JUDGMENT 1. - This revision petition is directed against the judgment dated July 2 1981 of the learned Sessions Judge, Jodhpur, under which the learned Judge dismissed the appeal preferred by the accused petitioner before him against his conviction and sentence under section 14 of the Foreigners Act, 1946 (for short the Act). 2. A patrol party of the Border Security Force, consisting of Bhagatram P.W. 1, Hariram P.W. 2, Jogaram P.W. 3, Ramphool P.W. 4 and Gulab Singh P.W. 5 had gone to border area B.P. 486 on June 1, 1979 at about 6.30 a.m. At about 11.00 a. m. it was noticed that there were some foot prints of a person having entered India from Pakistan. There was tracker with them and the footprints were followed by the patrol party and at a distance of about 20 or 22 kilometres from the border inside India, it was noticed that the accused was going. The accused was apprehended and he was produced before the Company Commander who lodged report Ex. P.1 in police station Nokh, Tehsil Pakaran, District Jaisalmer. The accused was tried by the learned Magistrate for an offence under section 14 of the Act and after trial, convicted and sentenced him to undergo two years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 500 or in default to further suffer one month's simple imprisonment. His appeal too was dismissed by the learned Sessions Judge. 3. The contention of the learned Advocate is that the accused did not commit any offence under section 14 of the Act and from the charge which was read over to the accused, it appears that only an offence under Rule 3 read with Rule 6 (a) of the Passport (Entry into India) Rules, 1950 (for short, the Rules) was made out which is punishable with imprisonment upto three months only. 4. Section 14 of the Act is a penal section and any person who contravenes the provisions of the Act or any order made there under or any direction given inpursance of the Act or such order, is punishable with imprisonment upto five years and is also liable to fine. Thus, before section 14 of the Act is attracted, the accused must have contravened either any provisions of the Act or any order made there under or any direction made in pursuance of the Act or such order. Thus, before section 14 of the Act is attracted, the accused must have contravened either any provisions of the Act or any order made there under or any direction made in pursuance of the Act or such order. It is really surprising that in the charge, it was not clearly mentioned as to which order made under section 3 of the Act has been contravened by the accused. All that has been stated in the charge is that the accused, on 1-1-1979 at 6.00 a m. being a Pak National, entered into India without a valid passport, and thereby committed an offence punishable under section 14 of the Act. Under section 3 of the Act, Foreigners Order, 1948 (for short, 'the order' was framed and clause (3) of the order provides that no foreigner shall enter into India (a) otherwise than at such port or other place of entry on the borders of India as a registration officer having jurisdiction at that port or place may appoint in this behalf either for foreigners generally or for any specified class or description of foreigners, or (b) without the leave of the Civil authorities having jurisdiction at such port or place. Sub-clause (2) of clause 3 of the order provides that leave to enter shall be refused if the civil authority is satisfied that the person is not in possession of a valid passport or visa for India, or has not been exempted from the possession of a passport, or visa. We are not concerned with other consideration. The accused was not charged for having contravened clause 3 of the order and as already stated earlier, he was only charged under section 14 of the Act which is a penal section. Not only the magistrate but the learned Sessions Judge also did not address himself to this infirmity in the ease of the prosecution that no proper charge was framed against the accused for having contravened clause 3 of the order made under section 3 of the Act. 5. The case of the prosecution was that no sooner the accused entered India from Pakistan border, he was intercepted at a distance of about 20 to 22 kilometres and was stopped. It is not the case of the prosecution that the accused stayed in India after having entered into Indian territory. 5. The case of the prosecution was that no sooner the accused entered India from Pakistan border, he was intercepted at a distance of about 20 to 22 kilometres and was stopped. It is not the case of the prosecution that the accused stayed in India after having entered into Indian territory. The Rules have been framed under section 3 of the Passport (Entry into India) Act, 1920. The preamble of this shows that the Act has been framed to take power to require passport of persons entering India. Under Rule 3 of the Rules, 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 and except through such port (including an airport) or other place as may be specified in this behalf by the Central Government. Under Rule 6 (a) of the Rules, any person who contravenes or abets the contravention of the provisions of rule 3, or does or attempts to do, any act in contravention of any condition prescribed under sub-rule (2) of rule 4, enters or attempts to enter India on a forged passport or visa, shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three months, or with fine, or with both. Therefore, on the material on record, all that can be said is that the accused corns milted an offence punishable under rule 6 (a) of the Rules framed under Section 3 of the Passport (Entry into India) Act. 1920. In the absence of proper charge, it appears that the case of the accused has been prejudiced and the accused could not have been convicted under Section 14 of the Act for contravention of clause 3 of the order. 6. The revision petition is, therefore, partly allowed. The conviction of the accused petitioner is altered from Section 14 of the Act to one under Rule 6 (a) of the Passport (Entry into India) Rules, 1950 which prescribes a maximum sentence of three months. The accused has already undergone more than the maximum prescribed and, therefore, shall be released forthwith if not wanted in any other case.Appeal Partly allowed. *******