Judgment RAM NANDAN PRASAD, J. 1. The petitioner has been convicted by the Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Muzaffarpur, in G.R. Case No. 2484/75 u/S. 14 of the Foreigners Act, 1946 and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for one year and further convicted u/ S. 3 of the Passport (Entry into India) Act, 1920 read with Rule 6 of the Passport (Entry into India) Rules, 1950 and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months and sentences have been ordered to run concurrently and his appeal against the same has been dismissed and the conviction and sentences have been confirmed by the Ist Additional Sessions Judge, Muzaffarpur, in Cr. Appeal 97/86. The prayer in this application is to set aside the conviction and the sentences passed against him. 2. Briefly stated the facts are as follows; On the basis of confidential information, the A.S.I. of Kazi Mohammadpur Police Station (Muzaffarpur), Ram Sewak Singh along with some constables visited the shoe shop of Abdul Rahim in Muzaffarpur Town at about 5 p.m. on 27-12-1975 and there found the accused (petitioner) sitting in the shop and on questioning he gave out, his name as Mohammad Anwar son of Khudabaksh of village Pandi Bhatiya, Tahsil Hafizabad, Quzrawala, Pakistan. Finding that the petitioner was a foreigner and he had no passport or other valid documents for his entering into and staying in India, the A.S.I. took him into custody and submitted a written report (Ext. 2) at the Kazi Mohammadpur Police Station on the same day which was forwarded to Muzaffarpur Town Police Station where Town Police Station Case. No. 87 dt. 28-12-1975 was instituted giving rise to G.R. Case No. 2484/ 75. 2) at the Kazi Mohammadpur Police Station on the same day which was forwarded to Muzaffarpur Town Police Station where Town Police Station Case. No. 87 dt. 28-12-1975 was instituted giving rise to G.R. Case No. 2484/ 75. It is stated in the written report that the accused (petitioner) on questioning by the A.S.I. disclosed that he had come without any passport from his home in Gujarawal (Pakistan) via Dhaka to Calcutta in the rainy season of 1969 to meet his wife Rajia Begam and his three sons and daughters who were residing in the house of his father-in-law, Abdul Majid at Balaidutt Street, Calcutta, and there with the help of his father-in-law he got employment in the shoe shop of his relation Ellahi Baksh and after having worked there for sometime he came to Muzaffarpur in February, 1973 with a view to opening a shoe shop independently and remained there in the hope that his real identity will not be disclosed and he will be able to stay incognito. The accused (Petitioner) is further said to have disclosed that at Muzaffarpur he first opened a shoe shop in Mohallah Islampur in the name of Aurangzeb Illahi but thereafter he engaged himself in bringing shoes, chappels etc. from Calcutta and supplying them to different shoe shop-keepers at Muzaffarpur including Abdul Rahim in whose shop he was arrested on the date of occurrence. In course of investigation, the petitioners statement u / S. 164, Cr. P.C. was recorded. After the investigation was completed, the petitioner was chargesheeted and put on trial resulting in his conviction and sentence as mentioned above. 3. The petitioner denied the charges levelled against him and took the plea that he was an Indian national and had only temporarily gone to Pakistan and had thereafter come back to live in India with his family members. 4. The only point to determine in this case is whether the prosecution case regarding the petitioner being a foreigner and having entered into and remained in India without valid documents has been established beyond reasonable doubt and whether the conviction and sentences passed against the petitioner are sustainable in law. In course of hearing of this application, the following points have been urged on behalf of the petitioner: "(i) The trial as well as the appellate courts have failed to properly appreciate the evidence and statement under S. 164 Cr. In course of hearing of this application, the following points have been urged on behalf of the petitioner: "(i) The trial as well as the appellate courts have failed to properly appreciate the evidence and statement under S. 164 Cr. P.C. and on this account the conviction is unsustainable. The petitioner is not a foreigner but an Indian citizen. Further, in any view of the matter a declaration u / S. 8 of the Foreigners Act was necessary before he could be tried and convicted for an offence u / S. 14 of the Act. (ii) No prosecution could proceed against him without any sanction from the Central Government. (iii) The charge framed against him mentions that the offence committed by him is u / S. 6 of the Passports Act but he has been convicted u / S. 6 of the Passport (Entering into India) Act and as such due to error in the charge the conviction is not sustainable. 5. It is not disputed that the petitioner was arrested by the A.S.I. Ram Sewak Singh at about 5 p.m. on 27-12-1975 in the shoe shop of Abdul Rahim situated at the Station Road in Muzaffarpur Town and on being questioned he disclosed his address and identity. This A.S.I. deposing as P.W. 4 has stated in his evidence that when he found the petitioner sitting in the shoe shop he questioned him whereupon petitioner gave out his name as Md. Anwar son of Khudabaksh of Pindi Bahtiya district Guzrawala Pakistan and further stated that he had come to India via Dhaka without any passport in the rainy season of 1969 and stayed for sometime with his father-in-law Abdul Majid in Calcutta and that in 1973 his father-in-law sent him to Muzaffarpur for doing business in shoes and that since then the petitioner is staying on in Muzaffarpur and doing business for obtaining orders for shoes, chappals etc. from the shopkeepers at Muzaffarpur and bringing the articles from Calcutta for supplying the same to the shopkeepers there. The A.S.I. has also stated in his evidence that the petitioner was unable to produce passport or visa for his entering into and staying in India and thereafter the A.S.I.P.W. 4 arrested him and took him to the police station where he submitted his written report (Ext. 2) on the basis of which the formal FIR (Ext. The A.S.I. has also stated in his evidence that the petitioner was unable to produce passport or visa for his entering into and staying in India and thereafter the A.S.I.P.W. 4 arrested him and took him to the police station where he submitted his written report (Ext. 2) on the basis of which the formal FIR (Ext. 1 / 1) was drawn up and the case was instituted. The statement in the written report fully supports and corroborates the evidence given by the A.S.I.P.W. 4. When the A.S.I.P.W. 4 had questioned the petitioner regarding his identity and address in the shop of Md. Abdul Rahim, the petitioner was "not an accused" and, therefore, there is no legal impediment in the admissibility of the statement made by the petitioner regarding his identity and address and the time and manner of coming to India. This statement is not hit by S. 162, Cr. P.C. because this statement was made prior to the institution of the case and, therefore, not made in course of investigation. It is not also hit by S. 25 of the Evidence Act because at the time of making that statement the petitioner was not an "accused" of any offence. 6. On the 3rd of January, 1976 the petitioners statement was recorded by the judicial Magistrate u / S. 164, Cr. P.C. In this statement also he gave the same address, namely, Md. Anwar son of Khudabaksh of Police station Pindibhatiya district Guzrawala (Pakistan). It is also significant to note that while giving his statement u / S. 164, Cr. P. C. the petitioner gave out his nationality as Pakistani and while making that statement he gave out his age as 39 years and this would mean that he was born sometime in 1937. It is pertinent to note here itself that while giving his statement u / S. 313, Cr. P.C. in July 1983, the petitioner gave out his age as 40 years which would mean that he was born sometime in 1943. In the statement u / S. 164, Cr. P.C. (Ext. 3) he accepts that he had come to Muzaffarpur in 1973 and since then is doing business of supplying shoes, chappals etc. to different shopkeepers as per their order and also that he came from Pindi Bhatiya to India and had originally stayed with his father-in-law Abdul Majid. In the statement u / S. 164, Cr. P.C. (Ext. 3) he accepts that he had come to Muzaffarpur in 1973 and since then is doing business of supplying shoes, chappals etc. to different shopkeepers as per their order and also that he came from Pindi Bhatiya to India and had originally stayed with his father-in-law Abdul Majid. In this statement he gave his present address as Mauza Tapasia 12/4 2nd line but when questioned about the district he said that he did not know about it. He has also admitted that he does not hold any passport and that he did not give any information to the authorities in India regarding his coming and stay in this country. Petitioner was fully conscious of the statement that he had made before the A.S.I. prior to his arrest in the shoe shop of Abdul Rahim and while giving his statement u / S. 164, Cr. P.C. he said that had not stated before the A.S.I. that he had come to Calcutta via Dhaka during the rainy season of 1969. In Ext. 3 his statement is to the effect that he along with his parents had come to India in 1945 and had started living with Abdul Majid; to this extent he has changed the statement which he had made before the A.S.I. in the shoe shop of Abdul Rahim. It is significant to note that in the statement u / S. 164 the petitioner has not alleged that his name and address had been wrongly recorded by the A.S.I. It is also significant to note that in the statement u / S. 164, Cr. P.C. the petitioner has of course mentioned that he has come to India with his parents but he has not said that the parents also stayed on and did not go back to Pakistan. He, however, stated in Ext. 3, which is contrary to what he had stated before the A.S.I. in the shop of Abdul Rahim, that he had come to India in 1945 and stayed on thereafter. It has already been pointed out above that according to the petitioners own statement he was at the most aged about only eight years in 1945. It is, therefore, highly improbable and unnatural that his parents would leave the young lad at Calcutta to stay with Abdul Majid. It has already been pointed out above that according to the petitioners own statement he was at the most aged about only eight years in 1945. It is, therefore, highly improbable and unnatural that his parents would leave the young lad at Calcutta to stay with Abdul Majid. It is also significant to note that the petitioner has entered into defence and examined 4 D.Ws, who are all residents of Muzaffarpur two D.Ws, who have come -forward to say that the petitioner was residing in Mohalla Tapsia in Calcutta, it was specifically suggested that there is no locality known as Tapasia in Calcutta but in spite of it no evidence was given to show that in fact ,there is any locality known as Tapasia in Calcutta and the petitioner has been actually residing there or even to say that the petitioners wife and family are presently residing anywhere in Calcutta. The prosecution evidence is clear and specific. As already mentioned above the A.S.I.P.W. 4 had said that when he questioned the petitioner in the above shoe shop of Abdul Rahim he stated that he had come to India via Dhaka in the year 1969. His evidence is fully supported and corroborated by the written report (F.I.R.) Ext. 2 and it gets further support from the evidence of P.W. 2 who had gone along with the A.S.I. to the shoe shop of Abdul Rahim that P.W. 4 has stated is also supported and corroborated by the statement of the petitioner himself under S. 164, Cr. P.C. Ext. 3. The only difference is that the petitioners in earlier statement was to the effect that he had come to Calcutta in 1969 Via Dhaka but in Ext. 3 gave the statement that he had come along with his parents sometime in 1945. The courts below have discussed this aspect and given cogent reasons for not believing the petitioners case that he had come to India in 1945. I find no reason to differ with their conclusions on this point. Indeed certain facts and circumstances which have been pointed out above clearly indicate that this plea of the petitioner that he had come to India in 1945 is not worthy of belief and is totally unacceptable. I find no reason to differ with their conclusions on this point. Indeed certain facts and circumstances which have been pointed out above clearly indicate that this plea of the petitioner that he had come to India in 1945 is not worthy of belief and is totally unacceptable. In view of the above I have no reason to differ with or find fault with the finding of the courts below that the petitioner was not in India at any time prior to 1969. 7. The petitioner has taken the defence that he is an Indian national. But this is contrary to his own statement under S. 164, Cr. P.C. (Ext. 3) in which he gave out his nationality as Pakistani. In the grounds of appeal before the appellate court I find that he had taken the plea that the statement under S. 164, Cr. P.C. was given under duress. However, there is absolutely no material on record to show that there was any duress or influence exercised upon the petitioner at the time of his statement was recorded under S. 164, Cr. P.C. The Judicial Magistrate who recorded the statement has given the necessary certificate as required under S. 154, Cr. P.C. There was no suggestion to any of the P.Ws. that any kind of pressure or influence was exercised upon the petitioner at the time his statement was recorded under S. 164, Cr. P.C. The petitioner appears to be a fairly educated person as he has signed his statement in English. P.W. 5, who is one of the investigating officers of this case has stated that the petitioners statement was recorded under S. 164, Cr. P.C. by the Judicial Magistrate Shri Umesh Chaudhary and he has also formally proved the statement which has been marked as Ext. 3 under S. 80 of the Evidence Act. A presumption arises that this document is genuine and that statements made therein were duly taken. There is absolutely no basis whatsoever to show that the statement under Sec. 154, Cr. P.C. was made by the petitioner under any kind of duress or influence. Indeed had he been under any kind of duress or influence, he would not have changed his earlier statement that he had come to India in 1969 and made a different statement to the effect that he had come to India in 1945. P.C. was made by the petitioner under any kind of duress or influence. Indeed had he been under any kind of duress or influence, he would not have changed his earlier statement that he had come to India in 1969 and made a different statement to the effect that he had come to India in 1945. Having described himself as a Pakistani national in his statement under S. 164, Cr. P.C. I do not understand how his plea that he is an Indian national be accepted. From his own statement it is clear that he was resident of Pindi Bhativa in district Guzarawala in Pakistan. As found above he came to India sometime in between 1969-73 without any passport, visa or other documents and stayed on in this country thereafter. The mere fact that he has stayed on in India for a few years cannot clothe him with Indian citizensship or Indian nationality. 8. At the time of partition is 1947, all persons residing in undivided India were British subjects. After partition, those in Pakistan acquired nationality of that country while those residing in India, became Indian citizens. The provisions relating to citizenship are embodied in Arts. 2, 5 and 11 of the Constitution of India. Article 5 reads as follows: - Citizenship at the commencement of the Constitution - At the commencement of this Constitution, every person who has his domicile in the territory of India and - a. who was born in the territory of India; or b. either of whose parents was born in the territory of India; or c. who has been ordinarily resident in the territory of India for not less than five years immediately preceding such commencement, shall be a citizen of India. In view of what has been found above the petitioner obviously is not covered by the provisions of Art. 5. Article 6 relates to rights of citizenship of persons who have migrated to India from Pakistan. In view of what has been found above the petitioner obviously is not covered by the provisions of Art. 5. Article 6 relates to rights of citizenship of persons who have migrated to India from Pakistan. Article 6 reads as follows: - Rights of citizenship of certain persons who have migrated to India from Pakistan-Not-withstanding anything in Art. 5, a person who has migrated to the territory of India from the territory now included in Pakistan shall be deemed to be a citizen of India at the commencement of this Constitution if - a. he or either of his parents or any of his grand-parents was born in India as defined in the Government of India Act, 1935 (as originally enacted); and b. i. in the case where such a person has so migrated before the nineteenth day of July, 1948, he has been ordinarily resident in the territory of India since the date of his migration, or ii. in the case where such person has so migrated on or after the nineteenth day of July, 1948, he has been registered as a citizen of India by an officer appointed in that behalf by the Government of the dominion of India on an application made by him therefor to such officer before the commencement of this Constitution in the form and manner prescribed by that Government. Provided that no person shall be so registered unless he has been resident in the territory of India for at least six months immediately preceding the date of his application. The petitioner has not clearly indicated exactly as to where he was born but on the basis of the statement given by him it may be taken that he was born in Guzrawala which obviously was part of undivided India as defined in the Government of India Act 1936. However, as found above he stealthily came to India sometime in 1969 or thereafter. He has admitted that he has not yet informed any authority about his entry into India and stay therein. He does not also claim to have been registered as a citizen of India. Obviously, therefore, he cannot also claim any right of citizenship under the provisions of Art. 6 of the Constitution. We are not concerned herewith the provisions of Arts. 7 to 11 as they have no relevance to the facts of the present case. He does not also claim to have been registered as a citizen of India. Obviously, therefore, he cannot also claim any right of citizenship under the provisions of Art. 6 of the Constitution. We are not concerned herewith the provisions of Arts. 7 to 11 as they have no relevance to the facts of the present case. It may, however, be indicated that Art. 11 of the Constitution has empowered Parliament to enact law for regulating the acquisition and termination of citizenship and matters relating thereto and Parliament has in fact enacted the Citizenship Act, 1955 which came into operation on the 30th of December, 1955. Sec. 3 relates to citizenship by birth and, therefore, has no application to the petitioner. Sec. 4 relates to citizenship by descent in respect of persons who are born outside India after 26/01/1950 from Indian parents. This too has no application to the petitioner. Sec. 4 relates to acquisition of citizenship by registration and S. 6 relates to citizenship on basis of natural relationship and this provision has absolutely no bearing on the petitioners case. Obviously, therefore, on the facts as found in the present case, the petitioner by no stretch of imagination can be said to be Indian Citizen or to have Indian nationality. 9. In support of his plea that he has Indian nationality the petitioner filed certain documents. One of these is a passport Ext. 4 which he claims to have obtained from the Indian authorities. It is significant to note that while being questioned about his identity and address by the A.S.I. on the date of occurrence in the shoe shop of Abdul Rahim and also while giving his statement under S. 164, Cr. P.C. the petitioner never mentioned that as an Indian national he had obtained a passport from the Indian authorities, P.W. 1 is a police officer, who has stated that he had gone to the passport office at Calcutta to make enquiries and after having seen the relevant documents in the passport office and having made enquiries from the concerned authorities he found that this is a forged passport. Both the courts below have discussed this matter in detail and come to the finding that the passport Ext. Both the courts below have discussed this matter in detail and come to the finding that the passport Ext. 4 produced by the petitioner is not a genuine document and I find no reason to differ with or disturb the concurrent finding of fact given by the courts below. It is also significant to note that in this passport the address of the petitioner is noted as 31 Lower Chitpur Road, Jorasanko, Calcutta-1. But it is not the petitioners case that he had ever stayed or resided at the above address and this further goes to confirm the finding of the courts below that the passport Ext. 4 is a forged document. He also produced certain papers in order to show that his name has been included in the voters list of Baligunj Parliament Constituency and also in Ward No. 66 of Calcutta Corporation Constituency. However, these papers were not brought on the record and proved by any competent person and hence there is no sanctity about their genuineness. Through D.W. 4 he proved one bill dt. 3-11-56 said to have been granted by the First Star Rubber products of Calcutta in the name of "Md. Anwar" 9 Balai Dutt Street, Calcutta, showing purchase of some articles. This was proved by D.W. 4, who is a paper vendor in Muzaffarpur Civil Court and therefore, obviously incompetent to speak about the genuineness of the document. Moreover, the bill must have been prepared on the statement of the petitioner and hence is of no consequence. On the contrary they go to show that the petitioner has been giving out different addresses at different times. The courts below have, therefore, rightly held that the documents do not in any way help the petitioner, D.Ws. 1, 2 and 3, who are all residents of Muzaffarpur and who were examined in court in 1983-84 have said that they have seen that the petitioner has been doing the business in shoe and chappal etc. since several years. D. W. 1 says that he knows the petitioner and also has seen him doing business of shoes and chappals etc since the last twenty years but he admits that he had never gone to Calcutta to see where the petitioner was residing. since several years. D. W. 1 says that he knows the petitioner and also has seen him doing business of shoes and chappals etc since the last twenty years but he admits that he had never gone to Calcutta to see where the petitioner was residing. D.W. 3 has said that he had seen the petitioner doing business in shoes and chappals with shopkeepers at Muzaffarpur since about 26 or 27 years but the evidence of these witnesses is contrary to the petitioners own case which is to the effect that he has started doing the business at Mazaffarpur since 1973. These witnesses say that they had never gone to Calcutta and do not know where the petitioner actually resides. Obviously these witnesses appear to be tutored and I am in full agreement with the courts below that no reliance can be placed on their evidence. The conclusion is, therefore, inescapable that the petitioner is neither an Indian citizen nor he has Indian nationality. 10. Sec. 2(A) of the Foreigners Act (Act 31 / 46) states that "Foreigner" means a person who is not a citizen of India. Undoubtedly, therefore, the petitioner not being citizen of India as found above, was a foreigner at the time of his entry into India in 1969 and continues to be so. It was urged that the petitioner cannot be regarded as a foreigner unless there was a specific order under S. 8 of the Act determining his nationality and declaring that he is a foreigner. Sec. 8 applies to cases where it is uncertain what nationality, if any, is to be scribed to the person concerned. In the present case there is no such doubt or uncertainty. Petitioners defence is confined to the plea that he is an Indian national and is not Pakistani national; he has not put forward the case that he had the nationality of any other country or that there was any uncertainty or doubt regarding his nationality. After examining all aspects, it has been found above that the petitioner is not an Indian citizen and has no Indian nationality; on the contrary he himself had given out in his earlier statements that he is a Pakistani national. There is, therefore, no doubt that the petitioner is a Pakistani national and as such the applicability of S. 8 of the Act does not at all arise. 11. There is, therefore, no doubt that the petitioner is a Pakistani national and as such the applicability of S. 8 of the Act does not at all arise. 11. Sec. 13(1) of the Foreigners Act (referred to as the Act) is as follows: - " "Any person who attempts to contravene, or abets or attempts to abet or does any act preparatory to a contravention of the provisions of this Act or of any order made or direction given thereunder, or fails to comply with any direction given in pursuance of any such order, shall be deemed to have contravened provisions of this Act". (Sub-sections 2 and 3 are not relevant to the point under consideration) Sec. 14 of the Act contains the Penal Clause and runs as follows: "If any person contravenes the provisions of this Act or of any order made thereunder, or any direction given in pursuance of this Act or such order, he shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to five years and shall also be liable to fine; and if such person has entered into a bond in pursuance of clause (f) of Sub-sec. (2) of S. 3, his bond shall be forfeited and any person bound thereby shall pay the penalty thereof, or show cause to the satisfaction of the convicting Court why such penalty should not be paid we may not turn to the Foreigners Order 1948 which was promulgated in exercise of the powers conferred by S. 3 of the Foreigners Act sub-clause 1 of Clause 3 of this Order is as follows: - Power to grant or refuse permission to enter India- (1) No foreigner shall enter India- (a) otherwise than at such part 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. (b) without the leave of the civil authority having jurisdiction at such port or place". The petitioner on his own saying entered India Via Bangladesh and obviously his entry was unauthorised because it is not his case that he had made his entry at any prescribed place of entry and has done so with the leave of the civil authority having jurisdiction at such place of entry. The petitioner on his own saying entered India Via Bangladesh and obviously his entry was unauthorised because it is not his case that he had made his entry at any prescribed place of entry and has done so with the leave of the civil authority having jurisdiction at such place of entry. There can be no doubt, therefore that the petitioner being a foreigner having entered India in the manner stated above has contravened sub-clause 1 of Clause 3 of the Foreigners Order, 1948 and he has Committed an offence punishable under S. 14 of the Foreigners Act. Further, after his illegal entry into India, his act of obtaining and using of forged passport with intent to show falsely that he is not a foreigner and thereby avoid obtaining the necessary permit for stay as required under sub-clause 2 of Clause 7 of the Foreigners Order clearly amounts to an attempt indicated in S. 13 of the Act to contravene the provision of this Order. This again is an offence punishable under S. 14 of the Act. There can be no doubt, therefore that the petitioner has been rightly convicted by the courts below for the offence under S. 14 of the Act and the conviction and sentence imposed for the same must be upheld. Points No. (i) and (ii) raised on behalf of the petitioner has have no merit. 12. It may further be indicated that Rule 5 of the Registration of Foreigners Rules 1939, which have been promulgated by the Central Government in exercise of the powers under S. 3 of the Registration of Foreigners Act, 1939 (Act 16 / 39) requires that every foreigner entering India or resident in India shall present in person to the appropriate registration officer specified in Rule 6, a report (called a registration report) within the specified time. The petitioner obviously did not present himself to the appropriate registration officer and thus vitiated this rule giving rise to an offence under S. 5 of the Registration of Foreigners Act. It is unfortunate that no charge was framed against the petitioner for this offence. I leave it at that. 13. The petitioner has lastly contended that his conviction on the charge relating to entry in India without a passport is not sustainable because the charge has not been framed properly and validly. It is unfortunate that no charge was framed against the petitioner for this offence. I leave it at that. 13. The petitioner has lastly contended that his conviction on the charge relating to entry in India without a passport is not sustainable because the charge has not been framed properly and validly. The charge framed against the petitioner is quoted below: - "Secondly - That you, on or about the ............. Do day of ... Do ...... at Do used a forged and fabricated passport and stayed in India after Crossing Indian border being a Pakistani National ..... and thereby committed an offence under S. 6 of the Passport Act. It is true that in the charge it has been wrongly mentioned that provision of the Passport Act has been violated instead of mentioning that the offence in question amounts to violation of the passport Entry into India Rules 1950 read with the passport Entry into India Act, 1920. The Passport Entry into India Rules, 1950 were framed by the Central Government in exercise of the Powers under S. 3 of the Act by Notification No. 4-5-49 R-I dt. 25/04/1950. Rule 3 provides that no person, except those exempted under Rule 4, shall enter or attempt to enter India by water, land or air unless he is in possession of valid passport conforming to the conditions prescribed in Rule 5. The petitioner does not fall within the exemption provided under Rule 4. It is the undisputed position that he did not have any passport for entering into the territory of India. As such there is a clear violation on his part of Rule 3 and this violation is punishable under Rule 6 which provides that any person who contravenes or abets the contravention of the provisions of Rule 3 shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three months or with fine or with both. Admittedly the petitioner was not in possession of any passport and therefore he has clearly violated the provisions of Rule 3 and has committed an offence punishable under Rule 6 of the Passport (Entry into India) Rules, 1950. The substance of the charge framed against the petitioner clearly indicates that he is being charged of the offence arising from the fact that he has crossed the Indian border to enter and stay in the territory of India without a valid passport. The substance of the charge framed against the petitioner clearly indicates that he is being charged of the offence arising from the fact that he has crossed the Indian border to enter and stay in the territory of India without a valid passport. We, therefore, clearly know what charge he is to meet. No doubt there is a technical lacuna in the charge in the sense that instead of mentioning the correct provision of law namely that the offence arises under Rule 6 of the Passport (Entry into India) Rules, 1950, it has been wrongly mentioned that the offence in question is punishable under S. 6 of the Passport Act but the charge clearly mentions the basic facts which give rise to the offence in question and the petitioner has not been able to show that he has been misled in any way and that he has been prejudiced in any way in putting forward his defence against the charge in its substance. The technical error in the charge has not occasioned failure of justice. Hence, his conviction for the offence of entry into India without valid passport cannot be set aside on the ground of mere technical error in mentioning the particular provision of law. It is well settled that even if thereis a technical error in the charge, the same does not make the conviction bad or illegal if the substance of the charge is clear and has been understood by the accused and it has not caused prejudice to his defence. Such an irregularity is curable under S. 215, Cr. P.C. In view of the settled legal position, I find that the petitioners contention that the mistake in the charge as indicated above makes his conviction unsustainable, has no merit. Thus the third point raised by him also fails. 14. In view of the discussion above, I find that the petitioners conviction on both counts is quite valid and proper and does not call for any interference. The conviction and sentences imposed upon him are hereby upheld. The revision is without merit and is accordingly dismissed. Revision dismissed.