- Case
- FRANK VITUS v. NARCOTICS CONTROL BUREAU (Supreme Court of India, 06-01-2025)
- Law
- Foreign Exchange Management Act, Foreign Marriage Act, Foreign Trade (Development and Regulation) Act.
The Foreigners Act, 1946: The judgment discusses Section 2(a) of the Act, which defines a "foreigner" as a person who is not a citizen of India. Section 3 of the Act is also discussed, noting that it vests power in the Central Government to issue orders regarding foreigners, including prohibiting, regulating, or restricting their entry, departure, presence, or continued presence in India. Clause (g) of Section 3(2) is mentioned, highlighting the Central Government's power to issue orders directing the arrest, detention, or confinement of a foreigner. The judgment notes that no order has been passed by the Central Government to give effect to clause (g) of Section 3(2) as of the date of the judgment. Section 14 is mentioned in the context of the authorities under the Act and the Order having no locus to oppose bail applications unless the allegation is of an offence punishable under this section.
The Foreigners Order, 1948: The judgment refers to the Foreigners Order, 1948, issued under Section 3 of the Foreigners Act, 1946. Clause 2(2) of the Order, which provides for the appointment of a Civil Authority by the Central Government, is mentioned. Clause 5 of the Order, dealing with the power to grant permission to depart from India, is quoted in full. Specifically, clause 5(1)(b) states that no foreigner shall leave India without the leave of the civil authority having jurisdiction. Clause 5(2) states that leave shall be refused if the civil authority is satisfied that the foreigner's presence is required in India to answer a criminal charge. Clause 11 is mentioned as one of the clauses under which various restrictions can be imposed on a foreigner while in India.
Registration of Foreigners Rules, 1992: Rule 3 of the Registration of Foreigners Rules, 1992, is mentioned in the context of appointing a Foreign Registration Officer. The judgment discusses whether it is necessary to implead a Foreign Registration Officer appointed under Rule 3 in a bail application filed by a foreigner. The court directs that the investigating agency or the State should immediately inform the concerned Registration Officer appointed under Rule 3 about the grant of bail.
