Result: Revision Petition dismissed.

This revision petition is directed against the order passed by the Fast Track Court dated 11.5.2006 in Crl. R.P.No. 89/05 reversing the order passed by the learned Magistrate dated 14.2.2005 in C.C. No. 27/04.

2. The Metagalli police charge sheeted the accused for an offence punishable under Sections 3 and 7 of the Foreigners’ Act and also Section 420 of IPC. The case of the prosecution is that as per the provisions of Foreigners’ Act, foreigner is under the obligation to maintain certain documents and produce it before such person as prescribed.

3. It is found that from 12.1.1994 the accused has been residing in India without necessary permission. On 16.6.1998, the accused was directed to produce the necessary documents. When the authority got the information that the accused has falsely got created Indian passport with an intention to de-fraud the authority, the authority on coming to know of the same it made enquiries and found that the accused has obtained Indian passport by giving false information. It is also alleged that the accused had obtained the Iranian passport and overstayed in India by claiming that she is an Indian citizen. The Hyderabad authority which came to know that the Bangalore passport office has issued the passport, it informed the same to the Bangalore police.

4. The Metagalli police registered a case in Crime No. 131/98 on 3.11.98 and on investigation, the police has filed the charge sheet.

5. The accused-peitioner herein has sought for the discharge before the learned Magistrate. The learned Magistrate, by his order dated 14.2.2005, relying on the document produced by the accused and the defense taken by the accused and also on the ground that there is no adjudication by the Central Government under Section 9 of the Citizenship Act as regards to the validity of the nationality of the accused and discharged her from the alleged offence.

6. This order was called in question by the State in Revision before the revisional Court. The Revisional Court, on appreciation of the material collected by the police, found that the petitioner had obtained two passports, one from the Iranian Government and another from the Indian Government and it also found that the material collected by the police disclosed that the petitioner has changed her name only with an intention to get Indian passport and found that there is sufficient material to proceed against the accused and accordingly set aside the order of the learned Magistrate and remanded the matter for trial.

7. The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that, the Revisional Court was not justified in setting aside the order of the Magistrate, on the ground that the police has collected material to proceed with trial. He further submitted that, the charge sheet is filed even before adjudication by the authority under Section 9 of the Citizenship Act. He further submitted that, in case of any dispute as to the citizenship, the matter requires to be adjudicated by the authority under the provision of the Citizenship Act. In this regard, he relied on a decision of the Apex Court reported in AIR 1962 SC 1778 in the matter of ‘GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH Vs. SYED MOHD. KHAN AND OTHERS’ and submitted that, the complaint clearly discloses that the petitioner has got an Indian passport and if the question as to whether she is an Indian citizen or not, is a matter which requires an adjudication.

8. Learned Government Pleader appearing for the State submitted that, it is not a dispute regarding Indian nationality or foreign nationality. It is the case of cheating the authority in obtaining Indian passport. He submitted that there are two passports obtained by the accused. One is obtained on 7.2.1992 from the Iranian Government as an Iranian citizen and on 1.10.1997 the accused obtained another passport from the Indian Government on the ground that she is an Indian. He also pointed out that in the passport obtained by the Iranian Government, the name