9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (10) TMI 1328X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ng Indian handicrafts, Gems and Jewellery but got involved in spiritual development. She claims that she visited and stayed at various places of pilgrimages and of religious importance and decided to settle down in the State of Goa. She claims that in the year 1996, she purchased a house property in Goa with the due permission of the Reserve Bank of India and has been residing there since then. 4. The petitioner further states that she also incorporated a company on 04.08.2003 and has been carrying on a small business in India. 5. The respondents state that the petitioner entered India on 23.11.2004 and was permitted to stay in India upto 18.11.2009. The respondents further state that prior to 2004, she had entered India on 04.02.1998, on strength of a visa that was valid till 01.08.1998. She again entered into India on 12.10.1998, on a visa which was valid till 06.10.1999. Subsequent thereto, she entered India on a tourist visa on 29.09.2000, which was valid till 02.06.2002. Thereafter, she had travelled to India on a Business Visa, which was valid till 18.11.2009 but was thereafter extended till 18.12.2013. 6. On 17.03.2011, the petitioner filed an application under Section 6( ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ces Act, 1985 (NDPS Act). 11. Thereafter, on 19.10.2017, the petitioner filed a review application under Section 15A of the Citizenship Act, before the Ministry of Home Affairs seeking review of the order dated 28.09.2017 passed by the Under Secretary, Government of India. One of the grounds urged by the petitioner in the said review petition was that she was not afforded a hearing by the concerned Authority before rejecting her revision application. 12. The petitioner was, thereafter, afforded an opportunity to be heard. However, she neither appeared in person nor through her counsel; consequently, her review application was dismissed by an order dated 21.12.2017. 13. The petitioner once again filed a writ petition in this Court (W.P.(C) 1896/2018) challenging the order dismissing her review application. The same was disposed of by an order dated 27.02.2018, inter alia, remanding the matter to the concerned authority with a direction to hear the petitioner and to decide the review application afresh. 14. In compliance with the aforesaid order, the petitioner was afforded a hearing on 05.04.2018 and was also permitted to produce documentary evidence. The petitioner availed of t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... led in the said suitcase. 21. An FIR for offences punishable under NDPS Act was filed and the petitioner was prosecuted. However, the Special Judge (NDPS) acquitted the petitioner. This was, principally, on account of certain discrepancies in the samples and the substance found. The Court also held that it was not established that the petitioner had placed the said substance in her suitcase or was aware of the same. Admittedly, the petitioner was acquitted as the standard of proof for convicting the petitioner was not met, and she was given the benefit of doubt. 22. It is, however, undisputed that there was a serious allegation against the petitioner and she was suspected of trafficking of drugs. Indisputably, 8.4 kgs of Hashish is a large consignment. The petitioner has not been convicted as her involvement in the crime was not established beyond reasonable doubt; however that does not mean that the concerned authority is precluded from considering the same while evaluating whether the petitioner qualifies for naturalisation. 23. Although the petitioner was acquitted, it cannot be disputed that there were good grounds to suspect the petitioner for commission of the said offence ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sue a certificate of naturalisation vests with the Secretary of State. In the context of the said statute, the England and Wales Court of Appeal, in The Secretary of State for the Home Department vs SK (Sri Lanka): [2012] EWCA Civ 16, held as under: "31. In relation to naturalisation, on the other hand, the test is whether the Secretary of State is satisfied that the applicant is of good character. It is for the applicant to so satisfy the Secretary of State. Furthermore, while the Secretary of State must exercise her powers reasonably, essentially the test for disqualification from citizenship is subjective. If the Secretary of State is not satisfied that an applicant is of good character and has good reason not to be satisfied, she is bound to refuse naturalisation. For these reasons too a decision in one context is not binding in the other." 29. Similarly, Section 15 of the Irish Nationality and Citizenship Act, 1956 vests "absolute discretion" with the Minister to grant an application for naturalisation, if satisfied that the applicant is of a good character. 30. It is also necessary to bear in mind that the onus to establish that the applicant qualifies the test of a good ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ich is isolated from contemporary values." 34. The aforesaid principles are equally applicable to the qualification of good character as specified in the Third Schedule of the Citizenship Act. Bearing the aforesaid in mind, this court may now proceed to examine the impugned order. 35. The impugned order indicates that respondent no.2 had considered the contentions advanced by the petitioner and had observed as under:- "6. AND WHEREAS, after hearing the petitioner's advocate and going through all the records including the Oral Judgment dated 13th May, 2009 passed by the Hon'ble Court of the Special Judge for NDPS of Greater Bombay in case No. 163 of 2007 (CR No. 08/2007) and the report of the Collector &District Magistrate (North), Panji, Goa &also the report of the State Government of Goa, it Is noted that though the petitioner has been acquitted by the Court of Law in the Criminal proceedings started under NDPS Act, 2005, but it cannot be denied that she had got benefit of the failure on the part of prosecution to prove their case "beyond reasonable doubt" which Is a fundamental requirement to prove criminality in a criminal proceeding. Such an acquittal of the petitio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
