JUDGMENT : S.C. Mohapatra, J. - In this appeal against acquittal question for consideration is whether Respondent is guilty of offence u/s 14 of the Foreigners Act, 1946 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') which reads as follows: 14. Penalties: 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; and if such person has entered into a bond in pursuance of Clause (f) of Sub-section (2) of Section 3, his bond shall be forfeited, and any person bound thereby shall pay the penalty thereof, or show cause to the satisfaction of the convicting Court why such penalty should not be paid. 2. Prosecution case is that accused entered into India on 25-1-1971 with a passport valid for six months. He remained absent by not intimating to Superintendent of Police, Ganjam who was in possession of the passport with Photo and his identity card till 4-2-1976. Accordingly, a look out notice was issued as accused was not traced out since 1972. On the accused being traced out at Parlakhemundi, an order of Government of Orissa in Home Department was served on him on 24-10-1979 directing him to leave India within one month. As accused violated that order, he was prosecuted. 3. Accused pleaded not guilty claiming to be an along residing in Parlakhemundi since 1958 and for some time remained absent having one to Calcutta. He claimed that no quit order was served on him and he has applied to. Central Government for acquiring Citizenship in India which is pending consideration as yet. 4. u/s 9 of the Act burden lies on the accused to prove that he is a citizen of India. See State of Orissa Vs. Abdul Azaz Khan. In the present case accused has not proved the same.. Even the plea raised by him does not give a prima facie impression that he is a Citizen of India. 5. Although accused took the plea that order of State Government was not served on him, trial Court for cogent reasons has found that it has been served. I agree with the trial Court. 6. State Government has no independent power to serve order on a foreigner to quit India. 5. Although accused took the plea that order of State Government was not served on him, trial Court for cogent reasons has found that it has been served. I agree with the trial Court. 6. State Government has no independent power to serve order on a foreigner to quit India. Power u/s 3 of the Act vests in the Central Government. Such power can, however, be delegated to State Government u/s 12 of the Act. Although, learned Additional Government Advocate submitted that Notification No. 413/56-IFI dated 19-4.1958 of Government of India in Ministry of Home Affairs contains the power of delegation, such notification has not been produced either in the trial Court or in this Court. If Ext. 1/1, the order which is claimed to have been violated would have indicated that in exercise of delegated power u/s 12 in the said notification, State Government passed the order and served it, matter might have been different. Even ten the question would have been whether the notification to be valid has been published in Official Gazette. When violation of an order would attract Criminal liability, the order ought to show on the face of it to be valid. Accordingly, it cannot be said in tis case that a valid order u/s 3 of the Act has been violated to attract Section 14. 7. I might have remitted the matter back as in State of Orissa Vs. Abdul Azaz Khan, No useful purpose would be served since State Government can pass an order afresh indicating the power of delegation and in case Respondent does not quit, he can be prosecuted for violation of the fresh order in case he does not leave India in spite of such order. 8. In the result, appeal is dismissed. Appeal dismissed. Final Result : Dismissed