CRL A/1007/2026 of MD.Sohan Vs The State Rep by The Inspector of Police on 30 September 2026

JUDGMENT

The Trial Court in S.C.No.379 of 2025 by judgment dated 16.07.2026 convicted the appellants for offence punishable under Section 14(A) (b) of Foreigners Act, 1946 and sentenced to two years Rigorous imprisonment each and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- each, in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for three months each. Against which the present appeal is filed.

2. The case of the prosecution is that PW1 / the Sub Inspector of Police attached to Palladam Police Station, on 23.08.2025 at about 04.00 P.M., while on patrol duty along with Grade I Police Constables Jaganathan / PW3 and Vasanthakumar (P.W.2), and Grade II Police Constable Muthupandi (P.W.4), received secret information, that Bangladeshis, overstaying in the house of one Devasir Arulpani at Door No.1/941, P.T. Colony, Arivoli Nagar. Hence, they went there and found the appellants staying under suspicious circumstances. Since the accused spoke in Hindi, with the assistance of one Kamaleshkumar, Hindi Translator who was conversant in Hindi, they were enquired.

3.1. During initial interrogation, the appellants admitted that they came from Bangladesh and their names are (A1) MD Sohan and (A2) MD Naeem Hossain and all are residing in Tiruppur. Birth Certificates of A1 to A2 were seized. It was found that the accused were staying in India without valid Visa or travel documents.

3.2. On further enquiry, it was revealed that they came to India without any visa and possess no valid documents to enter India. Thereafter, PW1/ Sub Inspector of Police, Palladam Police Station had taken the appellants to the Police station and registered First Information Report / Ex.P1 in Cr.No.879 of 2025 for the offences under Sections 3 (2) (c), 14 Foreigners Act, 1946. PW8/

Investigating officer visited the scene of occurrence and prepared Observation Mahazar / Ex.P5 and Rough Sketch / Ex.P6 in the presence of the witnesses. Ex.P7 and Ex.P8 are the Birth Certificates of the appellants issued by Bangladesh Authorities. After completion of investigation, P.W.8 filed a charge sheet in this case.

4. During the trial, P.W.1 to P.W.8 were examined and Ex.P1 to Ex.P.8 were marked. On conclusion of the trial, the Trial Court convicted the appellants as stated above.

5. The learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the admitted position of the prosecution case is that, the appellants are from Bangladesh Foreign Nation and they were found in Tiruppur. The appellants 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, appellants 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 Kamaleshkumar was employed, but his 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 appellants and the case against them to be quashed and conviction cannot be sustained.

6. The learned counsel for the appellants 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.

7. Learned counsel for the appellants 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.”

8. She further submitted that from the date of conviction, the appellants are confined in Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai and now pleads that since they are in Prison without any earnings and no relatives nearby unable to pay fine amount of Rs.10,000/- each and sought waiver of the same or atleast default sentence of three 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.

9. The learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) filed counter and submitted that in this case during the trial PW1 to PW8 were examined and Exs.P.1 to P8 were marked. P.W.1 had lodged a complaint, which is marked as Ex.P1. P.W.2 is the Head Constable corroborated the evidence of P.W.1. P.W.3 is the Grade I Constable and Ex.P.W.4 is the Grade II Constable went along with P.W.1 and they corroborated the evidence of P.W.1. Kamaleshkumar who is the Translator examined as P.W.5. P.W.6 is the attestor of Observation Mahazar / Ex.P5. P.W.7 is the house owner of the accused. PW8/ Investigating officer visited the scene of occurrence and prepared Observation Mahazar / Ex.P5 and Rough Sketch / Ex.P6 in the presence of the witnesses. Ex.P7 and Ex.P8 are the Birth Certificates of the appellants issued by Bangladesh Authorities. After completion of investigation, P.W.8 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 appellants.

10. The learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) further submitted that the appellants, who are citizens of Bangaladesh had entered into India without valid passport, visa or travel documents. The appellants have 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 appellants are foreigners. Though the appellants 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 appellants under the Foreigners Act and the said conviction is sustainable and prayed for dismissal of the appeal. The learned Government Advocate further submitted that appellants were arrested and remanded on 24.08.2025, later convicted on 16.07.2026, and they are now confined in Central Prison-I, Puzhal, Chennai. As on date they are in prison for nearly 327 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.”

11. 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 Palladam Police Station. On 23.08.2025, at about 04.00 p.m., while on patrol duty, he found the appellants residing in P.W.7’s house. On suspicion, enquired them and at that time they have admitted that they are Bangladesh citizens entered India without any valid documents. P.W.1 seized Birth certificates of the appellants issued by the Bangladesh Authorities. Thus, A1 and A2 are Bangladesh citizens had been proved and they have not entered into India through valid documents.

12. On the evidence and materials, the trial Court had rightly convicted the appellants. This Court finds no reason to interfere with the impugned judgment of the trial Court in S.C.No.379 of 2025 dated 16.07.2026 and confirms the conviction of the appellants for offence under Section 14(A)(b) of Foreigners Act, 1946.

13. As regards the sentence imposed, it is seen that the appellants had come to India in search of livelihood, they had stayed in Tiruppur for quite some time. It is not in dispute that the appellants, 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 appellants/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 each of the appellants and modifies the default sentence of three months Simple Imprisonment to one week. Except for the aforesaid modification in the default sentence, the sentence of two years Rigorous Imprisonment is confirmed.

14. 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.

15. With the above directions and observations, the 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, Palladam Police Station, 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. 1007 of 2026 30-09-2026