of the foreign visitor in Form C and transmit the copy to the Registration Officer within 24 hours of arrival of the foreign visitor. The keeper of the hotel should also collect the details of the foreign visitor in Form C and transmit the copy to the Registration Officer within 24 hours of arrival of the foreign visitor. According to the counsel, either the Receptionist or the Manager, who are physically present at the hotel alone will be able to collect necessary information and forward Form C to the Registration Officer. As the Manager and Receptionist are made accused in the crime, continuance of the proceedings against the petitioner is an abuse of process of court. In support of the contention, reliance is placed on the decision of this Court in Vijukumar and Others v. State of Kerala [ 2009 (3) KLT 684 ] . 4. Learned Public Prosecutor contended that the question as to whether the petitioner was the person responsible for making the entries in the register and submitting Form C to the Registration Officer is to be decided based on the evidence to be tendered and therefore should not be prejudged by this Court. 5. The offences alleged against the petitioner are under Sections 7 and 14 of the Act. Section 7 deals with the obligation of a keeper of the premises to furnish particulars. A close reading of the provision would show that the obligation to maintain information and to submit requisite forms and documents in respect of foreigners accommodated in any premises, is upon the keeper of such premises. Section 14 makes contravention of the provisions of the Act a punishable offence. 6. The 'keeper of a hotel' is defined in Paragraph 16 of the Foreigners Order as under; "keeper of a hotel" means the person having the management of a hotel and includes any person authorised by him, and competent to perform the duties of the keeper of the hotel under this paragraph;” 7. Thus, the keeper of a hotel is either the person in management of the hotel or a specified individual authorised to manage the hotel and having the competency to perform the duties of the keeper of a hotel. Being so, an Area Manager having overall charge of hotels at different locations cannot be prosecuted, alleging failure to perform the duties of the keeper of a hotel. Being so, an Area Manager having overall charge of hotels at different locations cannot be prosecuted, alleging failure to perform the duties of the keeper of a hotel. As held by this Court in Vijukumar (supra), the obligation of maintaining the records and submitting the report under Section 7 of the Act is only on the keeper of the premises. Therein, it is held that if an Attendant or a Manager is appointed to manage a hotel or resort, the owner or owners will not be the keeper. Like wise, when a licenced Manager and Receptionist are appointed for a hotel, the Area Manager of the Group of Hotels cannot be prosecuted alleging negligence in performing his duties as the keeper of one of the hotels. The discussion leads this Court to the definite conclusion that continuance of the prosecution against the petitioner is an abuse of process of court. In the result, the Crl.M.C is allowed. Annexure A2 final report and all further proceedings in C.C.No.136 of 2017 on the files of the Judicial First Magistrate Court, Devikulam as against the petitioner, is quashed.