CRL A/1004/2026 of Solaiman @ Sowan Vs State represented by The Inspector of Police on 30 September 2026

JUDGMENT

This Criminal Appeal has been filed to call for the records and set aside the conviction and sentence imposed upon the appellant by the II Additional District and Sessions judge, Tiruppur, in S.C.No.157 of 2025, dated 04.07.2026.

2. The conviction and sentence imposed on the appellant / accused, vide impugned judgment dated 04.07.2026, are as follows:-

Sl. No. Sections Imprisonment Fine amount In Default 1st Accused /Appellant U/s.14(A)(b) of

the Foreigners (Amendment ) Act, 2004 and U/s 466, 468, 471 of I.P.C. Rigorous imprisonment for a period of 2 years Rigorous Imprisonment for 3 years Rs.10,000/- Rs.2000/- Simple imprisonment for a period of 6 months Simple Imprisonment for a period of 3 months 2nd and 3rd Accused U/s.14(A)(b) of Foreigners (Amendment ) Act, 2004 Rigorous imprisonment for a period of 2 years each Rs.10,000/- each Simple imprisonment for a period of 3 months each.

3. Aggrieved by the said conviction and sentence, the appellant / first accused has preferred the present appeal before this Court. It has been brought to the notice of this Court that since the second and third accused have completed their substantive terms of imprisonment, they are currently detained in the Trichy Camp and deportation procedures have been initiated.

4. The learned counsel for the appellant produced the deposition of witnesses and relevant documents. The learned Government advocate (Criminal side) appearing for the respondent police has received the same and has no objection. With the consent of both sides, this Criminal Appeal is taken up for final hearing and disposal.

5. The case of the prosecution is that on 29.09.2024, PW1 / the Sub Inspector of Police attached to Tiruppur South Police Station, Tiruppur, while on patrol duty along with Head Constable Ganesh Babu and Grade I Constable Saravanakumar, received secret information, that three Bangladesh Nationals were staying in Kumaran Illam Hostel. On receipt of secret information, they visited the above place, and found three persons under suspicious circumstances. On seeing the Police personnel, they attempted to flee, however, they were apprehended and enquired. Since all the accused spoke in Hindi, with the assistance of one Jeyadurga Devi / P.W.3, Hindi Translator who was conversant in Hindi, they were enquired.

5.1. During initial interrogation, the accused persons admitted that they came from Bangladesh and their names are (1) Solaiman @ Sowan (2) MD Manik Hossain (3) MD Matiur Rahman and all are residing in Tiruppur. P.W.1 seized the Bangladesh passports of A1 to A3. It was found that the accused were staying in India without valid Visa or travel documents.

5.2. On further enquiry, it was revealed that they came to India without any visa and possess no valid documents to enter India. Thereafter, P.W.1 had taken the accused persons along with special report / Ex.P1 and produced before P.W.11 / Inspector of Police who registered First Information Report / Ex.P10

in Cr.No.678 of 2024 for the offences under Sections 466, 468, 471 I.P.C and Section 14 (A) (b) of the Foreigners (Amendment) Act 2004. Thereafter, P.W.11 took up investigation, visited the scene of occurrence and prepared Observation Mahazar / Ex.P5 and Rough Sketch / Ex.P11 in the presence of the witnesses. During investigation, the appellant gave a confession statement and produced his Indian Aadhaar Card, Bangladesh passport and a Android Cellphone which were marked as Ex.P13 and M.O.1. Based on the investigation, P.W.12, the Inspector of Police, altered the charges to Sections 14 (A) (b), 14 (c) of the Foreigners Act, and Sections 466, 468, 471 of I.P.C., and subsequently prepared a Section Alteration Report / Ex.P.18. After completion of investigation, P.W.12 filed a charge sheet in this case.

6. During the trial, P.W.1 to P.W.12 were examined and Ex.P1 to Ex.P.18 were marked and MO-1 and MO-2 were produced. On conclusion of the trial, the Trial Court convicted the appellant as stated above.

7. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the admitted position of the prosecution case is that, the appellant / accused are from Bangladesh Foreign Nation and they were found in Tiruppur. The learned counsel for the appellant further submitted that, according to the prosecution case, a forged Aadhaar Card of first accused was prepared by A4. However, the trial Court categorically held that there was absolutely no legally admissible evidence against A4 and acquitted him. Once the alleged fabricator has been acquitted, the conviction of the appellant for forgery becomes legally unsustainable. Moreover, P.W.11, the subsequent Investigating Officer, not conducted any independent investigation, and took no steps to verify the genuineness of the Indian Aadhaar card of A1. He simply relied on the investigation of P.W.1. But, the Trial Court erroneously held that the burden of proof lay upon the appellant to show that they were not illegal immigrants and that the seized Aadhaar card is genuine, which is contrary to the fundamental principles of criminal jurisprudence.

8. Further she submitted that the appellant / accused were not conversant with the local language and they were not known to read or write and understand Tamil. But the entire trial proceedings were conducted in a regional language-Tamil. Hence, appellant/accused were denied meaningful and effective opportunity to understand the allegation and to defend their case. Further, though it has been projected that the service of interpreter, namely Jayadurga Devi was employed, but her qualification and competency have not been proved. The Apex Court, in the case of Central Bureau of Investigation Vs. Narottam Dhakad, reported in 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1069, had held that, if denial of effective opportunity is proved, then it amount to violation of Article

21 of the Constitution of India and benefit has to be given to the appellant and the case against them to be quashed and conviction cannot be sustained.

9. The learned counsel for the appellant referred to the guidelines issued by Ministry of Home Affairs in F.14011/55/09 F-VI, dated 23.11.2009 circular, wherein the procedure of deportation of Bangaladeshi Nationals given, further particularly referred to paragraph No.2(v) of the circular, which is extracted below:- 2(v)In respect of Bangladeshi nationals found to be staying unauthorizedly in any particular State/UT, proper inquiry shall be conducted by the State Government / UT concerned. If the suspected Bangladeshi national claims Indian citizenship and residence of a place in any other Indian State/UT, the concerned State Government/UT would send to the Home, Secretary of the State/UT and District Collector/District Magistrate of the District from where the suspected person claims to hail, the details including name, parentage, residential address, details of near relatives etc. the State Government / UT / Collector/District Magistrate concerned in turn will ensure that appropriate report is sent the deporting State Government / UT after proper verification within a period of 30 days. All the States/UTs shall issue appropriate instructions to the District Collectors/District Magistrates for ensuring verification of claim of such suspected persons well in time. During the period of 30 days, the competent authority will ensure, by obtaining permission of the court wherever necessary, the detention of such persons to ensure physical availability at the time of deportation. If no report is received within the period of 30 days, the competent authority may take necessary action to deport the suspected Bangladeshi national.

10. Learned counsel for the appellant referred to paragraph Nos.14 & 19 of the Hon’ble Apex Court Judgment in M/s.Maja Daruwala and another v. State of West Bengal reported in 2025 Law Finder SC 4783. The same are extracted hereunder: “14.The pivotal issue that falls for our consideration is that if an illegal immigrant from Bangladesh after being apprehended and proceeded under Section 14 A(b) of the Foreigners Act, 1946 is convicted and sentenced to undergo a particular term of imprisonment then after he completes his term of sentence should be immediately repatriated/deported to his own country or should he be kept for an indefinite period in the Correctional Homes in India. The only confusion in our mind is that once an illegal immigrant is put to trial and is held guilty then what is the requirement for further verification of his nationality at the end of the Ministry of External Affairs.

19. The plain reading of Clause 2(v) indicates that the entire exercise is to be completed i.e.the exercise of deportation, verification etc., within a period of 30 days.”

11. The learned counsel further submitted that from the date of conviction, the appellant confined in Central Prison, Puzhal and now pleads that since he is in Prison without any earnings and no relatives nearby unable to pay fine amount of Rs.10,000/- and sought waiver of the same or atleast default sentence of six months can be reduced, on this point referred to the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Shahejad Khan Mahebukhan Pathan v. State of Gujarat reported in 2013 (1) SCC 570.

12. The learned Government Advocate (Criminal side) appearing for the respondent police, vehemently opposed the contentions of the learned counsel for the appellant. She filed a counter-affidavit, reiterating the prosecution’s case, and submitted that on 29.09.2024, P.W.1 / the Sub Inspector of Police while on regular patrol duty with Head Constable Ganesh Babu and Grade I Constable Saravanakumar, apprehended the appellant as he was residing in Kumaran Illam Hostel for more than two months. Since the appellant spoke Bengali and broken Tamil, he was examined with the assistance of Jeyadurga Devi, Hindi Translator and his statement was recorded. The accused admitted that they belong to Bangladesh and their confession statements were marked as Ex.P12, Ex.14 and Ex.16.

12.1. P.W.11 is the Inspector of Police who took up investigation, visited the scene of occurrence and prepared Observation Mahazar / Ex.P5 and Rough Sketch / Ex.P11 in the presence of the witnesses. P.W.2 is the Head Constable and P.W.3 is the Translator, they corroborated the evidence of P.W.1. P.W.4 is the attestor of observation mahazar / Ex.P5. P.W.7 is the warden of Kumaran Illam Hostel in Perundurai, stated that the appellant had been residing in the Hostel for more than two months while employed at a nearby company. He further stated that on 28.09.2024, the appellant brought two of his friends to the Hostel, informed that they were also employed at the same company and requested permission for them stay in the hostel. However, when P.W.7 insisted them to produce their Aadhaar cards, they failed to do so and vacated the hostel the next day morning.

12.2. P.W.8 is the attestor of confession statement of A4 / Marimuthu. A4 admitted that he had prepared and supplied forged Aadhaar Cards. P.W.9 is the Aadhaar District Coordinator, District Collectorate, Tiruppur. His evidence is that in the year 2016, Aadhar Cards were issued on the basis of the National Population Register Number allotted to the applicant and from the year 2016, any person applying for an Aadhar Card was required to produce atleast one valid Government issued identity document. From the year 2023, the enrolment procedure was revised, making it mandatory for every applicant to produce two Government issued identity documents for obtaining Aadhaar Card.

12.3. During investigation the appellant voluntarily gave a confession statement and was found in possession of Indian Aaadhar Card and Android Cellphone which were marked as Ex.P13 and M.O.1. Thereafter, P.W.12 altered the charges to Sections 14 (A) (b), 14 (c) of the Foreigners Act, and Sections 466, 468, 471 of I.P.C., subsequently, prepared a Section Alteration Report / Ex.P.18. After completion of investigation, P.W.12 filed a charge sheet in this case. Based on the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, supported by the prosecution documents and material objects, the trial Court rightly convicted the appellant.

12.4. The learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) further submitted that the appellant, who is a citizen of Bangaladesh had entered into India without valid passport, visa or travel documents. The appellant / accused admitted that they are Bangaladesh in nationality and further they have not claimed that they are Indian citizens. Thus, the prosecution had clearly proved that the appellant is a foreigner. Though the appellant take a plea that they came to India for their livelihood, this plea cannot absolve them from statutory requirement of possessing valid travel documents and, hence, the trial Court rightly convicted the appellant under the Foreigners Act and the said conviction is sustainable and prayed for dismissal of the appeal. The learned Government Advocate further submitted that appellant was arrested and remanded on 29.09.2024. Thereafter, he was convicted on 04.07.2026 and he is now confined in Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai. As on date he is in prison for nearly 643 days. She further produced the communication from Regional Special Deputy Collector, Srilankan Tamil Rehabilitation Camp, Kotappattu, Tiruchirappalli, in reference No.B1/104/2026 dated 18.09.2026, wherein the procedure taken by the authority with respect to Bangladeshi nationals has given as follows:-

“10.Details of procedural steps taken by concerned Authorities with respect to Bangladeshi nationals detained, in line with the Repatriation of Prisoners Act, in respect of this Taluk: It is submitted that the following procedure is followed with respect to Bangladeshi nationals lodged in the Special Camp: the identity proofs of the inmates are forwarded by the Police Department to the Bangladesh High Commission for verification. Upon verification by the concerned Government of Bangladesh, a Travel Permit is issued in respect of the verified nationals. Subsequently, a Government Order is issued for release of the said nationals from the Camp for the purpose of deportation to their native country.”

13. Considering the submissions and upon a perusal of the materials on record, it is seen that P.W.1 is the Sub-Inspector of Police, attached to Tiruppur South Police Station, Tiruppur. On 29.09.2024, on receipt of secret information, he found appellant and co-accused were staying in Kumaran Illam Hostel. During the investigation, appellant/accused admitted that they are Bangladesh citizens entered India without any valid documents. Ex.P2, Ex.P3 and Ex.P4 are the Passport of all the accused issued by the Bangladesh Authorities. Ex.P12, Ex.P14 and Ex.P16 are the admitted portion of confession statements of A1 to A3 that they are citizens of Bangladesh. Ex.P9 is the forged Indian Aadhaar card of the appellant / A1. Thus, A1 to A3 are Bangladesh citizens had been proved and they have not entered into India through valid documents.

14. On the evidence and materials, the trial Court had rightly convicted the appellant. This Court finds no reason to interfere with the impugned judgment of the trial Court in S.C.No.157 of 2025 dated 04.07.2026 and confirms the conviction of the appellant for the offence under Section 14(A)(b) of Foreigners (Amendment) Act, 2004.

15. As regards the sentence imposed, it is seen that the appellant / accused had come to India in search of livelihood, they had stayed in Tiruppur for quite some time. The appellant had also been employed in a Company in Tiruppur on a daily-wage basis. It is not in dispute that the appellant / accused, owing to the unrest in Bangladesh and the uncertainty of their future, and being unemployed and impoverished, came in search of employment and livelihood to sustain themselves and their families. Admittedly, they are neither involved in nor convicted of any economic offence, nor have they enriched themselves so as to assume that they possess the means to pay the fine. Thus, considering the circumstances of the appellant/accused, there is no doubt that they are very poor, are seeking livelihood, have migrated in search of employment, and are in penury and unable to pay the fine amount. Considering their pecuniary circumstances and following the principles laid down in Shahejad Khan Mahebukhan Pathan (cited supra), this Court confirms the sentence of fine of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only) imposed on the appellant and modifies the default sentence of six months Simple Imprisonment to one week. Except for the aforesaid modification in the default sentence, the sentence of two years Rigorous Imprisonment is confirmed.

16. It is also noted that P.W.11 admitted the sending of requisition letters to the Deputy Director General of UIDAI, Bangalore, and the Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, Coimbatore, to verify the genuineness of the Aadhaar, thereafter, left it at that stage and no verification reports or replies received from the authorities concerned and no investigation done to confirm and prove forgery and knowingly using forged documents as genuine. In view of failure to prove forgery, the conviction and sentence imposed on the appellant for offence under Sections 466, 468 and 471 of I.P.C are hereby set aside.

17. Further, in view of the directions issued by the Apex Court in the case of Maja Daruwala (cited supra), approving the Circular dated 23.11.2009 issued by the Ministry of Home Affairs, the exercise of deportation is required to be completed within a period of thirty days, and the said direction is to be followed without deviation or delay. Hence, the concerned authorities are directed to take appropriate action and ensure that the appellant/accused are deported to Bangladesh within a period of thirty days from the date on which they complete their substantive term of imprisonment and undergo the default sentence of one week, and the said direction shall be followed without deviation or delay.

18. With the above directions and observations, this appeal is partly allowed. 30-09-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No EP

To

1. II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Tiruppur.

2. The Inspector of Police, Tiruppur South Police Statin, Tiruppur District.

3. The Superintendent of Prison Central Prison, Puzhal I, Chennai

4. The Public Prosecutor High Court of Madras.

M.NIRMAL KUMAR, J. EP CRL A No. 1004 of 2026 30-09-2026