G. Mehrotra, C.J.
1. This is an appeal by the State against an order of acquittal passed by the Magistrate at Karimganj.
2. The respondent was charged under Rule 6 (a) of the Indian Passport Rules 1950 for having entered India without a valid document. Rule 6 (a) lays down that any person who contravenes or abets the contravention of the provision of Rule 3 will be liable to be convicted. Rule 3 provides that save as provided in Rule 4, no person proceeding from any place outside India shall enter or attempt to enter. India by water, land or air unless he is in possession of a valid passport conforming to the conditions prescribed in Rule 5. It is not disputed that the respondent attempted to enter India without a valid pass- port. The trial proceeded on the assumption that he is an Indian national. The Magistrate seems to be of opinion that in view of the provisions of Rule 4 (l)(f)he is exempted from the operation of Rule 3. Rule 3 itself applies to all persons irrespective of the fact whether they are Indian citizens or not. No doubt it makes exception in the case of persons who are covered by Rule 4. The Magistrate seems to be of opinion that the respondent comes under Rule 4 (1) (f) which reads as follows:
4 (1) The following classes of persons shall be -exempted from the provisions of Rule 3:
(f) Persons domiciled in India entering India by land or by air over the Nepalese or Bhutan is frontier.
There is no proof that the respondent is domiciled in India nor was he found entering India by land over the Nepalese or Bhutan is frontier. Thus he does not come under Rule 4 (1) (f) of the rules.
3. Mr. Laskar, who appears for the respondent, 'has made twofold submissions. He has firstly submitted that Rule 3 was intended for those persons who have gone to foreign country with Indian pass-|port or who are not Indian citizens. We do not think that such a contention is justified. The language of Rule 3 Is very plain and it would be adding to the words of Rule 3 if the contention of the respondent is accepted. Reference may be made in this connection to the case of Abdul Rahim Ismail C. Rahim toola v. State of Bombay : 1960CriLJ124 .
4. The next point urged is that clause (f) of I Rule 4 applies to this case. The restriction that one should come through the Nepalese or Bhutan is frontier applies to coming by air and by land. In our opinion, there is no force in this contention either.
5. In the result, we allow this appeal, set aside the Judgment of the Magistrate and convict the respondent under Rule 6 (a) of the Indian Passport Rules, 1950 and award a sentence of rigorous imrprisontneatfor one month.