JUDGMENT 1. - By the judgment dated 25.7.1995, the Judge, Special Court, NDPS Act Cases, Jodhpur, has convicted the accused appellants for the offence Under rule. 3/6, Indian Passports (Entry into India) Rules, 1950, hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules of 1950' and Under section 14 of the Foreigners Act, 1946, in short `the Act of 1946' and sentenced him to rigorous imprisonment for a period of three months and a fine of Rs. five thousand for the offence Under rule. 3/6 of the Rules of 1950 and rigorous imprisonment for a period of five years and a firwof Rs. five thousand for the offence Under section 14 of the Act of 1946. The accused appellants have, however, been acquitted of the offence under the NDPS Act. Against the above said conviction and sentence, this appeal has been preferred. 2. I have heard the arguments of both the sides. 3. The relevant charge framed against the accused appellants is to the effect that the respective passport recovered from the accused appellants were not lawful passports and they, being foreigners, entered India without a legal passport and, as such, they violated R. 3 of the Rules of 1950 and, thus, they committed the offence Under rule 3/6 of the Rules of 1950 and Section 14 of the Act of 1946. 4. Section 14 of the Act of 1946 reads as under : "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 Cl. (f) of sub-section. (2) of Section 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." 5. Evidently, in order to attract the penalty provided Under Section 14 of the Act of 1946, it is necessary that there must be some contravention of the provisions of the Act itself or of any order made, thereunder or any direction given in pursuance of the Act or the order. Evidently, in order to attract the penalty provided Under Section 14 of the Act of 1946, it is necessary that there must be some contravention of the provisions of the Act itself or of any order made, thereunder or any direction given in pursuance of the Act or the order. The charge as framed by the learned trial Court does not speak of the contravention of any of the provisions of the Act itself or of any order made thereunder or any direction in pursuance of the Act or the order. The charge framed simply speaks of entering into India without a valid passport which is violation of R. 3 of the Rules of 1950. The violation of R. 3 is punishable under section 6 of the Rules of 1950. Obviously no proper charge has been framed for attracting the provisions of Section 14 of the Act of 1946. 6. In the case Yar Mohd. v. State of Rajasthan, reported in 1982 RCC 92 , this Court has held that if the charge has not been properly framed attracting the provisions of Section 14 of the Act of 1946, the accused could not be convicted under Section 14 of the Act of 1946. Contravention of R. 3 of the Rules of 1950, which has been framed in exercise of the power conferred by the Passport (Entry into India) Act, 1920 and not framed under the Foreigners Act, 1946, is not punishable Under Section 14 of the Act of 1946. The contravention of R. 3 is punishable Under Rule 6 of the Rules of 1950. 7. In the absence of proper charge, the accused appellants seem to have been prejudiced and, therefore, they could not be convicted Under section 14 of the Act of 1946. Their conviction and sentence for the offence Under section 14 of the Act cannot be sustained. 8. So far as the conviction and sentence for the offence Under Section 3/6 of the Rules of 1950 is concerned, it has not been challenged before me at bar by the learned counsel for the appellants except that the sentence awarded in default of payment of fine is violative of Section 65 Indian Penal Code The imprisonment in default of payment of fine cannot exceed l/4th of maximum term of imprisonment that can be awarded for the offence. Under Rule 3/6 of the Rules of 1950, the maximum term of imprisonment that can be awarded is three months, therefore, the imprisonment in default of payment of fine cannot exceed 1/4th of three months. The learned trial Court has awarded further imprisonment for three months in default of payment of fine, which, obviously, is violative of Section 65 Indian Penal Code and, as such, the same cannot be maintained. Therefore, the conviction for the offence Under rule 3/6 of the Rules of 1950 deserves to be upheld and maintained. The substantive sentence of three months RI and a fine of Rs. five thousand also deserves to be maintained but the further imprisonment in default of payment of fine may be reduced to three weeks only instead of three months. 9. In the result, the appeal is partly allowed, the conviction and sentence of the accused appellants for the offence Under Section 14 of the Act of 1946 is set aside and they are acquitted of the same. However, their conviction and sentence for the offence Under rule 3 Read With 6 of the Rules of 1950 is maintained subject to modification that in default of payment of fine, the accused appellants shall undergo a further sentence of three weeks only instead of three months. After serving the sentence so awarded, the action with regard to the deportation may be taken as per the order of the learned trial Court.Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, Section 3(i)(x)- Revision by complainant against discharge - Trial Court discharged the accused. No statement of complainant recorded Under Section 161 Criminal Procedure Code that he was insulted, intimidated or humiliated in a place within public view - Incident took place inside the room of a building - No place within the public view - Held, the trial Court has rightly.Appeal Partly Allowed. *******