Judgment :- 1. The petitioner was arrested on 2-10-74 while he was in the Chokli bazaar for violation of S.14 of the Foreigners Act read with R.3 of the Indian Passport Rules. In due course a charge-sheet was filed against him in the Court of the Additional First Class Magistrate (Judicial), Tellicherry and the case was registered as C. C. 312 of 1975 The petitioner pleaded not guilty. While the above case was pending, apprehending that he would be deported from the country, the petitioner filed O. P. 6084 of 1975 before this court and obtained an interim injunction restraining the State from arresting, detaining or deporting the petitioner in pursuance of the steps taken against him in the Foreigners Act. The present petition is filed by the petitioner to quash the proceedings in C. C. 312 of 1975 and to direct the Additional First Class Magistrate (Judicial), Tellicherry to discharge the petitioner. 2. The case put forward by the petitioner is that he was residing in India on 26th January, 1950 when the Constitution of India came into force and that by virtue of Art.5 of the Constitution, he is a citizen of India. He was forced to accept a Pakistani passport under certain compelling circumstances and by a mistaken advice without fully knowing the ultimate consequences thereof. The acceptance of Pakistani passport being involuntary, did not deprive him of his Indian citizenship. A dispute regarding his citizenship arose due to the initiation of the proceedings under the Foreigners Act and a petition under S.9 (2) of the Citizenship Act, praying for an adjudication of the dispute had to be filed. That application is still pending consideration before the Central Government. No prosecution would lie against him until the Central Government decides the dispute. 3. The question to be decided is whether the petitioner who was originally a citizen of India lost bis citizenship and is a foreigner. There is no doubt that if the petitioner is a foreign national and is not in possession of a valid passport, proceedings can be initiated against him under S.14 of the Foreigners Act. But then there is the question who is to decide whether the petitioner is a foreign national. S.9 of the Citizenship Act deals with termination of citizenship. There is no doubt that if the petitioner is a foreign national and is not in possession of a valid passport, proceedings can be initiated against him under S.14 of the Foreigners Act. But then there is the question who is to decide whether the petitioner is a foreign national. S.9 of the Citizenship Act deals with termination of citizenship. It reads: "Termination of citizenship -(1) Any citizen of India who by naturalisation, registration or otherwise voluntarily acquires, or has at any time between the 26th January, 1950 and the commencement of this Act voluntarily acquired, the citizenship of another country shall, upon such acquisition or, as the case may be, such commencement, cease to be a citizen of India: Provided that nothing in this sub-section shall apply to a citizen of India who, during any war in which India may be engaged, voluntarily acquires the citizenship of another country, until the Central Government otherwise directs. (2) 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." It is now settled that under the above provision read with R.30 of the Citizen ship Rules, the dispute is to be decide by the Central Government. The issue has been decided by the Supreme Court in several cases beginning from Izhar Ahmad Khan v Union of India (AIR. 1962 SC. 1052) In the case, Md. Ayub Khan v. Commissioner of Police (AIR 1965 SC. 1623), it is held that if a plea is raised by a citizen that he had not voluntarily obtained the passport he must be afforded an opportunity to prove that fact. The decision proceeds: "S. 9(2) read with R.30 confers the power to determine whether Indian citizenship is terminated upon the specified authority, and in exercising that power the authority is guided by the statutory rules of evidence. It would be impossible to hold that termination of Indian citizenship depends upon action of a foreign country in issuing the passport." 4. In State of U. P. v. Rahamatullah (AIR. 1971 SC. 1382), the accused was arrested on 11th July, 1963 and criminal proceedings were initiated for contravention of S.14 of the Act. It would be impossible to hold that termination of Indian citizenship depends upon action of a foreign country in issuing the passport." 4. In State of U. P. v. Rahamatullah (AIR. 1971 SC. 1382), the accused was arrested on 11th July, 1963 and criminal proceedings were initiated for contravention of S.14 of the Act. While the case was pending, the accused filed an application before the Central Government for determination of his citizenship. The Central Government decided on 5-11-1964 that the accused was a foreigner A charge was framed against him only subsequently. He was convicted. The matter came up before the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court reviewed the earlier decisions on the point and referred to the case Abdul Sattar Haji Ibrahim Patel v State of Gujarat (Cr A. No. 153 of 1961) wherein Gajendragadkar C. J., speaking for a bench of five judges emphasised that the decision of the Government of India is a condition precedent to the prosecution by the State of any person on the basis that he is a foreigner. The position of law finds further elucidation in the following passage: "In view of these decisions it seems to us to be obvious that till the Central Government determined the quest ion of the respondent having acquired Pakistan nationality and had thereby lost Indian nationality, he could not be treated as a foreigner and no penal action could be taken against him on the basis of his status as a foreigner, being a national of Pakistan. It is not the appellant's case before us that any directions under the law governing foreigners were given to the respondent after November 5, 1964, which were disobeyed entailing his prosecution, and indeed it is admitted that he was not even informed of the decision of the Central Government till March 29, 1965. It is not the appellant's case before us that any directions under the law governing foreigners were given to the respondent after November 5, 1964, which were disobeyed entailing his prosecution, and indeed it is admitted that he was not even informed of the decision of the Central Government till March 29, 1965. It is also noteworthy that at the time when the Central Government determined his nationality he was being tried in this country by the criminal court after having been arrested and bailed out and he was not free to leave this country for proceeding to Pakistan In the background of these facts it appears to us that the wide charge as framed against him was misconceived and he could not be convicted of over-staying in this country at least till he was duly found to be a Pakistani national and to have ceased to bean Indian citizen." The Supreme Court also held: "The determination by the Central Government in this case could not have the effect of retrospectively rendering a penal offence an act which was not so at the time of its commission. The respondent even though held to be a Pakistani and therefore a foreigner, before the charge was framed against him is entitled to the protection of our laws." The question again came before the Supreme Court in the case, State of Gujarat v. Yakub Ibrahim (AIR. 1974 S. C. 645) In that case, a conviction had been entered by the criminal court before the decision of the Central Government under S.9 (2) of the Citizenship Act. In appeal by the accused, the Supreme Court set aside the conviction and held: "However, in view of the erroneous procedure adopted on behalf of the State in pressing for a conviction when it was clear that the charge could not succeed at all without obtaining a decision from the appropriate authority, we think that the correct order to pass in this case is not just to stay further proceedings after quashing the acquittal so as to await the decision of the appropriate authority but to quash the charge itself so that the accused may be discharged This would leave the State free to prosecute the respondent if and when a decision is obtained against him from the appropriate authority in accordance with the law." The proceedings were quashed by the Court. 5. 5. In this case, the first information report was received is Court on 3-10-74 and the final report on the basis of which the case was registered in court was received in court on 15-12-75. The petitioner claims to have filed an application for adjudication of the citizenship under S.9(2) of the Indian Citizenship Act on 16-11-74, long before the court took cognizance of the offence. That such a petition has been filed is not disputed by the State. Neither is there any case that final orders have been passed by the Central Government regarding the citizenship of the petitioner. It is submitted on behalf of the State that the petitioner is not entitled to a discharge at this stage and that the proceedings before the trial court need only be stayed pending disposal of the petition by the Central Government. But the ratio of the rulings referred to above does not justify such a procedure. As observed by the Supreme Court, a decision by the Central Government regarding the status of a person is the condition precedent for prosecuting him under S.14 of the Foreigners Act. Since such a decision will not make an act penal which was not so at the time of its commission, a prosecution against the petitioner will lie only after the Central Government declares that he is a foreigner and in case after such declaration, he disobeys the directions that may be issued to him under the Foreigners Act or any other law relating to foreigners. No purpose will, therefore, be served by keeping the criminal proceedings already initiated pending till the disposal of the application under S.9(2) of the Citizenship Act tiled by the petitioner. For the aforesaid reasons, this petition will stand allowed. The proceedings initiated in C. C. 312 of 1975 of the Additional First Class Magistrate, Tellicherry will stand quashed. It is, however, open to the State or other appropriate authority to take such suitable action against the petitioner under the Foreigners Act or any other law relating to foreigners after the determination of his petition under the Citizenship Act. Allowed.