Skip to content


Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: citizenship constitution of india Court: allahabad Year: 1954 Page 1 of about 2 results (0.015 seconds)

Jan 27 1954 (HC)

Najib Khan Vs. State Through D.M., Meerut

Court : Allahabad

Decided on : Jan-27-1954

Reported in : AIR1954All458

..... decided on the basis that the petitioner has failed to satisfy the court that he had not migrated from india. further, there is no assertion that, after migration, the petitioner again acquired indian citizenship in accordance with the proviso to article 7 of the constitution. it must, therefore, be held for the purpose of this petition that the petitioner is not an indian ..... pakistan. such being the circumstances it is not possible to accept the petitioner's contention that he never migrated from india. evidence cannot be recorded and the question cannot be gone into in detail in these proceedings under article 226 of the constitution. the criminal court has already examined the position and if the petitioner thinks that he has a remedy in ..... now being taken to arrest the petitioner in order to deport him to pakistan. the proceedings for deportation are challenged on the allegation that the petitioner is a citizen of india and consequently section 7 of the influx from pakistan (control) act cannot be applied to him. the question whether the petitioner is or is not la citizen of ..... india is a question of fact. the petitioner contends that he is still a citizen of india and he never migrated from india. his case in the affidavit is that he left for pakistan because his sister's son was one of the .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jan 27 1954 (HC)

Najib Khan Vs. State Through D.M.

Court : Allahabad

Decided on : Jan-27-1954

Reported in : 1954CriLJ962

..... petitioner has failed to satisfy the court that he had not migrated from india. further, there is no assertion that after migration, the petitioner again acquired indian citizenship in accordance with the proviso to article 7 of the constitution. it must, therefore, be held for the purpose of this petition that ..... is not possible to accept the petitioner's contention that he never migrated from india. evidence cannot be recorded and the question cannot be gone into in detail in these proceedings under article 226 of the constitution. the criminal court has already examined the position and if the petitioner thinks ..... to deport him to pakistan. the proceeding's for deportation are challenged on the allegation that, the petitioner is a citizen of india and consequently section 7 of the influx from pakistan (control) act cannot be applied to him.the question whether the petitioner is or is ..... not a citizen of india is a question of fact. the petitioner contends that he is still a citizen of india, and he never migrated from india. his case in the affidavit is that he left for pakistan because his sister' ..... pakistan regulating movement of persons from one country to the other. thereafter the petitioner was unable to return to india for a month. he, however, obtained a temporary permit and returned to india. the period of that temporary permit lapsed and thereafter the petitioner was prosecuted under the provisions of the influx .....

Tag this Judgment!


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //