G. Mehrotra, J.
1. This is a revision petition against the order of the Deputy Commissioner, Garo Hills, convicting the petitioner under Section 3 (3) of the Indian Passport Act and sentencing him to pay a fine of Rs, 50/-. The facts of the case briefly are that the petitioner Habibur Rahman came to India on the basis of a Passport. The period of his stay under the Visa however expired and he continued to reside at Singimari village under Phulbari Police Station, According to the prosecution, he thus violated Rule 6 of the Indian Passport Rules of 1950 and he was sent up for trial under Section 3 (3) of the Indian Passport Act. Section 3 of the Indian Passport Act provides as follows:
The Central Government may make rules requiring that persons entering India shall be in possession of passports, and for all matters ancillary or incidental to that purpose.
Sub-section (2) of Section 3 provides for rule making power for certain specific matters. Sub-section (3) of Section 3 then provides as follows:
Rules made under this section may provide that any contravention thereof or of any order issued under the authority of any such rule shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three months or with fine or with both.
Rule 6 of the Rules framed under the Passport Act is as follows:
Any person who (a) contravenes or abets the contravention of the provisions of Rule 3, or (b) does or attempt to do, any act in contravention of any condition prescribed under sub-rule (2) of Rule 4, shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three months or with fine or with both.
Rule 3 of the Rules is in the following terms:
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.
2. Rule 6 only provides for punishment for contravention of Rule 3. Rule 3 only prohibits persons from1 entering or attempting to enter India by water, land or air without a valid passport. Rule 3 does not with the question of overstaying in India after. expiry of the period of Visa Under these circumstances, it cannot be said that on the facts the petitioner contravened the provisions of Rule 3, and thus he cannot be prosecuted under Section 3 of the Act or Rule 6 of the Rules.
3. In the case of Chhanga Khan v. The State : AIR1956All69 , it was held by the Allahabad High Court that under the Passport Act and the rules made under Section 3 there is no provision of law which provides a punishment for overstaying in India if the passport is valid. Section 3 provides only against the entry of a person in India, out makes no provision for overstaying in India. To the same effect is the decision of Rajasthan High Court in the case of Mst. Bashiran v. State and the case of The State v. Ibrahim Adam : AIR1956Bom593 . In the above case, it has been held by a Division Bench of the Bombay High Court that overstaying in India after the expiry of the period of Visa does not amount to a contravention punishable under Rule 6 read with Rule 3 of the Indian Passport Rules. I am in complete agreement with the above decisions. I am further informed by the counsel for the State that a similar view has been taken by a Division Bench of this Court.
4. In the circumstances, I allow this revision, set aside the conviction and sentences passed against the petitioner. The fine, if paid, should be refunded.