There had to be a lot of planning to get life organised well in advance to be able to attend court. For us it meant that Jacob had to change his travel arrangements, work schedules, meetings or appointments to be completely free for the whole day.
At the appointed time we would go to court to be met by my lawyer. The court which we attended was on the top floor of the building. With a mixture of hope and fear I would ascend the long, hard climb to the top. We would seat ourselves on one side of the court room. On both sides of the room there were wooden benches for the accused, relatives, friends and any witnesses that were required to be present. The police and the lawyers sat by the long table placed in the middle of the room. Opposite the entrance at the far end of the room was a wooden platform with the table for the magistrate, the public prosecutor and the clerk of the court whose duty it was to call out the case numbers and the names of the accused. He had the assistance of a peon who would echo his words and who also went around the room to see that all the strange conventions of the court were respected.
Amongst these conventions to maintain the dignity of the court was that the consumption of any type of food was prohibited. Also the way in which one sat on the benches was clearly defined. This was a problem for me. I am used to sitting with my legs crossed or with one foot on top of the other. This was not allowed. I kept forgetting it because it was a long wait to sit in only one position. I liked to move my legs and sit in different comfortable positions. But I was caught and reprimanded several times for sitting the wrong way. If the situation was not weighing heavily on our minds we would, probably, have laughed at these little idiosyncrasies.
When my case number was called I was required to stand up and walk to a location directly in front of the magistrate. The lawyers would mutter a few incomprehensible words. On some occasions our lawyer would mutter a few words, while on other occasions it would be the prosecutor who mumbled away. Nothing was ever said to me or appeared to be done. After a minute or so the date and time for the next hearing would be given by the magistrate and this would be faithfully repeated by the clerk of the court. This would be noted down by the prosecutor and the lawyer and the court would proceed to the next matter. I would then return to where Jacob sat and we would meet with our lawyer outside the court room to confirm the date of the next hearing.
Usually, attending court meant several hours of waiting there. Each time when I attended the court it brought thoughts to my mind and scenarios removed from this mundane situation. I saw myself facing God as the judge and how serious the situation would then be. There would not only be one thing coming up in question, but every word and deed that I had ever said or done. But I thought that there the Judge would be perfect and would make no mistakes. He loved me and He was just. He would deal with me rightly and according to His righteousness. I would have a fair hearing, the perfect defence and understanding if I was to face God in His judgement. For that event I must be freed of all blame to stand before His face and not die at His appearance, then I would have no need for a defence lawyer with me because my case would have already been decided, either for life or death. Anyway, I did not wish to face punishment for breaking God's law but to be pronounced 'Not Guilty' before that final judgement, with Jesus as my defender.
"Blessed are they that do His commandments, that they may have the right to the tree of life and may enter in through the gates into the city."Revelations 22:14
I also thought and understood that if I was to face Jesus and welcome Him at His second coming to earth, I must be declared free of guilt by the heavenly court before He appears on earth, or else it will not be possible to understand the words:
"And behold, I come quickly; and my reward is with me, to give every man according as his work shall be." Revelation 22:12
These were some of the very serious and solemn thoughts that went through my mind.
They did not stop there. Thoughts about life and death and the meaning of everything were uppermost in my mind. Every time we left the court I was happy and relieved that it was over for that moment. The case seemed to be dragging on and on. Month after month I had to attend the court, go through the same routines before the magistrate, just to be counted physically present.
My lawyers took time to prepare the arguments. The case was called to court several times during the next few months - almost once a month. At each call the procedure was the same. I would be taken to the court by Jacob and wait till the case was called. Most times we got a seat at the far end of the courtroom. We would sit there waiting for the case to be called. Both Jacob and I would automatically cross our legs during our long wait and we would get the angry glares of the clerk of the court or the peon who would then come up and us ask us to uncross our legs. Since I was usually attired in trousers, this was more noticeable whereas an Indian woman in a sari would probably have broken the regulations under the pleats and folds of her flowing sari.
My mind revolved around the events that had led me into this predicament. It certainly was a long story. Meanwhile we got to know that I was by no means the only one who happened to have been arrested for the same reason. It appeared that there were some 38 other foreigners who had the same thing happen to them, only worse, around the same time. They had been mainly foreign students with a few exceptions. There was an American lady who had lived in India for 50 years and her aged mother who was too ill to know what it was all about and to come to court. We were told that some of the others had spent the extended weekend in police custody. I had been very fortunate not to. We also heard that the aged American lady had once been brought to court on a stretcher.
As a small compensation for going to court, after each painful and traumatic episode, Jacob and I used to go and talk things over in the beautiful old Bangalore Club. After this we both went back to attend to our unfinished tasks.
My lawyer had opted for a different approach which was that they had decided to present arguments before the charge against me was made. Jawad pointed out that the prosecution had not made the case for any offence committed by me. Further, from a legal standpoint, precedents revealed that mere overstay in India did not amount to any offence at all. In fact he was arguing on the premise that I had not been given the right of prior notice and allowing me the opportunity of being heard before the order to arrest me. He stated that the officer concerned had, despite a bona fide error outside of my control, chosen to prosecute knowing fully that she had not sent me my papers to inform me of any expiry date of my residential permit.
He set out to prove that he was right arguing the case because the prosecution had not made out a case under Section 3 (c) of the Foreigners Act and that I was, therefore, not liable to be penalised under Section 14 of that Act. He pointed out that even if I had not made any application for extension of my Finnish passport, which I had done well on time, it did not constitute any offence according to Indian law. His precedent was a ruling reported in a court in Allahabad in 1961. The arguments were sound. Under normal circumstances this should have immediately resulted in the case being dismissed. However, that was not to be.
Jawad did an excellent job of arguing the case. This is done usually when lawyers are certain that a case was false and they could prove that it was so. Both Jacob and I were confident that, after his brilliant and crystal clear presentation, the case would be over and I would be released and all my confiscated passports returned. It was on 2 January 1982, 8 months after my arrest, that the magistrate of the II Additional Chief Magistrate, a B.A., B.Com., B.L., who was different to the one who had granted me bail, decided to give his ruling on the arguments presented by my lawyer.
All my passports were on the table in front of the magistrate, including the current one issued on 6 February 1980 which was valid till 1985. We were ready to express a sigh of relief when, to our utter astonishment, the magistrate without even looking into any of my passports, read out his verdict; He started by saying
All this was total rubbish as my passport was valid till February 1985 and there was no question of my applying for any renewal.
The magistrate went on to deal with the arguments made by my lawyer and he concluded that the ruling which my lawyer had presented was under the provisions of the Indian Passport Act whereas the case against me was filed under the Foreigners Act. He went on to say
"The charge against the accused is that the accused did not apply for extension of the date of the passport within 15 days from the date of expiry of the passport."
He concluded pompously that
"As such it is not a case of overstay only. But it is a case for not complying with the conditions given in the passport."
He went on to repeat
"The case against the accused is that she did not file an application for extension of the date within 15 days from the date of expiry of the passport."
He then announced that charges could be framed against me. I was about to utter my amazement as there, sitting in front of him, was my valid passport, renewed before the expiry of the previous passport. Also, there were absolutely no grounds that an Indian court could rule on the manner in which a foreign country makes rules on renewal of the passport of its citizens. It was too ludicrous for words. I was advised not to say anything as it could have been considered tantamount to contempt of court. Jacob too listened in shocked silence. Our lawyer was as surprised and shocked as we were. This kind of miscarriage of justice had never happened to him before. The magistrate either did not understand what arguments our lawyer had presented. This, we knew, was certainly not the case. Either he had not listened attentively or, for some reason, I was destined to suffer more of this mental torture. We were disappointed, to say the least.
The written ruling by the magistrate, bearing all these illogical and irrational statements, was later given to our lawyers. This made us really wonder what the reason for such gross error was by a presumably sane, qualified and sensible individual, who had to handle many tens of cases every day. Jacob had no hesitation in making the next decision. We would apply for reversal by the High Court of Karnataka of this absolutely absurd decision. For some inexplicable reason we had lost Round Two. My appearances in the Lower Court were on 21 April, to be granted bail, and then on 28 May, 6 July, 24 August, 21 October, 24 November, 9, 15 and 22 December, all in 1981. It was on 2 January 1982 that the magistrate had pronounced his verdict on my lawyers deposition responding to the charge. Thereafter, the case was called in the Lower Court on 23 January, 11 March and 24 April in 1982, but as I had filed a petition in the High Court before that, I was not required to attend court on those dates.