minal Appeal No 121 of 1961
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated May 26 1961 of the Punjab High Court Circuit Bench at Delhi in Criminal Revision No 159 D of 1961
Nur ud din Ahmed and Naunit Lal for the appellant
V D Mahajan and P D Menon for R N Sachthey for the respondent
November 27
The judgment of the Court was delivered by SUBBA RAO J
This appeal by special leave is directed against the order of the Punjab High Court dismissing the Revision petition filed against the order of the Additional Sessions judge Delhi
The appellant entered India on May 9 1956 on a Pakistan passport dated February 11 1956
He had a visa endorsed on the said passport permitting him to stay in India for three months
Under that visa he had to leave India on or before August 8 1956 As he failed to do SO a notice under section 3 2 of the as amended in 1957 hereinafter called the Act was served on him on 562 November 19 1959 by the Delhi Administration
By that notice he was asked to report his presence personally to the Foreigners Regional Registration Officer Taj Barracks janpath New Delhi between 11 A M to 12 noon daily and enter into a personal bond in the amount of Rs 5000 with two sureties in the amount of Rs 10000 each for the due observance of  the restriction imposed on his movements
The appellant did not comply with the requirements of the notice
Therefore he was prosecuted under section 14 of the Act for violating the provisions of section 3 in the Court of the Sub Divisional Magistrate Delhi
The appellant pleaded in defence that the said notice was not served on him and that he was a citizen of India
The learned Magistrate held on the evidence that the said notice was served on him and that he was not a citizen of India but a foreigner within the meaning of that Act and that he had committed an offence inasmuch as he did not comply with the provisions of the said notice
On those findings he convicted him under section 14 of the Act and sentenced him to six months  rigorous im prisonment
On appeal the Sessions Judge Delhi confirmed the findings of the Magistrate and dismissed the appeal filed by him
He held that the burden was upon the appellant to prove that he was not a foreigner and that he had failed to discharge the same
He also rejected the plea of the appellant viz that as on the date he entered India he was not a foreigner within the meaning of the definition of foreigner  as it then stood he could not be convicted on the ground that be was prosecuted for an offence committed after the definition was amended
The High Court confirmed the conviction of the appellant and the sentence passed against him
Hence the appeal
The learned counsel Mr Nur ud Din appearing for the appellant raised before us the following two points 1 the appellant was not a foreigner 563 within the meaning of the definition of a foreigner as existed at the time he entered India i e on May 9 1956 and therefore the High Court went wrong in convicting him and 2 the appellant is not a foreigner even under the amended definition To appreciate the first contention it will be convenient to read the relevant provisions of the Section 3  The Central Government may by order make provision either generally or with respect to all foreigners or with respect to any particular foreigner or any prescribed class or des cription of foreigner fir prohibiting regulating or restricting the entry of foreigners into India or their departure therefrom or their presence or continued presence therein
2In particular and without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing power orders made under this section may provide that the foreigner  a x x x b x x x c x x x d x x x e shall comply with such conditions as may be prescribed or specified i requiting him to reside in a particular place ii imposing any restrictions on his movements 564 iii iv V vi vii viii iX X f shall enter into a bond with or without sureties for the due observance of or as an alternative to the enforcement of any or all prescribed or specified restrictions or conditions The definition of a foreigner as it stood in 1953 was Foreigner  means a person who is not a natural born British subject as defined in sub sections 1  2 of section 1 of the British Nationality and Status of Aliens Act 1914
Section I 1 of the British Nationality and Status of Aliens Act 1914 is in these terms  The following persons shall be deemed to be natural born British subjects namely a any person born within His Majesty s Dominion and allegiance  The definition of a foreigner was substituted by the Foreigners Laws Amendment Act 1957 11 of 1957 section 2 a
This amendment came into force with effect from January 19 1957
Under the said definition foreigner  means a person who is not a citizen of India
Section 14 is  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 forefeited 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  565 The gist of the foregoing provisions relevant to the present inquiry may be stated thus  Under the definition of a foreigner as it stood in the Act in 1953 before the amendment of 1957 any person barn within His Majesty s Dominion and allegiance was a citizen of India but after the amending Act 11 of 1957 which came into effect from january 19 1957 a person who is not a citizen of India is a foreigner
After that date if an order is issued by the Central Government in exercise of powers conferred on it under section 3 of the Act directing a foreigner so defined and prescribing certain conditions for his stay it is the duty of such a foreigner to obey the said order
If he did not he would be committing an offence within the meaning of section 14 of the Act
In the light of the said provisions let us look at the facts of the present case
As aforesaid the appellant entered India in 1956 on a Pakistan passport the visa endorsed on it enabled him to stay in India till August 8 1956
The Delhi Administration made an order and served on him on November 19 1959 imposing the restrictions on his stay
Admittedly the appellant did not comply with the said restrictions and therefore lie committed an offence within the meaning of section 14 of the Act
It is contended that as the appellant was not a foreigner at the time he made his entry into India he could not be convicted on the basis he was a foreigner within the meaning of the definition of a foreigner as subsequently amended
There is a fallacy underlying in this argument
The appellant was certainly not a foreigner when he entered India under the definition of a foreigner as it then stood
In view of the amendment of the definition he became a foreigner after January 19 1957
He could not be convicted for an offence for an act done by him before the amendment on the basis he was a 566 foreigner  for instance an act done by him such as his entry into India or his noncompliance with the conditions of an order issued on him before the amendment on the foot that he was a foreigner
But the offence for which he is now charged is an act done by him in derogation of an order issued to him after the amendment
On the date when the Delhi administration served on him the notice imposing certain restrictions and directing him to comply with certain conditions for his stay he was a foreigner within the meaning of amended definition
On the basis of the existing law he committed an offence and it will be futile for him to contend that he was not a foreigner under the original definition
The legality of the act done by him must be judged on the basis of the existing law as the act was done subsequent to the amendment
Reliance is placed upon the decision of this court in Fida Hussain vs State of Uttar Pradesh 1 in support of the contention that as the appellant was not a foreigner when he made the entry he could not be convicted on the ground he was a foreigner
But the facts of that case are different from those in the present appeal and that decision is clearly distinguishable
There a person was born at Allahabad at the time when it was his Majesty s Dominion
 He had left India to Pakistan but returned on a passport granted by the Government of Pakistan on May 16 1953
He had a visa endorsed on his passport by the Indian authorities permitting him to stay in India for three months and this permission was later extended up to November 1953
Under Paragraph 7 of the Foreigners Order 1948 issued under section 3 of the  every foreigner entering India on the authority of a visa shall obtain from the appropriate authority a permit indicating the period during which he is authorised to remain in India and shall unless that period is extended depart from India before its expiry
As the appellant stayed after November 15 1953 without permission given 567 under that order lie was prosecuted for breach of the said order
It would be seen from the said facts that the appellant therein was prosecuted for an offence committed by him before the Amending Act of 1957 came into force on January 19 1957
This court on the said facts held that the appellant therein could not be convicted for the breach of Paragraph 7 of the Foreigners Order as lie not being a foreigner at that time could not have committed a breach thereof but clearly this decision cannot apply to an offence committed by a person who falls within the amended definition of foreigner  after the Amending Act came into force
Indeed this court in express terms left open that question at page 1523 No question as to the effect of the amended definition on the appellant s status fell for our decision in this case for we were only concerned with his status in 1953
We would also point out that no order appears to have been made concerning the appellant under section 32 c and we arc not to be understood as deciding any question as to whether such an order could or could  not have been made against the appellant
 What has been left open in that decision is to be considered in the present case
The appellant who is a foreigner under the amended definition has committed a breach of an order served on him after the amended definition of a foreigner came to hold the field
The appellant therefore in disobeying the directions given to him by the Delhi Administration his committed an offence within the meaning of section 14 of the Act
Even so it is contended that the appellant is an Indian citizen and therefore is not a foreigner within the meaning of the amended definition of a foreigner under the Act
Some of the relevant provisions of the Constitution and the Citizenship Act 57 of 1955 may conveniently be extracted
Article 5 of the Constitution says At the commencement of this Constitution 568 every person who has his domicile in the territory of India and a who was born in the territory of India or b either of whose parents was born in the territory of India or c who has been ordinarily resident of the territory of India for not less than five years immediately preceding such commencement shall be a citizen of India
 Section 9 of the Indian is in these terms  If in any case not falling under section 8 any question arises with reference to this Act or any order made or direction given thereunder whether any person is or is not a foreigner the onus of proving that such person is not a foreigner shall notwithstanding anything contained in the 1 of 1872 lie upon such person
Under article 5a of the Constitution the appellant cannot be a citizen of India unless he was born in the territory of India and had his domicile in the territory of India at the commencement of the Constitution
In this case the appellant claimed to be a citizen under article 5a of the Constitution
By reason of section 9 of the Foreigners  Act whenever a question arises whether a person is or is not a foreigner the onus of proving that he is not a foreigner lies upon him
The burden is therefore upon the appellant to establish that he is a citizen of India in the manner claimed by him and therefore he is not a foreigner
This court in Union of India vs Ghaus Mohammad 1 accepted this legal position and laid down at page 748 thus  It does not seem to have 1  569 been realised that the burden of proving that he was not a foreigner was on the respondent and appears to have placed that burden on the Union
This was a wholly wrong approach to the question Rightly throwing the onus on the appellant the Magistrate considered the evidence and came to the conclusion that the appellant had failed to prove that he was a citizen of India and therefore not a foreigner
The learned Additional Sessions judge after noticing that the onus was on the appellant considered the evidence both oral and documentary and came to the conclusion that the appellant had failed to discharge the onus
It cannot be and indeed is not suggested that the said finding is vitiated by any error of law but it is contended that the Additional Sessions judge was not justified in ignoring the evidence of respectable witnesses who spoke to the fact that the appellant was born in India and continued to reside in India at the date of the commencement of the Constitution and thereafter
The learned Additional Sessions Judge as a Judge of fact considered the evidence in the light of probabilities and the documentary evidence and rejected the same as unworthy of credence
The High Court in revision refused to interfere with that finding
We do not see any permissible ground for interference with that finding in an appeal under article 136 of the Constitution
No other point is raised before us
The appeal fails and is dismissed


Summary:
The appellant entered India on May 9 1956 on a Pakistani passport
He had a visa permitting him to stay in India for three months
He had to leave India on or before August 8 1956
As he failed to do so a notice under section 3 2 of the  as amended in 1957 was served on him on November 19 1959 by the Delhi Administration
As he did not comply with the requirements of the notice he was prosecuted under section 14 of the and convicted
His appeal and revision were dismissed
All came to this court by special leave
His contention was that he was not a foreigner within the meaning of the definition of a foreigner as it existed at the time he entered India and he was not a foreigner even under the amended definition
Held that the appellant was a foreigner under the amended definition and he had committed a breach of the order served on him after the amended definition of foreigner came into force
In disobeying the directions given to him by the Delhi Administration he had committed an offence within the meaning of section 14 of the 
Before the amendment of the definition in 1957 a person born within His Majesty s Dominion and owing allegiance was a citizen of India but after the amendment in January 1957 a person who was not a citizen of India became a foreigner
After that date if an order was issued by the Central Government in exercise of powers conferred on it under section 3 of the Act it was the duty of such a foreigner to obey that order and if he did not do so he committed an offence within the meaning of section 14 of the Act
The appellant was certainly not a foreigner when he entered India but in view of the amendment of the definition he became a foreigner after January 19 1957
He could not be convicted for an offence for an act done by him before the amendment on the 561 basis that he was a foreigner but in the present case he had been punished for not complying with an order passed after the amendment
The burden of proving that he was not a foreigner was on the appellant and he had failed to discharge that burden
The legality of an act done by a person must be judged on the basis of the existing law at the time the act is done
Union of India vs Ghaus Mohammad  followed Fida Hussain vs State of Uttar Pradesh 11962 1 SCR 776 distinguished