ORDER M.N. Shukla, J. - The Applicant was convicted by a Magistrate First class, Deoria, u/s 14 of the Foreigner's Act read with Section 3(3) of the Indian Passport Act and sentenced to three month's rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 100/-. In default of payment of fine he was directed to undergo two weeks' rigorous imprisonment. He was further convicted u/s 14 of the Foreigner's Act for refusing to leave India after notice and sentenced to nine months' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 400/-or to two months' rigorous imprisonment in default of payment of fine. The conviction and the sentences of imprisonment were affirmed in appeal by the Sessions Judge, Deoria, but the sentences of fine imposed on the two counts were reduced from Rs. 100/- to Rs. 50/- and from Rs. 400/- to Rs. 200/- respectively. This revision is directed against the aforesaid conviction and sentences. 2. The prosecution case was that the Applicant Ali Raza was a resident of Pakistan. He was found in India on 7-6-1965 and was served with an order to produce his passport or other legal authority for living in India within 24 hours. In default he was directed to leave India within the same period. The Applicant failed to produce the passport or other legal documents and also did not leave India. He was, therefore, arrested on 8-6-1965 and was prosecuted. 3. The Applicant pleaded not guilty. He claimed to be an Indian national and denied that he was served with any notice to leave India. He also examined two witnesses in defence to prove that he was a resident of India and never migrated to Pakistan. The courts below believed the prosecution evidence and disbelieved the testimony of the defence witnesses. The prosecution evidence consisted inter alia of two important documents namely Exhibit Ka 2 which was a residential permit issued to one Ali Raza resident of Pakistan holding passport No. 314217 dated 18-6-1953 bearing visa No. G-2495 dated 7-5-1958 permitting the aforesaid Ali Raza to remain in India till 1-6-1958 and Exhibit Ka 1 which was a temporary residential permit which also revealed that one Ali Raza resident of Pakistan came to India on a Pakistani passport No. 284041 dated 2-9-1958 bearing visa No. G-61150 dated 6-10-1958 and he was permitted to live in India upto 25-10-1958. On an appraisal of the entire evidence in the case the courts below recorded a finding that the Applicant entered India twice on the basis of the passports and the visas mentioned in the residential permits Exhibits Ka 2 and Ka 1 and that the Applicant was a resident of Pakistan. It may be noticed that the Applicant had signed on the back of the residential permits Exs. Ka 2 and Ka 1 which left no room for doubt that he had entered India on the residential permits. The Applicant persisted in denying that he had entered India on the basis of any passport and he went to the length of disowning even his signatures on the back of the two documents Exhibits Ka 2 and Ka 1. The prosecution examined Punideo Tewari (PW 2) Head Constable, who stated on oath that the accused had signed the permits exhibits Ka 2 and Ka 1 on the back but this witness was not cross-examined on this point at all. Chunni Lal Sharma (P.W. 4) the Handwriting Ex pert, also gave an opinion after comparing the specimen signatures of the Applicant with the signatures "Aliraza" on the back of the permits (Exhibits Ka 2 and Ka 1) that they had been written by one and the same person. Thus, the finding of fact recorded by the courts below is that the Applicant was a resident of Pakistan and he had entered India on the basis of the passports in the year 1958. It is not possible for me to disturb this finding in the exercise of my revisional jurisdiction and nothing has been brought to my notice which may persuade me to hold that the finding was manifestly unreasonable or perverse. I, therefore, proceed on that assumption to determine as to whether the conviction of the Applicant was vitiated by any error of law. 4. It was strenuously contended before me by Sri M.P. Singh, appearing on behalf of the Applicant, that admittedly the nationality of the Applicant had not been determined in the inst ant case by the Central Government as provided by Section 9(2) of the Citizenship Act and hence the prosecution of the Applicant was premature. 4. It was strenuously contended before me by Sri M.P. Singh, appearing on behalf of the Applicant, that admittedly the nationality of the Applicant had not been determined in the inst ant case by the Central Government as provided by Section 9(2) of the Citizenship Act and hence the prosecution of the Applicant was premature. He submitted that no person could be convicted for the alleged offence u/s 14 of the Foreigner's Act unless it had been decided by the competent authority that he was a foreigner and by staying in India had contravened the provisions of the Foreigner's Act. For this purpose he relied on a division Bench decision of this Court in the case of Khalil Ahmad v. State of UP 1962 AWR 83 . The facts of that case are however, clearly distinguishable. In that case the Applicant was born in India of Indian parents who were domiciled in this country. He left India for Pakistan in 1950 after the Constitution had come into force. Thereafter he arrived in India under a Pakistani passport dated 9-1-1953 bearing Indian visa dated 3-1-1957 issued by the Indian High Commissioner in Pakistan at Karachi. The visa was valid uptil 25-4-1957. The Applicant did not obtain any permit from the civil authority and continued to stay in India even after the expiry of the period mentioned in the visa. He was, therefore, prosecuted for breach of para 7 of the Foreigner's Order, 1948 and convicted u/s 14 of the Foreigner's Act. In that case, therefore the question which arose for decision was whether the Applicant who was initially an Indian national had lost his nationality and acquired Pakistani citizenship. In these circumstances it was held that u/s 9(2) read with Rule 30 of the Citizenship Rules the proper authority to determine the question as to the nationality of a person was the Central Government and that he could not have been prosecuted without first obtaining the decision of the Central Government u/s 9(2) of the Citizenship Act. 5. The learned Counsel for the Applicant also relied on a decision of the Supreme Court in the case of The Government of Andhra Pradesh Vs. Syed Mohd. Khan, AIR 1962 SC 1778 . 5. The learned Counsel for the Applicant also relied on a decision of the Supreme Court in the case of The Government of Andhra Pradesh Vs. Syed Mohd. Khan, AIR 1962 SC 1778 . In that case the Petitioners had filed a writ petition in the Andhra Pradesh High Court challenging the orders passed by the Government of Andhra Pradesh asking the Petitioners to remove themselves out of India. There the limited point which arose for consideration was whether as a result of the conduct of the Petitioners in applying for a passport they had lost the citizenship of India and had voluntarily acquired the citizenship of Pakistan. There the power of deportation was being exercised by the Government and it was held that this could not be done unless the status of the Petitioners had been determined in accordance with the procedure prescribed by Section 9 Sub-section (2) of the Citizenship Act read with Rule 3 of the Citizenship Rules. There is no doubt about the proposition that the power of deporting a person from India cannot be exercised unless his status has been determined and a competent authority created for that purpose namely the Central Government has given a declaration that he is a foreigner. 6. On behalf of the Applicant reliance was also placed on the case of Mukhtar Ahmad Vs. State of U.P. and Others, AIR 1965 All 191 which arose out of a petition for habeas corpus u/s 491 Code of Criminal Procedure whereby the Petitioner had challenged an order of the State Government passed u/s 3(2) of the Foreigner's Act, 1946, for his deportation from India on the ground that he was a Pakistani national and as such a foreigner. The case of the Petitioner was that his father was domiciled in India and was a citizen of India and that as a minor the Petitioner left India for Pakistan after 1-3-1947 and he continued to be minor when the Constitution of India came into force. In these circumstances he contended that he could not be said to have acquired a domicile of Pakistan by his own act and hence he continued to retain his domicile of origin in India on 26-1-1950. 7. In these circumstances he contended that he could not be said to have acquired a domicile of Pakistan by his own act and hence he continued to retain his domicile of origin in India on 26-1-1950. 7. It is clear that the authorities on which the Applicant relied dealt with cases where initially the Petitioner was an Indian national and the only controversy arose as to whether by virtue of his subsequent conduct such as temporary migration to Pakistan under circumstances over which he had no control he had lost his Indian citizenship. The facts in the instant case are entirely different. It is true that the Applicant made a feeble attempt to bolster up a theory that he was an Indian national and succeeded in examining two witnesses in support of his contention. Their evidence was disbelieved by the courts below and consequently the case which emerges is only that of an Applicant who visited India in 1958 by virtue of a Pakistani passport and visa granted to him by the Government of India. There is nothing on record to suggest that the Applicant was an Indian national at any point of time. In these circumstances when a person is found staying in India on the strength of Pakistani passport the period which has expired and that person overstays in India, he has to face the penalty provided u/s 14 of the Foreigner's Act. In such circumstances I am clearly of the opinion that there is no bar to the Criminal courts recording a finding about the accused person being a foreigner. It is not conceivable that persons who abuse their passports and are found guilty of overstaying in India should be spared from facing prosecution oh the plea that the determination of their nationality by the Central Government is a condition precedent. I am inclined to draw a clear distinction between cases in which that question has to be determined in respect of a person who claimed to be and who established himself to be an Indian national and subsequently was accused of having forfeited his Indian citizenship and other cases in which there was no satisfactory evidence to establish the Indian domicile of the person aggrieved. In the latter case the criminal courts have the jurisdiction to decide the question of nationality only for the limited purpose of convicting the accused for breach of the provisions of the Foreigner's Act. There is nothing to preclude the accused from resorting to the remedy provided to him u/s 9(2) of the Foreigner's Act read with Rule 30 of the Citizenship Rules for having his nationality determined by the Central Government. So far as deportation is concerned, that is a power which is quite distinct from prosecuting a person for overstaying in India beyond the period of passport. For purposes of deportation the absence of declaration by the Central Government may be pleaded as a bar but for the limited purpose of prosecuting a person in criminal courts the bar is not attracted. The very opening words of Section 9(1) of the Citizenship Act contain the key words namely any citizen of India who by naturalisation...has at anytime between 26-1-1950 and the commencement of this Act voluntarily acquired the citizenship of any other country shall...cease to be a citizen of India. Reliance was placed on Sub-section (2) of this section for advancing the contention that the Central Government has the exclusive jurisdiction to decide the question of citizenship. A perusal of the plain terms of Section 9 leads to the conclusion that Sub-section (2) would be applicable only to a case where the person was initially a citizen of India. It was held by a division Bench of this Court on 24-9-1968 in Government Appeal No. 294 of 1965 State v. Zahoor Ahmad arising u/s 14 of the Foreigner's Act as under: It is, therefore, obvious that for the applicability of Section 9(2) of the Act it is necessary that a person must be a citizen of India when the Constitution of India came into force namely 26-1-1950. 8. As already indicated, the effect of the finding of fact recorded by the courts below in the present case is that the Applicant was at no time an Indian citizen. In such circumstances there is no provision of law which would make a criminal prosecution for the offence of Section 14 of the Foreigner's Act premature on account of the reason that there has been no declaration by the Central Government about the nationality of the Applicant. In such circumstances there is no provision of law which would make a criminal prosecution for the offence of Section 14 of the Foreigner's Act premature on account of the reason that there has been no declaration by the Central Government about the nationality of the Applicant. The determination of citizenship can be made by the criminal court for the limited purpose of deciding the case actually pending before it. It is open to the accused to obtain a declaration from the Central Government but in the absence of such a declaration the criminal prosecution of the offender cannot fail. I am fortified in the view that I am taking by a decision of this Court in Ali Husain v. State 1960 ALJ 86 : 1960 AWR 32 (J), Desai, J. observed in that case as under: The Central Government certainly has the jurisdiction to give a conclusive or binding decision on the question but it does not follow that a criminal court has not the limited jurisdiction to decide it for the purposes of the case actually before it. There is no such repugnance between the provisions of Section 9(2) of the Citizenship Act and the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure and the Evidence Act as to lead to the inference that Section 9(2) takes away the jurisdiction of a criminal court to decide the question even though it relates to a fact in issue or a relevant fact. If a person wants an authoritative decision, it is open to him to approach the Central Government but he cannot prevent a criminal court from deciding it. 9. The view that I have expressed in the present case and the distinction that I have drawn between the cases where a person is a rank foreigner and those in which though originally an Indian citizen he loses the citizenship on account of his subsequent conduct, finds support from certain observations made by the Supreme Court in the case of State of Andhra Pradesh Vs. Abdul Khader, AIR 1961 SC 1467 . Abdul Khader, AIR 1961 SC 1467 . In that case Sarkar, J. made the following observations: The question whether a person is an Indian citizen or a foreigner, as distinct from the question whether a person having once been an Indian citizen has renounced that citizenship and acquired a foreign nationality, is not one which is within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Central Government to decide. The Courts can decide it and therefore the learned Magistrate could have done so. 10. Thus, there is no substance in the Applicant's contention that the Magistrate had no jurisdiction to decide that the Applicant was a foreigner and convict him on the basis thereof. 11. This revision is, therefore, dismissed and the conviction and sentence of the Applicant are affirmed. The Applicant is on bail. He shall be taken into custody forthwith to serve out the sentence awarded to him. His bail bonds are cancelled.