MOHAMMAD UMAR Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a petition in revision against the judgment of the Sessions Judge, Koraput -Jeypore maintaining the conviction of the petitioner and the sentence of one month's simple imprisonment passed on him under Section 14 of the Foreigners Act (Act 31 of 1946). The petitioner is a minor aged 14 -15 years. His mother is the daughter of one Habib Isa (S. W. 1) who is a resident of Kotpad in Koraput district. The petitioner's father is one Anwar Ali who though formerly a resident of Kotpad migrated to Pakisthan some time in 1949 and consequently lost his Indian citizenship under Article 7 of the Constitution.

(2.) THE petitioner also went to Pakisthan but returned to India with a Pakisthani pass -port (Ext. 7) in which he was described as a citizen of Pakisthan. In the C visa affixed to the pass -port issued to him, by the Indian High Commissioner in Karachi, it was noted that it was valid for three months from 22 -2 -56. The petitioner then came to his maternal grand -father's house at Kotpad and made application to the various authorities concerned for acquiring Indian citizenship. But his applications were rejected and finally the Government of Orissa in the Home Department in their letter No. 8116 dated the 1st June, 1957, (Ext. 5) informed him as follows:

(3.) IT is a settled rule of private international law that the nationality and domicile of a minor are ordinarily determined by the nationality and domicile of his father. See AIR 1953 All 178, Kulsum Bibi v. District Magistrate, Kanpur and AIR 1957 Punj 86, State v. Abdul Hamid. It is on this principle that Section 4(1) and Section 8(2) of the Indian Citizenship Act 1955 are based. Doubtless this is not an invariable rule and statutory provisions have been made in that Act to enable a minor to acquire a nationality different from that of his father. Thus Sub -section (4) of Section 5 says that the Central Government may, if satisfied that there are special circumstances justifying such registration, cause any minor to be registered as a citizen of India. When the petitioner's father lost his Indian citizenship on his migration to Pakisthan in 1949, by virtue ot Article 7 of the Constitution, the petitioner, as his minor son, also lost his Indian citizenship and became a citizen of Pakistan. He made several applications to the authorities concerned for being registered as a Citizen of India, but they were rejected. It is true that a passport alone is no evidence of citizenship, but apart from the passport the other admitted facts mentioned above show clearly that the petitioner ceased to be a citizen of India. The period of his stay in India was extended from time to time by the competent authorities on his application and necessary endorsements were made in the passport to that effect (see exts. 7/b, 7c and 7(d)). Ultimately he was informed by the State Government that further extension of time would not b'e granted and he was permitted to leave India by the 29th June 1957. The mere fact that the maternal grandfather is a citizen of India, that the petitioner has been staying with him all along and that the petitioner intends to reside in India permanently (as deposed to by D. W. 1) would not give him Indian Citizenship, unless he gets himself registered as an Indian Citizen under Sub -section (4) of Section 5 of the Citizenship Act, 1955.