Source: http://www.rishabhdara.com/sc/view.php?case=1412
Timestamp: 2020-07-15 07:12:20
Document Index: 214705715

Matched Legal Cases: ['Art. 5', 'Art. 5', 'Art. 7', 'Art. 5', 'Art. 7', 'Art. 7', 'Art. 7', 'Art. 7', 'Art. 7']

STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH versus ABDUL KHADER
1961 AIR 1467	1962 SCR (1) 737
STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH V. ABDUL KHADER [1961] RD-SC 135 (4 April 1961)
04/04/1961 SARKAR, A.K.
CITATION: 1961 AIR 1467	1962 SCR (1) 737
R	1971 SC1382	(10) R	1974 SC 28	(1) F	1974 SC 645	(8)
Externment Order-Indian citizen going to Pakistan for a short Period and coming back with Pakistan passport	and Indian visa,	if becomes a	foreigner-Conviction	for overstaying, if sustainable 'Foreigners Act, 1946 (13 of 1946),	ss. 3(2)(c), 8, 9-Citizenship Act, 1955 (LVII of 1955), s. 9-Constitution of India, Art. 5(a).
The respondent was born in India in 1924 and had lived there all along till about the end of 1954.	He had	been paying rent for his shop in India for ten years upto about 1958 and his family was and had always been in India. At the end of 1954 or the beginning of 1955 lie went to Pakistan	from where he returned on January 20, 1955, on a passport granted by the Pakistan Government which had a visa endorsed on it by the Indian authorities permitting him to stay in India up to April, 1955. The respondent applied to	the Central Government for extension of the time allowed by the visa but the records did not Show What order, if any, had been made on it.	As the respondent had stayed beyond the	time specified in the visa, he was on September 3, 1957, served with an order made by the Government of Andhra Pradesh under s. 3(2)(C) Of the Foreigners Act, i946 requiring him to leave India.	The order described him as	a Pakisthan National. on his failure to comply with this order 93 738 he was prosecuted under S. 14 of the Foreigners Act.	His defence	was that he was an Indian national.	The trying magistrate rejected this defence and convicted him holding (a) that the fact that the respondent obtained	a Pakistan passport proved that he had disowned Indian nationality	and ceased to be an Indian national and (b) that by refusing to extend the time fixed by the visa the Central Government had decided	that the respondent was a foreigner and under s. 8 of the Foreigners Act, such a decision was final. An appeal by the respondent was dismissed by the Sessions judge on the ground	that the respondent's application for extension of the time fixed by the visa proved that he had renounced	his Indian	nationality and had acquired the citizenship of Pakistan. The High Court of Andhra Pradesh set aside	the conviction in revision. On appeal by the State of Andhra Pradesh, Held, that neither the Magistrate nor the Sessions Judge was competent to come to a finding of his own that the respon- dent, an Indian national, had disowned his nationality	and acquired Pakistan nationality	for under s. 9(2) of the Citizenship Act, 1955, that decision could only be made by the prescribed authority which under the Rules framed under the Act was the Central Government. The fact that	the Central	Government had refused to extend the visa did	not show that it	had decided under the section that	the respondent had renounced his Indian nationality and acquired Pakistan citizenship.	In any event, in order that	the Central Government might come to a decision under s. 9(2) of the Citizenship Act an enquiry as laid down in r. 30 Of	the Rules framed under the Act had to be	made and no	such inquiry had been made.
On the facts established, the respondent became an Indian citizen	under	Art. 5(a) of the Constitution when it	came into force. He thereby discharged the onus laid on him by s. 9 of the Foreigners Act to prove that he was an Indian citizen when that was in dispute. The passport obtained by the respondent from	the Pakistan Government would, therefore, only be evidence	that the respondent	had renounced Indian nationality and	acquired Pakistan citizenship. Such evidence was however of no use in a court for no court could in view of s. 9(2) of the Citizenship Act decide	whether an Indian citizen had renounced	his citizenship and acquired the	citizenship of a foreign country.
Section	8 of the Foreigners Act had no application to	the case as it only applied where a foreigner is recognised as a national by the law of more than one	foreign country or where it is uncertain what nationality is to be ascribed to a foreigner and in the present case	that was not the question but the question was whether the respondent was an Indian or a foreigner.
The respondent's short visit to Pakistan had not amounted to a migration to that country.
Query,	whether	Art. 7 of the Constitution	contemplates migration from India to Pakistan after January 26, 1950.
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No. 192 of 1959.
Appeal	by special leave from the judgment and	order dated October	27, 1958, of the Andhra Pradesh High Court at Hyderabad in Criminal Revision Case No. 395 of 1958.
M. C.	Setalvad, Attorney-General of India, T. V. R.
Tatachari and T. M. Sen, for the appellant.
R. Thiagarajan for N. S. Mani, for respondent.
1961. April 4. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by SARKAR,	J.-The	respondent was convicted by the Judicial Magistrate of Adoni in the State of Andhra Pradesh, under s.
14 of the Foreigners Act, 1946.	His appeal to the Sessions Judge of Kurnool was dismissed. He then moved the	High Court of Andhra Pradesh in	revision and the revision petition was allowed. Hence the present appeal by the State of Andhra Pradesh.
The facts found were	these: On January 20, 1955,	the respondent had come to Adoni on a passport granted by	the Government of Pakistan which bore the date January 10, 1955.
The passport had endorsed on it a visa granted by the Indian authorities which permitted the respondent to stay in India up to April 14, 1955.	The respondent continued to stay on in India after that date. On some date, not precisely ascertainable from the record, he appears to have made a representation	to the Government of India for extension of his visa till September 2, 1957, on grounds of health.	The records do not however show what order, if any, was made on this representation. On September 3, 1957, an order dated August	9, 1957, made by the Government of Andhra, Pradesh requiring him to leave India, was served on the respondent As the respondent did not leave India as directed by	this order, he was prosecuted with the result earlier stated.
The passport showed that the respondent was born at Adoni in 1924 The respondent appears to have 740 produced an extract from the municipal birth register, which is not on the record, but presumably showed that he was so born.	The only evidence on the record of the date when he left India, shows that	must have been at the end of 1954 or early in 1955.	There is evidence to show that he had	been paying rent for his -,hop at Adoni for about ten years prior to 1958 and his parent s. brothers, wife, and children were.
and bad always been in India.
The respondent was charged with the breach of the order to leave India which had been made under s. 3 (2)(c) of	the Foreigners Act. Now the order could not be made on	him, neither	could he be convicted for breach of it, if lie	was not a foreigner. That was the defence of the	respondent, namely that he was not a foreigner. The question is, was a foreigner? The learned Judicial Magistrate found that by obtaining	the passport from	the Pakistan authorities, "he has disowned Indian nationality and has ceased to be an Indian National." He also held that s. 9 of the Foreigners Act did not apply to the	case but s. 8 of that Act did and that	under	that section a decision made by the Government that a person is a foreigner is final and such a decision had been made in this case regarding the respondent as the Government had decided not to grant him an extension of his visa. On these grounds he found that the respondent was a foreigner.
It seems to us that both these grounds are untenable.
Section 8 applies to a case where "a foreigner is recognised as a national by the law of more than one foreign country or where for any reason, it is uncertain what nationality if any is to be ascribed to a foreigner." The section provides that in such cases the prescribed authority has power to decide	of which country the foreigner is to be	treated as the national and such decision shall be final.	The section, therefore, applies to a person who is a foreigner and	the question is of which foreign country he is a national.	In the case of the respondent no such question arose and no decision could be or was made by any prescribed authority of such question.	The learned Magistrate therefore clearly went wrong in relying on s. 8.
741 As regards the passport, the learned Magistrate did not come to the finding that it proved the respondent to have been a Pakistani national all along.	What he Al did was to think that the respondent who had earlier been an Indian national, had by obtaining it, disowned Indian nationality and ceased to be an -Indian national.
Now, s. 9(2) of the Citizenship Act, 1955, provides that if any question arises as to whether an	Indian	citizen	has acquired the citizenship of another country, it shall be determined by such authority and in such manner as may be prescribed. Under r. 30 of the rules	framed	under	that Act,, the authority to decide that question is the Central Government. So the question whether	the respondent, an Indian citizen, had acquired Pakistani citizenship cannot be decided	by courts.	The learned Magistrate had	no jurisdiction therefore to come to the finding on	the strength of the passport that the respondent, an Indian citizen, had acquired Pakistani citizenship. Nor was there anything before the learned Magistrate to show that	the Central	Government had decided that the respondent	had renounced Indian citizenship and acquired that of Pakistan.
The learned Magistrate thought -that the fact that	the Central	Government had refused to extend the	respondent's visa proved that it	had decided that he had acquired Pakistani nationality.	This view again was not warranted.
There is nothing to show that the Central Government	had refused	to extend the respondent's visa. Even if it	had, that would not amount to a decision by it, that the respon- dent, an Indian citizen, had acquired subsequently Pakistani nationality for there may be such refusal when an applicant for the extension had all along been a Pakistani national.
Furthermore, in order that there may be a decision by	the Central	Government that an Indian citizen has acquired foreign nationality, an enquiry as laid down in r. 30 of the rules framed under the Citizenship Act has to be made and no such enquiry had at all been made. That being so, it cannot be said that the Central Government had decided that	the respondent, an Indian citizen, had acquired the	citizenship of Pakistan.
742 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. For all these reasons we think that the conviction of the respondent by the learned Magistrate	was not well founded.
Coming now to the decision of the learned Sessions Judge, he seems to have	based himself on the	reasoning that	the "conduct of the appellant" that is, the respondent before us, "in applying for extension of time shows that he is	not a citizen of India and that he has acquired citizenship of Pakistan. If	he were a citizen of India, he	could	have raised	this plea and this question could have been decided by the Central Government as envisaged by Rule 30, sub-Rule I of the Rules made under the Citizenship Act and there	was no necessity to apply for extension." Quite plainly,	the learned Sessions Judge was proceeding on the basis that the respondent had renounced his Indian citizenship and acquired Pakistani citizenship.	As we have said earlier, that is not a question which is open to a court to decide and there is no evidence to show that it has been decided by the Central Government who	alone	has the power to decide it.	The learned	Sessions Judge did not direct himself to	the question which lie could decide, namely whether	the respondent had from the beginning been a Pakistani citizen.
His decision, therefore, cannot also be sustained.
We have examined the evidence on the record our.,elves	and are unable to say that a conviction can be based on	it.
There can be no conviction unless it can be held on	the evidence that the respondent is a foreigner, that is to say, a person who is not an Indian 743 citizen: see s. 2(a) of the Foreigners Act as amended by Act 11 of 1957.
The evidence shows that the respondent did go to Pakistan, but the only evidence with regard to that is that he	went there about the end of 1954 or the beginning of 1955.	This evidence also	indicates that he stayed there for a short time.	He was all along paying the rent for his shop in Adoni.	His family bad always been there. Therefore it	can be said that he had never migrated to Pakistan.	Clearly, a short visit to Pakistan would not amount to migrating to that country.	The passport obtained by him from Pakistan would no doubt be evidence that he was a Pakistani national.
As on the facts of this case he must be held to have been an Indian citizen on the promulgation of the Constitution,	the passport can show no more than that he renounced Indian citizenship and acquired Pakistani	nationality.	Such evidence would be of no use in the present case for, in view of s.	9(2) of the Citizenship Act, a Court cannot decide whether	an Indian citizen has acquired the citizenship of another country.
The position then is this. The respondent	has clearly discharged the	onus that lay on him under s. 9 of	the Foreigners Act	to prove that he was not a foreigner, by proving	that he was born and domiciled in India prior to January 26, 1950, when the Constitution came into force	and thereby had become an Indian citizen under Art. 5(a) of	the Constitution.	He has	further proved that he had never migrated to Pakistan.	It has not been shown that	the Central Government had made any decision with regard to	him under s. 9 of the Citizenship Act that he has	acquired a foreign	nationality. Therefore, it cannot be held by	any court that the respondent who was an	Indian citizen	has ceased to be such and become a foreigner. That being so, it must be held	for the purpose of this case that the respondent was not a foreigner and no order could be	made against	him under s.	3(l)(c) of the Foreigners	Act.
Conviction for	breach of such an order by the respondent would be wholly illegal.
744 Though	we are upholding the decision of the High Court, we wish to observe that we do not do so	for the reasons mentioned by it. It is unnecessary to discuss those reasons but we would like to point, out one thing, namely. that	the High Court seems to have been of the opinion that Art. 7 of the Constitution contemplates	migration from India	to Pakistan even after January 26, 1950. We desire to make it clear that we should not be taken to have accepted or	en- dorsed the correctness of this interpretation of Art. 7. The reference in the opening words of Art. 7 to Arts. 5 and 6 taken in conjunction with the fact that both Arts. 5 and 6 are concerned with citizenship (at the commencement of	the Constitution) apart from various other considerations would appear	to point to the conclusion	that the migration referred to in Art. 7 is one before January 26, 1950,	and that the contrary construction which the learned Judge	has put upon Art. 7 is not justified, but in the view that we have taken of	the facts of this case, namely, that	the respondent had	never	migrated to Pakistan,	we do	not consider it necessary to go into this question more fully or finally pronounce upon it.
In the result we dismiss the appeal.