minal Appeal No 129 of 1960
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated March 9 1960 of the Allahabad High Court in Criminal Revision No 697 of 1959
Naunit Lal for the appellant
G C Mathur and C P Lal for the respondent
April 5
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by SARKAR J
The appellant who had earlier left India 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 upto November 15 1953
He did not however return to Pakistan within that date upon which he was convicted under section 14 of 777 the  by a Sub Divisional Magistrate on March 14 1959 and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for one year
His appeal to a Sessions Judge was dismissed and the High Court at Allahabad on being moved in revision refused to interfere with the order of the Sessions Judge
This appeal is against the judgment of the High Court
The appellant had been convicted for breach of paragraph 7 of the Foreigners Order of 1948 issued under section 3 of the 
That paragraph requires that every foreigner entering India on the authority of a visa issued in pursuance of the Indian Passport Act 1920 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 earlier stated the visa on the appellant s passport showed that he had permission to stay in India till November 15 1953 but he stayed on after that date
Hence the prosecution
It is contended on behalf of the appellant that he could not be convicted of a breach of paragraph 7 of the Foreigners Order for that paragraph applies to a foreigner entering India on the authority of a visa issued in pursuance of the Indian Passport Act and overstaying the period for which he is permitted to stay in India
It is contended that the foreigner contemplated in this paragraph is a person who was a foreigner on the date of his entry into India
The appellant says that on that date he was not a foreigner and therefore the provisions of the paragraph do not apply to him
This contention of the appellant is plainly correct
The paragraph contemplates a foreigner entering India and therefore a person who at the date of the entry was a foreigner
Now the word foreigner in paragraph 7 has the same meaning as that word has in the 
The word foreigner is defined in that Act in section 2a
That definition has changed from time to time but we are concerned with the definition as it stood in 778 1953 when the appellant entered India which was in these terms foreigner means a person who  1 is not a natural born British subject as defined in sub sections 1 and 2 of Section I of the British Nationality and Status of Aliens Act 1914 or 2 has not been granted a certificate of naturalisation as a British subject under any law for the time being in force in British India or 3 is not a citizen of India
The appellants contention is that he was not a foreigner because he came within el
1 of the definition as he was a natural born British subject within section ll a of the British Nationality and Status of Aliens Act 1914
Now that provision is in these terms section 1
1 The following persons shall be deemed to be natural born British subjects namely a any person born within His Majesty s Dominion and allegiance
That the appellant was born at Allahabad at a time when it was within his Britannic Majesty s Dominion is not in dispute
That being so we think that it must be held that the date of his entry into India the appellant was a natural born British subject and therefore not a foreigner
He could not have committed a breach of paragraph 7 of the Foreigners Order
In the result we allow the appeal and set aside the conviction of the appellant and sentence passed on him
Before leaving this case we think it right to make a few more observations
The definition of a foreigner in the was amended with effect from January 19 1957 by Act 11 of 1957
The definition since that date is as follows  foreigner means a person who is not a citizen of India
Under section 32 e of the  the Central Government has power to provide by order made by it that a foreigner shall not remain in India
We wish to make it clear that we have said nothing as to the effect of the amended definition of a foreigner on the status of the 779 appellant
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 32c and we are not to be understood as deciding any question as to whether such an order could or could not have been made against the appellant
Appeal allowed


Summary:
The appellant was born in India before the partition
He left for Pakistan and returned to India in 1953 on a Pakistani passport and Indian visa
He did not return to Pakistan before the expiry of the period for which he was permitted to stay in India under the visa
He was convicted for a breach of paragraph 7 Of the Foreigners Order 1948 which required every foreigner entering India to depart from India before the expiry of the period during which he was authorised to remain in India
Held that the appellant was not a foreigner on the date of his entry into India and his conviction was bad
On the relevant date the appellant was a natural born British subject within section 11a of the British Nationality and Status of Aliens Act 1914 and consequently was not a foreigner as defined in section 2a of the  as it then stood