Judgment :- RAGHAVAN, J. The appeal has been placed before a Division Bench by Sadasivan J. since, in his opinion the question raised is an important one. 2. The respondent was prosecuted under section 14 read with section 3 of the Foreigners Act for having entered India on a Pakistani visa and failed to leave the country after the expiry of the term. The Munsif-Magistrate has held that the respondent is a Pakistani national but that the prosecution has failed to produce the order, if any providing that foreigners shall not remain in India. In the opinion of the Munsif-Magistrate there is nothing in the Foreigners Order which provides that foreigners shall not remain in India. On these findings mainly on the second finding the Munsif-Magistrate has acquitted the respondent. 3. The acquittal of the respondent by the Munsif-Magistrate is right, but his reasoning is not. If the finding of the Munsif-Magistrate that the respondent is a Pakistani national is correct he should have convicted the respondent. His finding that there is nothing in the Foreigners Order providing that foreigners shall not remain in Indian is wrong Sub-section (1) of Section 3 of the Foreigners Act confers powers on the Central Government to make by order provision with respect to foreigners for prohibiting regulating or restricting their entry into India or their departure therefrom or their presence therein. Sub-section (2) of the same section mentions some of the provisions that the Central Government may make and clause (c) of the sub-section relates to providing that a foreigner shall not remain in India or in any prescribed area therein. The Central Government promulgated the Foreigners Order under this Section; and rule 3 prohibits the entry of foreigners into India excepting on the conditions mentioned therein R. 7 then provides that any foreigner who enters India on the authority of a visa shall obtain from the Registration Officer a permit indicating the period during which he is authorised to remain in India etc. Now clause (iii) of Sub-rule (3) of R. 7 for instance lays down that the foreigner shall depart from India before the expiry of the period allowed to him etc. Section 14 of the Foreigners Act makes the contravention of any of the provisions of the Act or of any order made under the Act or of any direction given in pursuance of the Act punishable. Section 14 of the Foreigners Act makes the contravention of any of the provisions of the Act or of any order made under the Act or of any direction given in pursuance of the Act punishable. In view of the finding of the Munsif-Magistrate that the respondent is a Pakistani national (a foreigner), the respondent has contravened rule 7 of the Foreigners Order in not getting permission, when he entered India, to stay in India for a particular time etc. If the visa Ex. P. 1 is construed as a permission and the period mentioned therein is considered to be the period during which the respondent (the foreigner) is allowed to stay in India, then his overstay is again a contravention of the Order. Therefore, if the finding of Munsif-Magistrate that the respondent is a foreigner stands the respondent should be convicted. But, this finding itself is erroneous as will presently be shown. 4. The real question in the case is a short and simple one which falls directly within the following observation of the Supreme Court in the State of Andhra Pradesh v. Abdul Khader (AIR 1961 SC 1467). "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. He however, did not decide that question, that is, find that the respondent had been a Pakistani National all along. On the evidence on the record such a finding would not have been warranted." (The counsel of the respondent tells us that there are other decisions also of the Supreme Court on the point; but we do not think they are necessary). What emerges from this observation of the Supreme Court is that there is a distinction between the question whether a person has all along been a foreigner and the question whether he has once been an Indian citizen and has renounced that citizenship and accepted a foreign nationality. The Supreme Court has said that the first question viz. What emerges from this observation of the Supreme Court is that there is a distinction between the question whether a person has all along been a foreigner and the question whether he has once been an Indian citizen and has renounced that citizenship and accepted a foreign nationality. The Supreme Court has said that the first question viz. whether a person has all along been a foreigner, can be decided by courts, but the question whether a person has once been an Indian national and has renounced or lost his Indian nationality and accepted or acquired a foreign nationality can be decided only by the Central Government and not by courts. This is the result of Section 9(2) of the Citizenship Act. 5. What the evidence in the present case including the Pakistani visa discloses is that the respondent was born in India (Malabar) of Indian parents who are Indian nationals. The respondent appears to have gone to Pakistan and to have returned to India on a Pakistani visa. So that, the maximum that can be found in this case is that the respondent who was born an Indian national renounced or lost his Indian nationality and accepted or acquired Pakistani nationality that was how he returned to India on a Pakistan visa. With the evidence on record, it cannot be held that the respondent has all along been a Pakistani national : the evidence does not warrant it. The case before the Supreme Court was similar - where a person born in Andhra Pradesh who had his wife and children in Andhra Pradesh who had property in Andhra Pradesh, left for Pakistan and returned on a Pakistani passport. He was prosecuted under Section 14 read with section 3 (as the respondent has been prosecuted in the case before us) and was convicted and sentenced by the lower courts. On appeal, the High Court set aside the conviction and sentence which was confirmed by the Supreme Court in the appeal taken before it by the State of Andhra Pradesh. 6. The finding of the Munsif-Magistrate that the respondent has always been a Pakistani national, as already indicated cannot be warranted by the evidence in the case. What the evidence can sustain is only that the respondent, an Indian national, renounced his Indian nationality and accepted Pakistani nationality we shall treat the finding of the Munsif-Magistrate as such. 6. The finding of the Munsif-Magistrate that the respondent has always been a Pakistani national, as already indicated cannot be warranted by the evidence in the case. What the evidence can sustain is only that the respondent, an Indian national, renounced his Indian nationality and accepted Pakistani nationality we shall treat the finding of the Munsif-Magistrate as such. This finding the Munsif Magistrate has no jurisdiction to record; because a court has no jurisdiction to consider the question whether a person renounced his Indian nationality and accepted Pakistani nationality. Under Section 9(2) of the Citizenship Act, the question as to when or how a person acquires the citizenship of another country has to be determined by the prescribed authority, the Central Government; this is what the Supreme Court has held in Abdul Khader's case. The acquittal of the respondent is therefore confirmed and the appeal is dismissed. Appeal dismissed.