( 1 ) THIS order governs Criminal Revisions Nos. 347 and 348 of 1958 by Ali Sher and Wali mohammad, respectively, against their conviction of an offence punishable under Section 14 of the Foreigners Act.

( 2 ) AS the facts of these two cases arc the same and similar questions are involved in both, they are being disposed of by one judgment.

( 3 ) BOTH Ali Sher and Wali Monammad had entered India with a Pakistan passport after obtaining visa which permitted them to stay in India for periods mentioned therein. They overstayed in india and did not leave the country within the period mentioned in notices served upon them under the signature of the Superintendent of Police. They were, therefore, prosecuted and have been convicted under Section 14 of the Foreigners Act. Each of them has been sentenced to two years R. I. and a fine of Rs. 200/- in case of default, another three months R. I.

( 4 ) BOTH the applicants admitted the allega-tions made against them. They admitted that they were pakistani nationals, had entered India after obtaining passport and visa and not only overstayed in India but did not leave the country even after the expiry of the period mentioned in the notices. They, however, expressed their desire to stay in India as their family was living here. Ali sher added that for this purpose he had surrendered his passport to the Pakistan High commissioner. Wali Mohammad, however, indicated his willingness to return to Pakistan if he was not allowed to live in India.

( 5 ) IN the above circumstances the finding recorded by the lower courts namely, that the applicants were Foreigners and had contravened the order cannot be said to be improper.

( 6 ) THE learned counsel for the applicants, however, challenged the conviction of the accused on many legal grounds to which I shall make a reference one by one.

( 7 ) IT was first of all contended that the notices served upon the applicants under the signature of the Superintendent of Police were not valid as he had no authority to direct the applicants to leave the country, and for this reason the conviction is bad. Ordinarily, overstay in India beyond the ex-pirv of the period of the visa is not an offence as under Section 14 of the Foreigners Act, 1946 it is the contravention of the provision of the Act or of any order made thereunder or any direction in pursuance of the Act, which is an offence. Consequently, if there was no general order or direction of the Central Government or of the prescribed authority, a foreigner overstaying in India could not be convicted under Section 14 of the Act, unless he was called upon to leave the country and he failed to carry out the order. But it will be found that the Central Government has passed a general order contained in the Foreigners order, 1948. Para-7 of the Order lays down that a foreigner who enters India on the authority of a visa issued in pursuance of the Indian Passport Act, 1920 (XXXIV of 1920) shall, unless the period indicated in the permit is extended by the Central Government, deport from India before the expiry of the said period. On entering India every foreigner has to obtain from the Registration Officer having jurisdiction either at the place at which the said foreigner entered India or at the place at which he presents a registration report in accordance with Rule 6 of the Registration of Foreigners Rules, 1939 a permit indicating the period for which he is authorised to remain in India. The period to be entered in the pennit shall not be beyond the period for which the visa wag issued. Consequently under this general order of the Central Government every foreigner must leave the territory of India before the expiry of the period of visa.

( 8 ) SECTION 3 of the Foreigners Act, 1946 gives power to the Central Government to make provision by order, either generally or with respect to all foreigners or with respect to any particular foreigner or any prescribed class or description of foreigner, for