( 1 ) THIS is an appeal by the State against the acquittal of respondent Abdul Sattar Haji Ibrahim by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class Godhra in Criminal Case No. 1807 under section 14 of the Foreigners Act.

( 2 ) THE charge against the respondent was that having entered into India at Ahmedabad on 13-10-57 under the authority of Pakistani Passport bearing No. 351544 dated 11-8-55 and C Visa bearing No 22144 dated 5 and having obtained Residential Permit No. 322/57 from the Registration Officer Ahmedabad which permitted him to stay in India upto 12 he failed to leave India. It was also mentioned in the charge that the period of stay in India had been extended upto 12-1-1958 by the District Magistrate Panchmahals and further extended upto 12-4-1958 by the Secretary to the Government of Bombay.

( 3 ) IN his examination at the trial the respondent stated that he had committed no offence as he is a national of India and therefore not bound to leave India. He also submitted a written statement and produced some documentary evidence and oral evidence. The documentary evidence and oral evidence led by him were for the purpose of inducing the Court to come to the conclusion that he was born in Godhra in India in 1936 that he was in school upto 30-11-1948 that he had certain dealings with the Forest Officers from 1951 to 1954 and to show that he had obtained an Indian Passport in 1954. The prosecution merely produced the Passport the application for Visa given by the accused at Karachi and the order of the Registration Officer Panchmahals at Godhra showing that the period of stay in India was extended upto 12-4-1958. The residential permit issued at Ahmedabad by the Registration Officer Ahmedabad when the respondent entered India at Ahmedabad was not produced although it is referred to in the charge. This residential permit was however produced as additional evidence at the instance of the Court in appeal.

( 4 ) THE learned Magistrate framed the following points for determination :- (1) Whether the prosecution have proved that the accused is a foreign? If yes (2) Whether the prosecution have proved that he failed to leave India after the expiry of the period of residential permit granted to him by the Registration Officer Panchmahals for the period ending 12-4-58 and contravened the provisions of clause 7 of the Foreigners Order 1948 and thereby committed an offence under sec. 14 of the Foreigners Act 1946 ? (3) What order ?

( 5 ) ON the first point he held in the negative. He therefore held that it was not necessary to decide the second point. The learned Magistrate held that the accused before him namely the present respondent was a citizen of India on the date of the Constitution of India having been born in India that he had not migrated to Pakistan before 26-1-1950 that the word `migration means making the place of destination a place of permanent abode that the respondent had no intention of settling down in Pakistan and therefore that he had not migrated to Pakistan and that the statements made by the respondent in his application for Visa that he was a national of India and that he had migrated to Pakistan in 1948 were not true statements because it was not the intention of the respondent to settle in Pakistan. The learned Magistrate therefore held that the respondent had discharged the burden of proof which was on him under sec. 9 of the Foreigners Act. The learned Magistrate also held that under sec. 9 of the Citizenship Act it was not open to any Court to decide the question whether when or how any person had acquired the citizenship of any other country because such a question waste be determined only by the Central Government. He also held that the rule of evidence which was to be applied by the Central Government viz. that the fact that a citizen of India has obtained on any date a pass-port from the Government of any other country shall be conclusive proof of his having voluntarily acquired the cit