It was held that the words used in Rule 3 of the Passport (Entry into India) Rules, 1950, i.e. "enter" and "attempt to enter," in their plain grammatical construction make it impossible to hold that continued residence of the foreigner can attract the provisions of Rule 3 and could be made the basis of his conviction under Rule 6(a). Rule 6(a) is a penal provision and must be interpreted strictly. A foreigner's residence in India would be governed by the limitations prescribed in the visa; but his residence or its continuance after he has once entered India cannot be brought within the mischief of Rule 3.
State vs Ibrahim Adam