This is a revision petition against the order of the Deputy Commissioner, Garo Hills, con­victing the petitioner under S. 3 (3) of the Indian Passport Act and sentencing him to pay a fine of Rs. SO/-. 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 R. 6 of the Indian Passport Rules of 1950 and he was sent up for trial under S. 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 S. 3 provides for rule making power for certain specific matters. Sub-section (3) of S. 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 R. 3, or (b) does or attempt to do, any act in contravention of any condition prescribed under sub-r. (2) of R. 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 R. 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 R. 5." (2) Rule 6 only provides for punishment for con­travention of R. 3. Rule 3 only prohibits persons from entering or attempting to enter India by water, land or air without a valid passport. Rule 3 only prohibits persons from entering or attempting to enter India by water, land or air without a valid passport. Rule 3 does not deal with the question of overstaying in India after the expiry of the period of Visa Under these circum­stances, it cannot be said that on the facts the peti­tioner contravened the provisions of R. 3, and thus he cannot be prosecuted under S. 3 of the Act or R. 6 of the Rules. (3) In the case of Chhanga Khan v. The State, AIR 1958 All 69 (A), it was held by the Allahabad High Court that under the Passport Act and the rules made under S. 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, but makes no i provision for overstaying in India. To the same effect is the decision of Rajasthan High Court in the case of Mst. Bashiran v. State, AIR 1957 Raj 348 (B) and the case of The State v. Ibrahim Adam, AIR 1956 Bom 593 (C). 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 R. 6 read with R. 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. D.R.R. Revision allowed.