Judgment This Petition was admitted to hearing on 24th October, 2005. The respondents were required to file counter affidavit within one month, but till date, no counter affidavit has been filed by the respondents. 2. The issue involved for consideration in this case is, indeed, very simple. Prosecution was launched for violation of Section 14 of The Foreigners Act, 1946 (‘1946 Act’ for short). Section 14 reads thus: “14. Penalties. – 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-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 conviction Court why such penalty should not be paid.” 3. The Prosecution in this particular case for contravention of Section 14 (supra) was based upon Rule 14 (6) of the Registration of Foreigners Rules, 1992. Sub-rule (6) of Rule 14 reads thus: “(6) The keeper of the hotel shall, as soon as may be but not more than twenty-four hours, after the arrival of any foreigner, transmit a copy of Form C, duly completed from the particulars furnished by such a foreigner, to the Registration Officer.” 4. The allegation in the Prosecution is that with respect to a foreigner, namely Raptric Delipan Arvind, citizen of America, report in Form C was not sent within 24 hours. Such information was sent almost a week after the arrival of the foreigner. Since this was in violation of Rule 14(6) (supra), Sri Man Singh, the Manager of the Hotel, was arrested, put in custody for 18 days and thereafter released on bail. Prosecution was launched against him in his capacity as the Manager of the Hotel. Subsequently, a supplementary charge sheet was filed against the petitioner herein without obtaining any leave from the Magistrate concerned. 5. Prosecution was launched against him in his capacity as the Manager of the Hotel. Subsequently, a supplementary charge sheet was filed against the petitioner herein without obtaining any leave from the Magistrate concerned. 5. Under sub-rule (7) of Rule 14 (supra), ‘keeper of a hotel’ has been defined in clause (b) as under: “(b) “Keeper of a hotel” means the person having the management of a hotel and includes any person authorized by him, and competent to perform the duties of the keeper of the hotel under this rule.” 6. It is the undisputed case of the parties, especially of the Prosecution, that Man Singh – accused was the keeper of the Hotel at the relevant time in his capacity as its Manager. If Man Singh was the keeper of the hotel in his capacity as the Manager at the relevant time, law did not permit the owner thereafter to be prosecuted along with Man Singh. Section 114 of 1946 Act read with Rule 14(6) (supra) along with the definition of the ‘keeper of a hotel’ leaves no one in any doubt that only a keeper of the hotel has to be prosecuted and if the keeper is being prosecuted, there is no scope for the owner to be prosecuted along with the accused. The petitioner, undoubtedly, is the owner of the Hotel. Prosecution against her, therefore, was not maintainable and the same was in violation of the aforesaid statutory provisions. 7. This Petitioner is allowed. The impugned orders are set aside and the proceeding against the petitioner are quashed with all the consequences.