http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 4  

PETITIONER: ABDUL RAHIM ISMAIL RAHIMTOOLA

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: THE STATE OF BOMBAY

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 14/05/1959

BENCH: IMAM, SYED JAFFER BENCH: IMAM, SYED JAFFER KAPUR, J.L.

CITATION:  1959 AIR 1315            1960 SCR  (1) 285

ACT:        Criminal Trial-Entry into India without  passport-Conviction        -Interpretation   of   statute   and   rules-Reference    to        constitutional Bench, if and when neccssary-Constitution  of        India, Art. 145(3)-Indian Passport Rules, 1950 rr. 3 and  4-        Indian Passport Act (34 Of 1920), s. 3.

HEADNOTE:        The  appellant  an Indian citizen entered  India  without  a        passport  after  and  on the basis of the  decision  of  the        Supreme Court.  The appellant’s contention was that s. 3  of        the  Indian  Passport  Rules, 1950,  were  ultra  vires  the        Constitution  and  that  on  a  proper  interpretation,  the        provisions  of  the section and rules did not  apply  to  an        Indian   citizen;   and  that  when  a   case   involves   a        constitutional question, it should be referred to a Bench of        five judges, described as " Constitution Bench.  "        Held:     Where   there  is  a  binding  decision   of   the        Constitution  Bench of this Court on the question of law  as        to  the interpretation of the Constitution, and if the  same        question is raised in another matter then it cannot be  said        that  any substantial question of law arises  regarding  the        -interpretation of the Constitution and the matter need  not        be referred to a Constitution Bench.        On a reasonable interpretation of s. 3 of the Act and rr.  3        and  4  of the rules, which say that "  persons  "  entering        India shall be in possession of a valid passport, there  can        be  no  manner  of doubt that the provisions  apply  to  all        persons entering India including Indian citizen.        The  Act  of  entry into India without  a  passport  was  in        contravention  of  the Rules and the appellant  was  rightly        convicted.        Ebrahim  Vaziy Mavat v. The State of Bombay,  [1954]  S.C.R.        933, followed.

JUDGMENT:        CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No. 182  of        1957.        Appeal  from-the judgment and order dated July 4,  1957,  of        the Bombay High Court, in Criminal Application for  Revision

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 4  

      No. 278 of 1956, arising out of the judgment and order dated        the  3rd  January,  1956, of the  Presidency  Magistrate  16        Court,  Esplanade,  Bombay, in Criminal Case No.  1913/P  of        1955.        0.   N. Srilvastava and J. B. Dadachanji, for the appellant.        G.   C. Mathethur and R.  H. Dhebar, for the respondent.        286        1959.  May 14.  The Judgment of the Court was        delivered by        lMAM  J.-The appellant was convicted under r.6(a)     of the        Indian Passport Rules, 1950, hereinafter reffered to as  the        Rules,  made under s. 3 of the Indian Passport Act,  (34  of        1920), hereinafter referred to as the Act, and was sentenced        to pay a fine, of Rs. 100.  The High Court in exercising its        revisional jurisdiction upheld a fine of the conviction  but        reduced the sentence to Rs. 25. it granted a certificate  to        the appellant that the case was a fit one for appeal to this        Court.        it is beyond dispute now that the appellant is a citizen  of        India.   Admittedly  he  entered the  territories  of  India        without  a passport The sole question for  determination  is        whether  his  act in so entering the  territories  of  India        amounted  to  an offence punishable  under r.  6(a)  of  the        Rules.        The  Act  was  passed in 1920 and has been  the  subject  of        amendment and modification thereafter Its preamble states  "        whereas  it is expedient to take power to require  passports        of  persons  entering  India,  it is  hereby  enacted  _  as        follows."  " Passport " has been defined as a  passport  for        the time being in force issued or renewed by the  prescribed        authority and satisfying the conditions prescribed  relating        to  the  class of passport to which it belongs.   Section  3        states:        (1)  The  Central Government may make rules  requiring  that        persons entering India shall be in possession of  passports,        and for all matters ancillary or incidental to that purpose.        (2)  Without  prejudice to the generality of  the  foregoing        power such rules may-        (a)  prohibit  the entry into India or any part  thereof  of        any  person who has not in his possession a passport  issued        to him        (b)  poresscribe the authorities by whom passports must have        been  issued or renewed, and the conditions with which  they        must comply, for the purposes of this Act; and        (c)  provide for the exemption, either absolutely or on  any        condition,  of  any  person or class  of  persons  from  any        provision of such rules,        287        (3)  Rules  made  under this section may  provide  that  any        contravention  thereof  or  of any order  issued  under  the        authority  of  any  such  rule  shall  be  punishable   with        imprisonment for a term which may extend to three months, or        with fine or with both.        (4)  All rules made under this section shall be published in        the  Official Gazette and shall thereupon have effect as  if        enacted in this Act.        Rule 3 of the Rules states:        Save  as provided in rule 4, no person, proceeding from  any        place outside India, shall enter, or attempt to enter, India        by water, land or air unless he is in possession of a  valid        passport conforming to the conditions prescribed in rule 5."        Rule 4 specifies the-persons who shall be exempted from  the        provisions  of r. 3. Clause (b) of r. 4 exempts  members  of        the  Naval,  Military or Air Forces of India on  duty,  and.        members  of the family of any such person when  accompanying

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 4  

      such person to India on a Government transport.  Clause  (e)        exempts  persons domiciled in India proceeding from  any  of        the  French establishments in India (other than  Pondicherry        in Kairakal) or from any of the Portuguese establishments in        India or Pakistan.  Clause (f) exempts persons domiciled  in        India entering India by land or by air over the Napalese  or        Tibetan  Frontier.   Clause (h) exempts  bonafide  Mohamedan        pilgrims  returning  from  Jeddah or Basra  and  clause  (1)        exempts  other  persons or classes of persons  specified  by        general or special orders of the Central Government.        The  date of the appellant’s entry into India is not  known.        He  was certainly arrested on February 26, 1955, and  it  is        his  case that he entered India sometime after the  decision        of  this  Court in the case of Ebrahim Vazir  Mavat  v.  The        State of Bombay.(,) The judgment of this Court in that  case        was  delivered  on  February  15, 1954  On  that  basis  the        appellant entered India sometime after February 15, 1954 and        before  February 26, 1955.  It is unnecessary to specify  in        great detail the        (1)  [I954] S.C.R. 933.        288        movements  of the appellant between November 19, 1948,  when        he  went  to Karachi for the first time, and his  arrest  on        February  26, 1955, as his movements during this period  are        not  relevant  in  determining  whether  the  appellant  has        committed an offence punishable under r. 6(a) of the  Rules.        The case must be decided on the footing that sometime before        his arrest on February 26, 1955, the appellant entered India        without a passport.        Two  contentions were raised on behalf of the appellant  (1)        that r. 3 of the Rules and s. 3 of the Act were ultra  vires        the  Constitution in so far as they purported to affect  the        right of an Indian citizen to enter India without a passport        and (2) that on a proper interpretation of the provisions of        s. 3 of the Act and r. 3 of the Rules, these provisions  did        not  apply to an Indian citizen.  They applied only to  non-        Indian citizens.        As to the first contention it was urged that s. 3 of the Act        and r. 3 of the Rules in so far as they purported to  relate        to  an Indian citizen were ultra vires the Constitution,  as        they  offended against the provisions of Art.  19(1)(d)  and        (e).  Article 19(1)(d) confers the fundamental right on  all        Indian citizens " to move freely throughout the territory of        India" and Art. 19(1) (e) " to reside and settle in any part        of the territory of India." This fundamental right, however,        is subject .,,,.to reasonable restrictions under clause  (5)        of  Art.  19.  In the case of Ebrahim Vazir-  Mavat  v.  The        State  of  Bombay (supra)(1) the majority judgment  of  this        Court held that an Indian citizen visiting Pakistan for  any        purpose whatsoever and returning to India may be required to        produce a permit or a passport as the case may be before  he        can be allowed to enter India, and this requirement may well        be regarded as a proper restriction upon entry.  This Court,        however,  held that it was quite a different matter  to  say        that  if  he  enters  India  without  a  permit  he  may  on        conviction  for such offence be ordered to be  removed  from        India.   It was the order directing his removal  from  India        which was held by this Court to be tantamount to taking away        his fundamental right guaranteed under Art. 19(1) (c),        (1)  [1954] S.C.R. 933.        289        "to  reside  and  settle in any part  of  the  territory  of        India".   It is clear, therefore, that so far as this  Court        is  concerned  it  has already decided that  to  require  an        Indian  citizen  to  produce a passport  before  he  can  be

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 4  

      allowed  to  enter  India  may  be  regarded  as  a   proper        restriction  upon entering India.  This decision is  binding        on  us and we must follow the decision of this Court in  the        case  referred  to.   It  was,  however,  urged  that  as  a        constitutional  question has been raised this matter  cannot        be  decided by judges less than five in number.   Therefore,        the  case  should be referred to what is  described  as  the        Constitution  Bench.   Article 145(3)  of  the  Constitution        states that the minimum number of Judges who are to sit  for        the  purpose  of deciding any case involving  a  substantial        question of law as to the interpretation of the Constitution        or  for the purpose of hearing any reference  under  Article        143 shall be five.  It is clear that no substantial question        of  law as to the interpretation of the Constitution  arises        in  the  present case as the very question raised  has  been        decided by a Bench of this Court consisting of five  Judges.        As the question raised before us has been already decided by        this  Court it cannot be said that any substantial  question        of   law   arises  regarding  the  interpretation   of   the        Constitution.        As  to the second submission made we have no  hesitation  in        saying that the words used in s. 3 of the Act and rr. 3  and        4 of the Rules make it quite clear that they apply to  every        person  including an Indian citizen.  Under s. 3(1)  of  the        Act  the  word  "  Persons " has  been  stated  without  any        qualification.   Under s. 3(2)(a) the words employed  are  "        any person " and in r. 3 the words employed are "no person".        Clause (b) of r. 4 obviously applies to Indian citizens  but        those  mentioned  in  that  clause  have  been  specifically        exempted  from the operation of r. 3. Clause (h) of r.  4(1)        can apply to Indian citizens who are by religion  Mohomedan.        They  have  been  exempted.   Therefore,  on  a   reasonable        interpretation  of  s. 3 of the Act and rr. 3 and 4  of  the        Rules there can be no manner of doubt that these  provisions        apply to all persons including Indian citizens.        37        290        In  our  opinion, there can be no manner of doubt  that  the        appellant’s  entry  into  India without a  passport  was  in        contravention of r. 3 of the Rules and therefore  punishable        under r. 6(a) and the appellant was rightly convicted.   The        appeal is accordingly dismissed.                             Appeal dismissed.