JUDGMENT Gur Sharan Lal, J. - This criminal revision is directed against the conviction of the applicant Ghulam Rasool under Section 14 read with Section 3 of the Foreigners Act, 1946 and Para. 7 of the Foreigners Order, 1948 made under the said section. The order of conviction and the sentence of one year's rigorous imprisonment and Rs. 500/- fine was recorded by Sri H. P. Srivastava, Extra Magistrate, Faizabad. An appeal filed against the conviction and sentence was dismissed by an Additional Sessions Judge of Faizabad. In the judgment of neither of the two courts there is any reference to the Foreigners Order, 1948 or Section 3 of the Foreigners Act but no controversy has been raised in the revision on that ground and it has been taken for granted for the sake of arguments that it is for the alleged violation of the provisions of Para. 7 of the Foreigners Order that the applicant became liable to punishment under Section 14 of the Foreigners Act. 2. The Courts below have found as a fact that Ghulam Rasool had migrated to Pakistan in the year 1949 and became a Pakistani National. By means of a passport dated 7-3-1955 and visa dated 22-3-1955 he came to India on 28-3-1955. Originally the permission to stay was upto 21-6-1955 but the period was extended to 23-3-1956. Ghulam Rasool did not return to Pakistan even after the extended period. A Head Constable of Police Out Post Sakrawal, P. S. Tanda, district Faizabad, learnt through an informer on 27-10-1966 that Ghulam Rasool had been concealing himself and staying illegally and he was able to arrest him at 5.30 a.m. on the said date. The prosecution then followed. The judgments show that two points were raised in defence in the lower courts. One was that Ghulam Rasool was it minor when he went to Pakistan in 1949 and the act of going being not voluntary he did not become a citizen of Pakistan. The other was that the Central Government had not yet settled the question of his nationality and he could not be regarded as a foreigner. Relying on a Supreme Court. decision in Kulathil Mannu v. State of Kerala, 1966 Cal. L.J. 1217 the learned Additional Sessions. Judge held that it was immaterial that the applicant was a minor when he went and settled in Pakistan. Relying on a Supreme Court. decision in Kulathil Mannu v. State of Kerala, 1966 Cal. L.J. 1217 the learned Additional Sessions. Judge held that it was immaterial that the applicant was a minor when he went and settled in Pakistan. That finding has not been challenged before me. Regarding the other point it was held by the learned Additional Sessions judge that there was no question of the determination of citizenship by the Government of India as his application for visa (Ext. Ka-6) and the visa (Ext. Ka-7) both showed that he visited India- only to see his relations and he had no intention of settling down here and he himself had given out while obtaining the passport from Pakistan that he was a Pakistani citizen. 3. The contention of the learned counsel for the applicant is that the applicant was not a foreigner as defined in Section 2 of the Foreigners Act, 1946 and as such Para. 7 of the Foreigner's Order, 1948 which applied to foreigners only was not applicable to him and therefore there was no contravention of the pro- visions of that paragraph and no question of punishing him under Section 14 of the Foreigners Act. It is urged that for the purposes of Para. 7 of the Foreigner's Order the question whether the applicant was a foreigner had to be decided with reference to the date of his entry into India and not with reference to the date on which he was arrested and prosecuted. The definition of 'Foreigner' was amended in 1957 by the Foreigners Laws (Amendment) Act, 1957. Under the amended definition 'foreigner' means a person who is not a citizen of India. A: the time the applicant entered India, that is on 28-3-1955, the definition of 'foreigner' was as below : "foreigner" means a person who (i) is not a natural born British subject as defined in sub-secs. Under the amended definition 'foreigner' means a person who is not a citizen of India. A: the time the applicant entered India, that is on 28-3-1955, the definition of 'foreigner' was as below : "foreigner" means a person who (i) is not a natural born British subject as defined in sub-secs. (1) and (2) of Sec. I of the British Nationality and Status of Aliens Act, 1914, or (ii) has not been granted a certificate of naturalization as a British subject tinder any law for the time being in force in India, or (iii) is not a citizen of India." The contention on behalf of the applicant is that in March, 1955 when he entered India he was not a foreigner as he was a natural born British subject of the kind mentioned in clause (i) of the definition reproduced above. According to the learned Assistant Government Advocate, however, the question of the applicant being a foreigner has to be considered with reference to the date oil which he was arrested and prosecuted. It is unnecessary to make a mention of the conflicting Single judge decision on this question since the matter was considered directly and decided by a Division Bench of this Court in State v. Yakub, 1960. A.L.J 924. It was laid down therein that the effect of amendment of the Foreigners Act, 1946 in 1957 was not to bring within the scope of paragraph 7 of the Foreigners Order persons who had entered India before the amendment and who were not foreigners according to the definition then in force but who became foreigners under the new definition. So under that decision the question of the applicant being a foreigner or not is to be judged with reference to the elate of his entry in India which was 28-3-1955. It is also clear from the said decision as well as the Supreme Court decision Fida Hussain v. State of Uttar Pradesh, A.I.R. 1961 S.C. 1522 that non- observance of the provisions of paragraph 7 of the Foreigners Order will be an offence punishable under Section 14 of the Foreigners Act only if the person prosecuted was a foreigner at the time of entry into India. It may be noted that under the said para. It may be noted that under the said para. 7 of the Order every, foreigner who enters India on the authority of a visa is required to obtain a permit indicating the period during which he is authorised to remain in India and he must depart from India before the expiry of the said period. The point which, therefore, arises for consideration is whether Ghulam Rasool was a foreigner on 28-3-1955 according to the definition of 'Foreigner' in the Foreigners Act, 1946 as in force in 1955. 4. The contention of the learned counsel for the applicant is that clause (i) of the definition of foreigner as then in force (reproduced above) did, not cover the case of the applicant since he was a natural born British subject as defined in sub-secs. (1) and (2) of Section 1 of the British Nationality and Status of Aliens Act, 1914. No controversy has been raised on the side of the State about the applicant having been a natural born British subject at the time of his entry into India. The learned Assistant Government Advocate has only pressed the plea that the applicant was a foreigner under the definition of that term as in force from the amendment of the Foreigners Act by the Foreigners Law (Amendment) Act, 1957. That contention cannot be accepted in the face of the decision of a Division Bench of this Court referred to already which has not been overruled subsequently and remains in tact. It however struck my mind that though the applicant may not have been foreigner by reason of clause (i) or clause (ii) of the definition not covering his case, but he could be a foreigner under clause (iii) of the definition in case he was not a citizen of India according to Part II of the Constitution of India on the date when the said Constitution came into force and had not acquired citizenship after that date. As the definition (quoted above) stands, the word used of the end of each of the clauses (i) and (ii) is or and so apparently the applicant could be a foreigner by reason of not being a citizen of India on 28-3-1955 even if clauses (i) and (ii) were not applicable to him. As the definition (quoted above) stands, the word used of the end of each of the clauses (i) and (ii) is or and so apparently the applicant could be a foreigner by reason of not being a citizen of India on 28-3-1955 even if clauses (i) and (ii) were not applicable to him. The learned counsel for the applicant placed complete reliance in support of his plea about the applicant not being a foreigner under the definition of that term in the Foreigners Act on the decision of the Supreme Court in the aforementioned case Fida Hussain v. State of Uttar Pradesh. There it was held that any person born within His Majesty's Dominions was deemed to be natural born British subject according to the provisions contained in Section 1 (1) (a) of the British Nationality and Status of Aliens Act, 1914 and so a British subject as defined in that Act could not be a foreigner within the meaning of the definition of 'foreigner' in clause (a) of Section 2 of the Foreigner's Act as it stood in 1953, It is undisputed that the same definition as stood in 1953 continued in 1955 as well. A Single Judge of this Court had also earlier taken the same view in Mohd. Hanif Khan v. State, 1959 A.L.J,. 895 In neither of these two decisions, however, the question whether a natural born British subject. would still be a foreigner if it was not a citizen of India appeared to have been considered. Learned counsel l or the applicant however contended, on this aspect of the matter being pointed out to him by me, that the word 'or' used at the end of-clause (1) and again at the end of clause (ii) of the definition of 'foreigner' means 'and', with the result that even if one of the three clauses is applicable to a person he would still Yiot be a foreigner if the other two clauses do not apply to him. In other words, a natural born British subject or a person who has been granted a certificate of naturalization would not be a foreigner though he may not be a citizen of India. He has also in this connection showed me the certified copy of a judgment (unreported) of M. C. Desai, J. (as he then was) in Mst. In other words, a natural born British subject or a person who has been granted a certificate of naturalization would not be a foreigner though he may not be a citizen of India. He has also in this connection showed me the certified copy of a judgment (unreported) of M. C. Desai, J. (as he then was) in Mst. Maroofan v. State, Criminal Revision No. 300 of 1958 decided on 16.12.1959. as supporting his contention. This decision was given after Mohd. Hanif's case referred to above which was also decided by the same learned judge. The true import of the definition of foreigner as in force in 1955 can be better considered by pointing out that before the amendment of the definition by the Adaptation of Laws Order, 1950 (which was clone in pursuance of the power conferred on the President of India to bring the laws of the country in conformity with the provisions of the Constitution) clause (iii) of the definition was "is not a ruler or subject of an Indian State" and this clause was substituted by the Adoptation of Laws Order, 1950 by the words "is not a citizen of India." It is clear that under the definition before the substitution of clause (iii) by the Adaptation of Laws order a person could have been a foreigner only if his case was covered by all the three clauses, that is to say, if he was neither a natural born British subject nor a certificate of natural born British subject nor a certificate of naturalization had been granted to him nor was he a ruler or subject of an Indian State. If a person was not a natural born British subject but a certificate of naturalization had been granted to him then unless 'or' was intended to mean 'and' he would still have been foreigner by reason of clause (i) of the definition and so also he would have been a foreigner even if he was a ruler or subject of an Indian State though the obvious intention of the definition was to exclude a ruler or a subject of an Indian State from the definition of 'foreigner' irrespective of the fact whether he was a natural born British subject or not. Even after the substitution of clause. Even after the substitution of clause. (iii) by the Adaptation of Laws Order the position would be rather ridiculous if the word 'or' is interpreted strictly as such, for a person who was not a natural born British subject would then be a foreigner by reason of being covered by clause (i) -even though he was a citizen of India and, similarly, a person to whom naturalization certificate had not been granted (and no such certificate would be necessary in the case of ordinary citizens of India) would be a foreigner even though 1ie may be a citizen of India. Agreeing, with respect, therefore, with the interpretation of Desai, J. in Mst. Maroofan's case, I hold that in order not to be a foreigner it was enough:if clause (i) of the definition was not applicable to the case of the applicant. Actually it was not applicable, as stated earlier, because the applicant was a natural born British subject as defined in sub-secs. (1) and (2) of Section 1 of the British Nationality and Status of Aliens Act 1914. In this view of the matter the applicant could not be bell to have violated the provisions of paragraph 7 of the Foreigner's Order since he was not a 'foreigner' on the date of his entry into India, notwithstanding the fact that he might not have been citizen of India on that date according to the Constitution of India. It appears that it was the knowledge of this defect in the definition which was responsible for the amendment in 1957. It may be that the contravention of any other orders made under Section 3 of the Foreigners Act will entail liability for punishment in the case of the applicant but the overstay in so far it is said to be contrary to the provisions of paragraph 7 of the Foreigners Order is not punishable because the said paragraph is linked with the status of the person entering India as a foreigner and, further, with that status with reference to the definition in force on the date of entry and not on any later date. 5. In the result the revision is allowed and the conviction and sentence of the applicant are set aside. The applicant is on bail and he need not surrender. His bail bonds are cancelled and sureties are. discharged. 6. Fine, if paid, shall be refunded.