JUDGMENT : Misra, J. - Prosecution case is that Respondent Abdus Sovan Khan came to India on 8-11-1956 with the Pass Port (Ext. 4) and Visa (Ext. 4/a). He was permitted to stay for two months inside India. As he did not leave India after the requisite period, the notice (Ext. 5) was served on him on 24-6-1960 to quit India by 23-7-1960. As there was non-compliance, the F.I.R. (Ext.l) was lodged by P.W. 1 on 17-10-1960 prosecuting the Respondent u/s 14 of the Foreigners Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act), for contravention of Section 3, Sub-section (2), Clause (c) of the Act. The Respondent took the defence that he was a citizen of India and not a foreigner and was therefore not liable to be convicted u/s 14 of the Act, for contravention of the order u/s 3(2)(c). The trial Court, found that he was a citizen of India and that in the absence of decision of the Central Government that he has acquired citizenship of Pakistan, the prosecution was misconceived. He accordingly acquitted the Respondent. Against this order of acquittal, the State has filed the appeal. 2. To appreciate the contentions raised, Section 3(2)(c) may be quoted: ...(2) In particular and without prejudice to the generality of foregoing power, orders made under this section Delay provide that the foreigner: ...(c)shall not remain in India...Foreigner has been defined in Section 2(a) as meaning a person who is not a citizen of India. Section 14 of the Act lays down. If any person contravenes the provisions of this Act or of any order made thereunder, or any direction given in pursuance of this Act or such order, he shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to five years and shall also be liable to fine...Section 9 of the Act prescribes- If in any case not falling u/s 8 any question arises with reference to this Act or any order made or direction given thereunder, whether any person is or is not a foreigner or is or not a foreigner of a particular class or description, the onus of proving that such person is not a foreigner, or is not a foreigner of such particular class or description, as the case may be, shall, notwithstanding anything contained in the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 lie upon such person. There can be no dispute that - the onus is in the first instance, on the Respondent to establish that he is a citizen of India and not a foreigner. 3. To support his contention that he is a citizen of India, the Respondent has established that he was born in village Kanthapur in the district of Cuttack on 9-5-1931. The Pass Port (Ext. 4) shows this. The Pass Port also indicates that at the time when it was issued, his father was living in India. There is copious evidence on record that for three generations the Respondent has his house and properties in village Kanthapur. The relevant Khatians, rent-receipts, water-tax receipts and Chowkidar receipts have been filed. The wife and children of the Respondent are throughout living in India and never went to Pakistan. The wife (p.w. 1) states this. He has four children through P.W. 1, the eldest of the issues being 10 years old. That means the eldest issue was born sometime in 1953. All the evidence is unchallenged and the prosecution has led no evidence that by. 26-1-1950 when the Constitution of India came into force, the Respondent was not a citizen of India On the country, the evidence is overwhelming and unassailable that the Respondent was a citizen of India on the coming into force of the Constitution. 4. Article 5 of the Constitution lays down At the commencement of this Constitution every who has his decide in the territory of India and who was in the territory of India; or person 498(b) either of whose parents was born in the territory of India or (c) who has been ordinarily resident in the territory of India for not less than five years immediately preceding such commencement, shall be a citizen of India. Clearly the Respondent had his domicile in the territory of India. Though he has to satisfy only one of the three alternative conditions prescribed above, the Respondent satisfies all the three conditions. In other words, he was born in the territory of India, his father was born in' the territory of India and he had been ordinarily a resident in the territory of India much more than 5 years, immediately preceding the commencement of the Constitution. In other words, he was born in the territory of India, his father was born in' the territory of India and he had been ordinarily a resident in the territory of India much more than 5 years, immediately preceding the commencement of the Constitution. Though the learned trial Court did not advert to all these facts, his finding that the Respondent was a citizen of India is unassailable and it is accordingly confirmed. The Respondent has satisfactorily discharged his onus u/s 9 of the Act and has established that he was a citizen of India at the time of the commencement of the Constitution. 5. In 1952 the Respondent left for Pakistan. The prosecution case is that the Respondent has become a citizen of Pakistan and so he is no longer a citizen of India. Prosecution case is prima facie supported by the entry in the Pass Port that the Respondent is a citizen of Pakistan. u/s 9(2) of the Citizenship Act, 1955, if any question arises as to whether, when or how any person has acquired the citizenship of another country, it shall be determined by such authority in such manner, and having regard to such rules of evidence, as may be prescribed in this behalf. Under the Rules framed under the Act (The Citizenship Rule's. 1958), the authority to determine such question is the Central Government and the manner of deciding it has been laid down in Rule 30. So though the Pass Port describes the Respondent as a citizen of Pakistan, the question when be became a citizen of Pakistan is to be decided exclusively by the Central Government, u/s 9(2) of the Citizenship Act. It has now been authoritatively pronounced by a series of decisions of the Supreme Court see The State of Andhra Pradesh v. Abdul Khader 1961 S.C.D. 800. Akbar Khan Alam Khan and Anr. v. Union of India 1962 S.C.D. 73. Izhar Ahmad Khan Vs. Union of India (UOI). Govt. of Andhra Pradesh v. Syed Mohd. Khan etc. 1962 S.C.D. 98. State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Peer Mohd. and Another that the question of change of citizenship of one country to another is a question exclusively determinable by the Central Government u/s 9 and until such determination, the State Government can take no action u/s 14 of the Act. Govt. of Andhra Pradesh v. Syed Mohd. Khan etc. 1962 S.C.D. 98. State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Peer Mohd. and Another that the question of change of citizenship of one country to another is a question exclusively determinable by the Central Government u/s 9 and until such determination, the State Government can take no action u/s 14 of the Act. The position thus I emerges that though on the Pass Port the conclusion is possible that the Respondent has acquired citizenship of Pakistan, the Courts are precluded from coming to such conclusion due to lack of jurisdiction. The trial Court rightly held that until such determination the Respondent must be held to be a citizen of India and cannot be prosecuted u/s 14 of the Act. 6. The appeal fails and is dismissed. Final Result : Dismissed