JUDGMENT : Narasimham, C.J. - This is a revision against the appellate judgment of the Sessions Judge of Puri maintaining the conviction of the Petitioner u/s 14 of the Foreigners Act, 1946 and the sentence of six months simple imprisonment and fine of Rs. 200/- passed on him by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate of Bhubaneswar. 2.The Petitioner is admittedly a foreigner being an Afghan national holding a passport (Ext. A). That passport contains an endorsement to show that the visa was renewed from time to time-the latest renewal being from 6-4-1960 to 5-4-1961.. The Petitioner was however prosecuted for unauthorised stay at Jatni from 1955 which was an offence u/s 14 of the Foreigners Act. 3. Paragraph 7 of the Foreigners order 1946 shows that every foreigner who enters India on the strength of a visa issued in pursuance of the Indian Pass-ports Act shall obtain from the Registration Officer of place where he presents the passport a permit authorising him to stay there and also indicating the place or places where he may stay. In granting such a permit the Registering authority is authorised to restrict the stay of the foreigner to any place or places mentioned in the visa. Contravention of paragraph 7 of the Foreigners Order is undoubtedly an offence punishable u/s 14 of the Foreigners Act 1946. Hence if the prosecution can affirmatively show that notwithstanding the possession of a valid passport and visa the Petitioner contravened the provision of paragraph 7 of the Foreigners Order his conviction u/s 14 of the Foreigners Act may be justified. But I find that the evidence to prove such contravention is not only meagre but wholly insufficient and inconclusive. The prosecution proved copies of certain papers in the Police office (Exts. 1, 2, and 3-1) to show that the Petitioner was first registered at Aligarh where a permit was granted to him by the authorities concerned sometime in December 1955. Ext. 3-1 further shows that, the Government of India themselves informed the authorities concerned as early as April 1953 that there may be no objection to allow the Petitioner to remain in India for an indefinite period and to have his residential permit extended from year to year provided he did not come to any adverse notice. There is another document (Ext. There is another document (Ext. 2) which is a copy of a telegram sent by the S.P. Aligarh to the S.P. Puri on 22-2-1955 to the effect that the Petitioner was registered in Aligarh, become untraced and was ultimately found in Puri district that is Jatni. The S.P. Puri was requested to intimate developments in the case and the present whereabouts of the Petitioner for keeping the records up-to-date. The prosecution has not cared to prove a copy of the original permit granted to the Petitioner by the S.P. Aligarh when he was first registered there. We do not know the places specified in the permit or the conditions mentioned therein. On the other hand in view of the decision of the Government of India allowing him to continue to remain in India for an indefinite period and authorising the extension of his residential permit on a year to year basis on condition that no adverse reports were received against him, it was for the prosecution to show when the permit was last renewed and when it expired and what were the places in India specified in the permit for the authorised stay of the Petitioner. On these points there is absolutely no evidence. The Police officers who have figured as witnesses have absolutely no idea, having no personal knowledge, and they have merely stated what they saw in the relevant files. The question of prosecuting the Petitioner for contravention of the conditions of the permit issued under paragraph 7 of the Foreigners Order would arise only if the permit itself is first proved and then it is further established that the Petitioner?s stay at Jatni was against the terms of the permit. The contents of the telegram addressed by the S.P. Aligarh to the S.P. Puri cannot be said to have been proved merely by producing the copies (Exts. 1 and 2) from the files. The Police Officer from Aligarh should have been examined as a witness and precise information about the exact period for which the permit was extended should have been obtained. In this state of the evidence I am not satisfied that the prosecution has established its case against the Petitioner beyond reasonable doubt. The revision is allowed, the conviction and sentence are set aside and the Petitioner is acquitted. Final Result : Allowed