# State of U.P v. Taseen Azeem @ Lareab Khan

- **Citation:** (2022) 5 ILRA 1335
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2022-05-30
- **Case number:** Government Appeal No. 1486 of 2016
- **Bench:** Ramesh Sinha, Mrs. Saroj Yadav
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/state-of-u-p-v-taseen-azeem-lareab-khan-48496
- **Pages:** 10

## Headnote

20, 21 and 22 of the Constitution of India are
available to non citizens also.
Appeal dismissed and Petition is disposed
of. (E-12)

List of Cases cited:-

## Text

5 All. State of U.P. Vs. Taseen Azeem @ Lareab Khan
1335

51. The trial court on the basis of the
aforesaid has acquitted the accused for offence
under section 376, 323, 504 and 506 by means
of judgment dated 10 December, 2013.

52.

Considering
the
overall
circumstances and submission of learned
A.G.A. and after going through the evidence
and lower court record, we are unable to
persuade ourselves in taking a different
opinion from that of trial court. The trial court
was fully justified in acquitting the accusedrespondent.

53. Learned AGA failed to point out any
illegality, infirmity or perversity in the
judgment of the trial court.

54. The leave to appeal application is,
accordingly, rejected.

55. The appeal, in consequence, stands
dismissed.
----------
(2022)05ILR A1335
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 30.05.2022

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE RAMESH SINHA, J.
HON'BLE MRS. SAROJ YADAV, J.

Government Appeal No. 1486 of 2016
&
Habeas Corpus Writ Petition No. 5249 of 2020

State of U.P. ...Appellant
Versus
Taseen Azeem @ Lareab Khan
 ...Respondent

Counsel for the Appellant:
Sri S.N. Tilhari Govt. Advocate

Counsel for the Respondent:
Mr. I.B. Singh, Senior Advocate, and Ms.
Beena Rajesh, Amicus Curiae

A. Fundamental rights enshrined under Articles
20, 21 and 22 of the Constitution of India are
available to non citizens also.
Appeal dismissed and Petition is disposed
of. (E-12)

List of Cases cited:-

1. Bhim Singh Vs U.O.I. & ors. 2012 SCC online
SC 211

2. A.K. Gopalan Vs Govt. of India AIR 1966 (SC)
816

3. Abdul Latif Abdul Wahab Sheikh Vs B.K. Jha,
1987 (2) SCC 22

4. Mohd. Amran @ Naveed Vs St. 2009 SCC
online Del. 3364.

5. Lal Singh Vs St. of Guj. 2001 (3) SCC 221

6. Hazara Singh Vs Raj Kumar & ors. 2013 SCC
online SC 369.

7. Govind Ramji Jadhav Vs St. of Mah. 1990 (4)
SCC 718.

8. Chairman Railway Board & ors. Vs Chandrima
Das (MRS) & ors. 2000 (2) SCC 465
(Delivered by Hon'ble Ramesh Sinha, J.
&
Hon'ble Mrs. Saroj Yadav, J.)

1. The above criminal appeal has been
filed by the State against the judgment and
order dated 10.04.2014 passed by Special
Judge (Scheduled Caste and Scheduled
Tribes Act)/ Additional Sessions Judge,
District Lucknow in Sessions Trial No.237
of 2007 arising out of Crime No.132 of
2006, under Sections 115, 120-B, 121,
121A, 123, 420, 467, 468 and 471 of the
Indian Penal Code 1861 (in short I.P.C.)
and Section 3/9 and 5/9 of Official Secrets
1336 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Act, 1923 and Section 3/14 of Foreigners
Act, 1946, Police Station Cantt., Lucknow,
whereby the accused/respondent has been
acquitted of charges under Sections under
Sections 115, 120-B, 121, 121A and 123 of
I.P.C.
and
accused/respondent
was
punished with allegedly lessor sentence
under Sections 467, 468 and 471 of I.P.C.
and Section 3/9 and 5/9 of Official Secrets
Act and Section 3/14 of Foreigners Act.
The
State-appellant
prayed
also
for
enhancement of the sentence, awarded to
the accused/respondent.

2. The above petitioner for writ of
Habeas Corpus has been filed by the
petitioner/accused for his release and
deportation to his own country i.e.
Pakistan. This Criminal Appeal and this
Habeas
Corpus
Writ
Petition
are
interrelated, so we are disposing them of
with a common judgment.

3. The brief factual matrix of the case
is as under:

I. The respondent/accused Taseen
Azeem @ Lareab Khan was arrested by
Special Task Force, U.P. Lucknow on
13.09.2006 at 12:05 P.M. on the basis of
information received. Upon his arrest it was
revealed that he was living in India illegally
with fake identity in the name of Lareab
Khan son of Gulab Khan and working as an
agent of Pakistan Intelligence Agency and
transmitting the confidential information of
India through email. He also got prepared
forged
driving
license,
educational
certificates of High School, Intermediate
and B.A. in the name of Lareab Khan.
Some documents in the name of Precyze
Company, some maps and other documents
were
recovered
from
the
respondent/accused. It was also found that
respondent/accused was staying in India
since two years with a fake name of Lareab
Khan and stayed at different places on rent
and also stayed in the hotels at different
places. It has also been mentioned in the
First Information Report (in short F.I.R.)
that during the course of stay in India with
the help of Imtiyaz Ahmad he got the job in
one placement Company situated in Gomti
Nagar, Lucknow, thereafter he also did the
job in Life Line and started a partnership
Company alongwith Rahul Siddhartha and
Fariuddin Ahmad and got prepared the
documents by Miraz alias Pappu and stayed
for nine months at Akhtar Guest House in
Mumbai. He also shared a room with some
Merchant Navy personnel. It has also been
alleged that a book 'C.I.A. Vs. India, Asia
and Afghanistan' was also recovered from
the possession of respondent/accused. It
has also been alleged that respondent /
accused used to give information on mobile
phone to I.S.I., cross border through one
Javed. He used five email ids for
transferring the information to Pakistan.
The information sent in respect to Indian
Army to Pakistan's I.S.I. and were written
in coded language. Allegedly some Secret
documents related to military were also
recovered from the possession of the
accused/respondent. It was also found that
through Western Union Money Transfer
Bank the respondent/accused used to
receive money from Pakistan. When the
accused/respondent was interrogated upon
arrest, he told the arresting official that his
real name is Taseem Anzim son of Raees
Azam, resident of House No.A 522 Sector
11 A Northern Karachi, Pakistan. He has
four brothers and three sisters and all are
younger to him and his father does some
glass business in Karachi. He came to India
for spying. He was sent by Pakistani
officials after giving some training there.
He used to send some documents related to
army and some important informations to
5 All. State of U.P. Vs. Taseen Azeem @ Lareab Khan
1337
the Pakistan Intelligence Agency. He was
doing this job since he was unemployed.
Recovery memo was prepared and the
articles
recovered
from
the
accused/respondent which include two
secret documents related to military, two
driving licenses, one mobile phone and
charger, educational certificates of High
School, Intermediate and B.A. and one
purse, two diaries, one small telephone
diary, two maps, one book, one cheque
book, some photostat papers related to
Precyze Company and Rs.1,290/- (one
thousand two hundred and ninety). The
case
was
registered
against
the
accused/respondent at Case Crime No.132
of 2006, under Sections 115, 120-B, 121,
121A, 123, 420, 467, 468 and 471 of I.P.C.
and Section 3/9 and 5/9 of Official Secrets
Act and Section 3/14 of Foreigners Act.

II.
After
investigation
chargesheet was submitted against the
accused/respondent under Sections 115,
120-B, 121, 121A, 123, 420, 467, 468
and 471 of I.P.C. and Section 3/9 and 5/9
of Official Secrets Act and Section 3/14
of
Foreigners
Act,
the
concerned
Magistrate
took
cognizance
and
committed the matter to Sessions Court
for trial. Sessions Court framed the
charges under Sections 115, 120-B, 121,
121A, 123, 420, 467, 468 and 471 of
I.P.C. and Section 3/9 and 5/9 of Official
Secrets
Act
and
Section
3/14
of
Foreigners Act. The accused/respondent
denied the charges and claimed to be
tried.

III. The prosecution in order to
prove it's case examined 15 witnesses
which are as under:-

a.
P.W.1
Vijay
Bhushan,
Superintendent of Police, City.

b. P.W. 2 Shahab Rasheed Khan,
Deputy Superintendent of Police.

c. P.W. Sub Inspector S.N. Dohre.

d. P.W.4 Constable Umrai Lal.

e. P.W.5 Head Constable Manoj
Rai.

f. P.W. 6 Sub Inspector Shyam
Awadh Singh.

g. P.W. 7 Sub Inspector Chotte
Lal.

h. P.W. 8 Parshuram Verma.

I. P.W.9 Mahesh Kumar Gupta.

j. P.W.10 U.C. Mishra.

k. P.W. 11 R.B. Mishra.

l. P.W. 12 Mahendra Babu.

m. P.W. 13 Daljeet Singh.

n. P.W. 14 Sub Inspector N. K.
Nagar.

o.
P.W.
15
Pramod
Kumar
Mishra.

IV. Apart from above witnesses,
documentary evidence Exhibit Ka-1 to Ka12 were also proved which includes as
under:-

i.
Original
recovery
memo
Exhibit Ka-1

ii. Original FIR Exhibit Ka-2

iii. Chick FIR Exhibit Ka-3

IV. Site Plan, Exhibit Ka-4.

v. Charge-sheet Exhibit Ka-5

vi.
Sanction
Order
of
U.P.
Government Exhibit Ka-6 and Ka-7

vii.
Certificate
of
C.A.V.
Intermediate College, Exhibit Ka-8

viii. Letter of Police Station
Cantt. Exhibit Ka-9

ix.
Confidential
report
of
Allahabad University, Exhibit Ka-10

x. Letter of Police Station Cantt.
to Hisar, Exhibit Ka-11

xi. Report of P.S. Kareli, Exhibit
Ka-12

V. After completion of evidence
of
prosecution
the
statement
of
accused/respondent under Section 313 of
the Code of Criminal Procedure (in short
Cr.P.C.) was recorded, wherein he denied
all the allegations and said the evidence is
1338 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
false. He admitted that he is a Pakistani
citizen but stated that he was arrested from
Nepal border, he never transmitted any
information
to
Pakistan
Intelligence
Agency, no driving license, no secret
documents or educational documents were
recovered from him. He also stated that
P.W. 9 Mr. Mahesh Kumar Gupta was not
the competent authority to give sanction.
All the evidences have been created falsely
against him. He has been implicated
because he is a Pakistani citizen. He also
stated that it is true that he came to India
without passport, but he did not do any act
against the Indian Government or against
the country. He did not know who is Lareab
Khan, he is confined in jail since last more
than seven years and feeling ashamed of his
mistake. He also stated that he wants to be
a good citizen in the future, so a chance
should be given to him to reform. His
parents are ill and they are very poor. He
did not adduce any evidence in defence.

VI. After hearing the arguments
of
prosecution
and
of
the
accused/respondent in person the learned
trial court came to the conclusion that
accused has accepted that he is a Pakistani
citizen and came to India without any
passport, so he is guilty of offence under
Section 3/14 of Foreigners Act. It was also
concluded
by
the
trial
court
that
accused/respondent was living in India by
adopting the name of Lareab Khan, the
forged educational certificates of High
Schools, Intermediate and B.A. were
recovered from the possession of the
accused/respondent and that recovery has
been proved by the witnesses examined by
the prosecution.
VII. The learned trial court came to the
conclusion that prosecution has proved the
charges
levelled
against
the
accused/respondent under Sections 467,
468 and 471 of I.P.C. beyond reasonable
doubt. Learned trial court also came to the
conclusion that it has been proved by the
prosecution that one book 'C.I.A. Vs. India,
Asia and Afghanistan' was recovered from
the possession of accused/respondent and it
has also been proved that some emails were
also sent by him to one Javed residing in
Pakistan,
which
includes
some
informations related to Indian Army which
were sent to Pakistan's Intelligence Agency,
but
it
could
not
be
proved
what
informations were sent, so only offence
under Section 3/9 and 5/9 of Official
Secrets Act were proved and rest of the
offences were not found proved because the
accused/respondent did not do any act,
which can be termed as terrorist activities
or any conspiracy against the India for
waging war against India. It has also not
been proved that information transmitted
related to Army, were of secret nature.
Hence, the trial court found and held
accused/respondent guilty under Sections
467, 468 and 471 of I.P.C. and under
Sections 3/9 and 5/9 of Official Secrets Act,
1923 and under Sections 3/14 of Foreigners
Act and punished the accused/respondent in
the following manner:-

Sl.
No.
Sections
Sentences awarded
1.
Under
section
467 I.P.C.
Rigorous imprisonment of eight
years coupled with fine of
Rs.5,000/- and in default of
payment of fine six months
additional
rigorous
imprisonment.
2.
Under
section
468 I.P.C.
Rigorous imprisonment of five
years coupled with fine of
Rs.3,000/- and in default of
payment of fine six months
additional rigorous imprisonment
has been awarded.
3.
Under
section
471 I.P.C.
Rigorous imprisonment of five
years coupled with fine of
Rs.3,000/- and in default of
payment of fine six months
additional rigorous imprisonment
has been awarded.
5 All. State of U.P. Vs. Taseen Azeem @ Lareab Khan
1339
4.
Under section 3/9
Official
Secrets
Act.
Rigorous imprisonment of eight
years coupled with fine of
Rs.5,000/- and in default of
payment of fine six months
additional rigorous imprisonment
has been awarded.
5.
Under section 5/9
Official
Secrets
Act
Rigorous imprisonment of three
years coupled with a fine of
Rs.5,000/- and in default of
payment of fine six months
additional rigorous imprisonment
has been awarded.
6.
Under
section
3/14
Foreigners
Act
Imprisonment
of
five
years
coupled with a fine of Rs.5,000/-
and in default of payment of fine
six months additional rigorous
imprisonment has been awarded.

VIII. Learned trial court acquitted the
accused/respondent
of
charges
under
Sections 115, 120-B, 121, 121A, 123 and
420 of I.P.C. Police Station Cantt.,
Lucknow.
Being
aggrieved
by
this
judgment and order the State/appellant
preferred this appeal against acquittal as
well as for enhancement of sentence
awarded.

4. On the other hand, the convict
Taseen Azeem @ Lareab Khan filed a
Habeas Corpus Petition No.5249 of 2020
praying for the following reliefs:-

"a. Issue a writ, order or
direction in the nature of Habeas Corpus
directing the opposite party No.1 & 2 to
release
the
petitioner
from
the
custody/detention.

b. Issue a writ in the nature of
mandamus to Opposite Party No.3 to
deport the petitioner to his Country."

5. In this writ petition it has been
stated that petitioner/convict was sentenced
for eight years imprisonment in S.T.
No.237 of 2007 (State Vs.Taseen Azeem @
Lareab Khan) which he completed on
01.09.2014, on the same day i.e. on
01.09.2014 one false F.I.R. was registered
by Police Officer bearing Case Crime
No.379 of 2014 under Sections 353, 504 &
506 of I.P.C. and Under Section 3/14 of
Foreigners
Act,
Police
Station
Mohanlanganj,
Lucknow.
In
the
aforementioned Case Crime No.379 of
2014 the petitioner/convict was sentenced
with four years imprisonment which he
completed on 30.08.2018, since then
petitioner is under illegal detention of the
jail authorities. The State has filed an
appeal for enhancement of the sentence
being Criminal Appeal No.1486 of 2016, in
which the Hon'ble High Court has directed
to send the petitioner back to the jail when
he had been called before the Hon'ble High
Court on 09.10.2017. Treating this order as
interim relief the petitioner is being
illegally detained in the District Jail,
Lucknow by the State. Even though on the
pretext of the pendency of appeal the
petitioner cannot be detained in jail as
deemed convict which amounts to violation
of Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
The petitioner /convict challenged the
validity of the orders dated 09.10.2017 and
06.03.2019 passed in Criminal Appeal
No.1486 of 2016.

6. It has further been stated in the
petition that on 09.10.2017 the petitioner
was produced for the first time before this
Hon'ble High Court in regard to Criminal
Appeal No.1486 of 2016 (State Vs. Taseen
Azeem @ Lareab Khan) and on that date a
co-ordinate Bench of this Court has passed
the following order:-

" In compliance of this Court's
order dated 13.07.2017, this accused
respondent Taseen Azeem @ Lareab Khan
was produced before this Court by learned
A.G.A., who was brought by Dy. S.P., LIU
Lucknow, R.S. Rai.
1340 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

He informed that earlier he had
engaged the counsel but he has not turned
up and he may be permitted to argue this
case personally.

Summon the lower court record if
not received as yet, thereafter, office to
proceed for preparation of paper book, as
per Rules of the Court.

After preparation of paper book,
list this appeal for final hearing, in due
course before appropriate Bench.

The accused respondent Taseen
Azeem @ Lareab Khan shall be taken back
to the District Jail, Lucknow."

7. On 30.08.2018 the petitioner pleaded
guilty in Case Crime No.379 of 2014, P.S.
Mohanlalganj, Lucknow as the trial was not
conducted/commenced and the petitioner
already served the stipulated period of
sentence in jail and thereafter he was
convicted and sentenced under Section 353 of
I.P.C. for two years Simple Imprisonment,
under Section 504 I.P.C. for two years Simple
Imprisonment; under Section 506 of I.P.C. for
four years Simple Imprisonment and a fine of
Rs.2,000/- by Learned ACJM-III, Lucknow,
in Case Crime No.379 of 2014, P.S.
Mohanlalganj, Lucknow.

8. The convict/petitioner was not
provided any legal assistance during trial to
defend him. The counsel who wanted to help
the petitioner were beaten and threatened not
to defend the petitioner, as such, no proper
defense was laid before the Trial Court. The
petitioner was arrested on 13.09.2014, on the
first occasion he was sentenced for a
maximum
of
eight
years
rigorous
imprisonment, which expired on 12.09.2014
excluding the period of remission. On the
second count for an alleged offence
committed
on
01.09.2014
four
years
maximum sentence was awarded which also
expired on 30.08.2018 excluding the period
of remission, as such, the petitioner has
already passed about three years more, if
remission is counted, i.e. more than the
sentence awarded.

9. Heard Shri S.N. Tilhari, learned
Additional Government Advocate for the
State-appellant and Shri I.B. Singh, Senior
Advocate (Amicus Curiae) assisted by Shri
Sajeet Kumar Singh and Ms. Beena Rajesh,
learned counsel appearing on behalf of
convict/respondent. None turned up for
Union of India.

10. Shri S.N. Tilhari, learned A.G.A. on
behalf of State/appellant submitted that the
trial
court
though
held
guilty
the
convict/respondent under Sections 467, 468,
471 of I.P.C. and under Sections 3/9 and 5/9
of Official Secrets Act and under Sections
3/14 of Foreigners Act yet awarded a very
meager punishment commensurate to the
crime committed by the convict/respondent.
The maximum punishment prescribed under
I.P.C. for the offences committed under
Sections 467 and 471 of I.P.C. is life
imprisonment, but the trial court awarded
eight years rigorous imprisonment for the
offence which is not proper, so the
punishment
awarded
to
the
convict/respondent should be enhanced. He
further submitted that there is evidence for
the offences under Sections 115, 120-B, 121,
121A, 123 and 420 of I.P.C. but the trial court
has acquitted the convict/respondent for the
above offences without applying its legal
mind and without appreciating the evidence
properly. Hence, the convict/respondent
should be convicted for these offences also
and the punishment awarded for the offences
for which the convict was held guilty should
be enhanced.

11. Learned A.G.A. has relied upon
following case laws:-
5 All. State of U.P. Vs. Taseen Azeem @ Lareab Khan
1341

a. Bhim Singh Vs. Union of India
and others 2012 SCC online SC 211

b. A.K. Gopalan Vs. Government
of India AIR 1966 (SC) 816

c. Abdul Latif Abdul Wahab
Sheikh Vs. B.K. Jha, 1987 (2) SCC 22

d. Mohd. Amran @ Naveed Vs.
State 2009 SCC online Del. 3364.

e. Lal Singh Vs. State of Gujarat
2001 (3) SCC 221

f. Hazara Singh Vs. Raj Kumar
and others 2013 SCC online SC 369.

g. Govind Ramji Jadhav Vs. State
of Maharashtra 1990 (4) SCC 718.

12. Contrary to it learned Senior
Advocate Shri I.B. Singh, appearing for the
convict as Amicus Curiae submitted that it
is an admitted fact that convict/respondent
is a citizen of Pakistan and he was residing
in India without any valid passport or visa,
but the allegations that he was involved in
anti national activities against India or
transmitting the confidential information
relating to Indian Army to his own country
has not been proved by the prosecution.
The Prosecution remained unable to prove
that convict/respondent did any terrorist or
criminal activity in India which amounted
to a threat to the Security of India. Even if
it is assumed that the alleged recovery is
true,
even
then
the
fact
that
the
informations
transmitted
by
the
convict/respondent were confidential, has
not been proved by any army personnel, so
in such a situation it cannot be assumed
that the convict/respondent was involved in
anti-national activities and was transmitting
confidential informations relating to Indian
Army to some one in Pakistan.

13. Perusal of the record of the trial
court shows that though the prosecution
has alleged that the convict/respondent
used to transmit information to I.S.I.
cross border through one Javed by a
mobile phone, but the prosecution did not
produce the call details of the alleged
mobile phone before the learned trial
court. The prosecution has also alleged
that the convict/respondent used five
email ids for transferring the information
cross
border
to
Pakistan,
but
the
prosecution did not adduce any evidence
to establish the fact that through the
alleged email ids who sent mails and to
whom, and also that what was the
material sent through the alleged email
ids. It was the allegation against the
convict/respondent
in
the
FIR
that
information in respect to Indian Army
which would have been sent to I.S.I. was
written in coded language, but no
evidence has been adduced to show that
any effort was made by the Investigating
Officer to get decoded the language. It
has also been mentioned in the F.I.R. that
the convict/respondent used to receive
money from Pakistan through Western
Union Money Transfer, Bank, but the
prosecution did not adduce any evidence
in this regard like receipt to show the
transfer
of
money
to
the
convict/respondent through the aforesaid
Western Union Money Transfer, Bank.

14. No Army personnel was produced
in the Court to prove the fact that
information
transferred
by
the
convict/respondent
was
confidential
information relating to Indian Army.
Admittedly, there is no allegation and
evidence of doing any terrorist activity or
any such act which may be termed as threat
to the security and safety of the nation. In
other words, there is no evidence on record
to establish the charges levelled against the
convict/respondent under Sections 115,
120-B, 121, 121A, 123 and 420 of I.P.C.,
hence the learned trial court has rightly
1342 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
acquitted the convict/respondent for the
aforesaid offences.

15. Now comes the question of
enhancement of sentence. The learned trial
court held guilty the convict/respondent
under Section 467 of I.P.C. awarded
sentence
of
eight
years
rigorous
imprisonment
coupled
with
fine
of
Rs.5,000/-, under Section 468 of I.P.C.
awarded sentence of five years rigorous
imprisonment
coupled
with
fine
of
Rs.3,000/-, under Section 471 of I.P.C.
awarded sentence of five years rigorous
imprisonment
coupled
with
fine
of
Rs.3,000/-, Section 3/9 and 5/9 of Official
Secrets Act and Section 3/14 of Foreigners
Act awarded sentence of three years
rigorous imprisonment coupled with fine of
Rs.5,000/- and in default of payment of
fine, further six months each, additional
imprisonment was awarded.

16. Learned A.G.A. submitted that
this punishment was insufficient as the
offences which were committed by the
convict/respondent were of grave nature
and he was working as an agent of
Pakistan's Intelligence Agency. He forged
certain documents to hide his identity to
reside in India, so he should have been
punished
with
maximum
sentence
prescribed under Section 467 of I.P.C. i.e.
Life Imprisonment.

17. Learned A.G.A. has placed
reliance on case law Mohd. Amran @
Naveed Vs. State (Supra), where the Delhi
High Court has held as under:-

"11.
We
agree
with
the
submissions made by the learned counsel
for the State that for offences relatable to
terrorism, no leniency in the imposition of
sentence has to be shown, more so, when
the crime is committed by foreign national
who trespasses into the territory of the
Union of India and attempts to over awe
the very existence of the State."

18. Learned A.G.A. also submitted
that convict/respondent was staying in
India without any valid Passport or Visa, so
inference should be drawn that he was
doing some anti-national activities here,
against India. On this submission he relied
upon a case law cited in Lal Singh Vs.
State of Gujarat (Supra), wherein the
Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under:-

"In our view, this submission is
required to be considered from a different
angle in view of the fact that A-2 is a
Pakistani national. If a foreign national is
found staying in the country without valid
passport and visa and his movements from
one place to another with A-1 are
established and from the premises occupied
by A-1, large quantities of arms and
ammunitions etc. are found, it would be
prudent and reasonable to draw inference
of criminal conspiracy."

19. Here it is evident from the record,
the convict/respondent was found guilty
and punished on the basis of the evidence
that some forged documents which includes
two driving licences and mark-sheets of
High School, Intermediate and B.A. were
recovered from the possession of the
convict/respondent, but by using these
documents any henious or grave offence
was committed by him has not been
established
by
the
prosecution.
So,
considering the nature of the crime
committed by the convict/respondent and
established by the prosecution, it appears
just that trial court awarded the sentence
commensurate to the offence committed by
the convict/respondent. The case law relied
5 All. State of U.P. Vs. Taseen Azeem @ Lareab Khan
1343
upon by learned A.G.A. i.e. Mohd. Amran
@ Naveed Vs. State (Supra) is of no help to
the State because in that case the accused
was found guilty of offence related to
terrorism who was a Foreign National and
attempted to over awe the very existence of
the State. In the present matter, no such
offence has been alleged or established.
There is no evidence on record that
convict/respondent
was
involved
in
terrorist activities or activities which are
dangerous to the security and safety of the
nation.

20. The case law Lal Singh Vs. State
of Gujarat (Supra) is also of no help to the
State-appellant as in the cited case law it
was established that from the premises
occupied by the accused a large quantity of
arms and ammunition etc. was found, so on
the basis of that the Hon'ble Supreme Court
held that " it would be prudent and
reasonable to draw inference of criminal
conspiracy". But in the present case, there
is no such allegation or recovery. Hence
considering the facts and circumstances of
the case and the evidence available on
record there appears no need to interfere
with the judgment and order passed by the
trial court.

21.

It
is
admitted
that
convict/respondent has served out the
sentence awarded to him in Case Crime
No.132 of 2006 and also in Case Crime
No.379 of 2014 and now to detain further
the convict/respondent in prison shall be
illegal and in clear violation of Article 21
of the Constitution of India.

22. In the case of Chairman Railway
Board and others Vs. Chandrima Das
(MRS) and others 2000 (2) SCc 465 the
Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that
fundamental rights enshrined under Articles
20, 21 and 22 of the Constitution of India
are available to non citizens also. In the
word of Hon'ble Apex Court reads as
Under:-

"30. In Anwar Vs. State of Jammu
and Kashmir, it was held that the rights
under Articles 20, 21 and 22 are available
not only to "citizens" but also to "persons"
which would include "non-citizens.

31. Article 20 guarantees right to
protection in respect of conviction for
offences. Article 21 guarantees right to life
and personal liberty while Article 22
guarantees right to protection against
arbitrary arrest and detention. These are
wholly in consonance with Article 3, Article
7
and
Article
9
of
the
Universal
Declaration of Human Rights."

23. In the case of Bhim Singh Vs.
Union of India and others (Supra) the
Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under:-

"5. In Para 11 of the additional
affidavit
filed
Shri
Payingattery
Venkiteswaran Sivaraman, it is stated that
there are 37 Pakistani prisoners who have
completed their sentence but they could not
be repatriated as their nationality has not
been confirmed by the Pakistan High
Commission so far. It is also stated that
besides,
in
respect
of
11
Pakistani
fishermen, Government of Gujarat has
informed
that
no
offence
has
been
registered and they have no objection to
their repatriation to Pakistan. However, in
respect of these 11 Pakistani fishermen
also, nationality has yet not been confirmed
by the Pakistan High Commission. The list
of these 37 Pakistani prisoners and 11
Pakistani fishermen is placed on record as
Annexure G. Of the 37 Pakistani prisoners
who have completed their sentence, 21 are
stated to be mentally challenged. Most of
1344 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
these 21 persons have completed their
sentence in 2007, 2008 and 2009, but their
nationality has not been confirmed by the
Pakistan High Commission though it
appears that the consular access with
regard to them was provided a few months
before the completion of their sentence. It is
indeed unfortunate that these 37 Pakistani
prisoners who have served out their
sentence and are not required under the
Indian laws have been kept in jail because
their nationality has not been confirmed.
Whatever may be the reason for delay in
confirmation of their nationality, we have
not
even
slightest
doubt
that
their
continued imprisonment is uncalled for. In
no way, can these 37 Pakistani prisoners be
treated as prisoners once they have served
out their sentence. It is true that unless
their nationality is confirmed, they cannot
be repatriated and have to be kept in India
but until then, they cannot be confined to
prison and deprived of basic human rights
and human dignity."

24. Hence in the present matter
admittedly
the
convict/respondent
has
served out the sentence awarded to him in
the matter under appeal as well as under
another case which was registered against
him on the date when he completed the
sentence awarded in the present case. Now
he cannot be kept in jail and his confinement
in jail is uncalled for.

24. Hence in light of the above
discussion, we are of the considered view that
since convict/respondent has already served
out the sentence awarded to him and he is a
foreign national without any passport or visa,
therefore he must be deported to his own
country. The Union of India/respondent No.3
and respondent No.4 are directed to deport
him to his own country in accordance with
law, unless required in any other case.

25. The above appeal is dismissed and
writ petition is disposed of accordingly.

26. The learned A.G.A., as well as
Senior Registrar of this Court are directed to
send the copy of this judgment to the
concerned authorities/departments at the
earliest.
----------
(2022)05ILR A1344
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 13.04.2022

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE NEERAJ TIWARI, J.

Matters U/A 227 No. 269 of 2022 (Civil)

The Straw Board Manufacturing Company
Ltd., Saharanpur ...Petitioner
Versus
Union of India & Anr. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Ashish Kumar Singh, Sri Ajay Kumar
Singh

Counsel for the Respondents:
A.S.G.I., Sri Rajnish Kumar Rai

A. Civil Law - Civil Procedure Code,
1908 - Order XXVII Rule 1 - Only the
officers appointed by Government under
Order XXVII Rule 1 C.P.C., 1908 can
sign and verify the papers in legal
proceeding on behalf of Government
and this power cannot be delegated to
any other officers, not appointed by the
Government.

Any
authorization
or
delegation made to some other officer
not appointed by Government then it
would be contrary to Order XXVII Rule 1
CPC, 1908 and nullity in the eye of law.
Petition allowed.
Petition allowed. (E-12)

List of Cases cited:-