Direction To “Deal As Per Law” Doesn’t Hint At Mandatory Deportation: Allahabad High Court Clarifies Trial Court's Order

The Allahabad High Court, while clarifying a Trial Court's order asking authorities to take action on deportation of a woman "as per law", has stated that it doesn't direct deportation of the individual involved mandatorily.

The Court was considering a Criminal Revision Petition against the order of Additional Sessions Judge whereby she was convicted for the offence under Section 14-A of the Foreigners Act, 1946, and sentenced to two years’ imprisonment along with a fine of Rs.10,000/-.

The Bench of Justice Anil Kumar-X held, ".......it is apparent that the learned trial court has not issued a mandatory direction requiring the authorities to deport the revisionist to Myanmar. It has merely directed that necessary action be taken as per rules. The direction to proceed in accordance with rules itself demonstrates that the court did not intend to compel the revisionists' deportation, but only left it to the competent authorities to act in accordance with applicable law."

The Petitioner was represented by Advocate Mohammad Danish, while the Respondent was represented by Advocate R.P.S. Chauhan.

Facts of the Case

In default of the payment of fine, the Revisionist was directed to undergo an additional imprisonment of two months. However, she was acquitted of the charges under Sections 420, 467, 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code. In the impugned order, it was also mentioned that after completion of her sentence, she shall be deported to her country, Burma (Myanmar), as per the rules.

Counsel for the Revisionist submitted that the challenge is confined only to the part of the order wherein the Trial Court had directed the concerned authorities to deport the revisionist, allegedly a citizen of Myanmar. It was further submitted that the Trial Court had no jurisdiction to issue such a direction, particularly when the Revisionist holds valid identity documents which establish her to be an Indian citizen.

On the other hand, the Additional Government Advocate in the opposing argument stated that the Trial Court has merely observed that after completion of the sentence, the Revisionist may be deported to her country as per rules, and no specific or mandatory direction has been issued to the authorities for deportation.

Reasoning By Court

The Court agreed with the submissions of Additional Government Advocate and clarified that the impugned order doesn't direct to deport the Revisionist on a mandatory basis.

The Petition was accordingly dismissed.

Cause Title: Rashida Begum v. State of U.P.

Click here to read/ download Order