CRL A/1043/2026 of MD Rowshon Ali Sheikh Vs The State Rep. by, The Inspector of Police on 30 September 2026

COMMON JUDGMENT

These Criminal Appeals had been filed to call for the records and set aside the conviction and sentence imposed upon the appellants by the learned II Additional District and Sessions judge, Tiruppur, in S.C.No.93 of 2025, dated 22.06.2026.

2. The conviction and sentence imposed on the appellants, vide impugned judgment dated 22.06.2026, are as follows:- Sl. No. Sections Imprisonment Fine amount In Default 2nd & 3rd Accused /Appellants U/s.14(A)

(b) of Foreigners Act, 1946 and U/s 336 (3) of BNS, 2023 (468 I.P.C) Rigorous imprisonment for a period of 2 years each Rigorous Imprisonment for 3 years each Rs.10,000/- Rs.2000/- each Simple imprisonment for a period of 6 months each Simple imprisonment for a period of 2 months each 1st Accused U/s.14(A)

(b) of Foreigners Act, 1946 Rigorous imprisonment for a period of 2 years Rs.10,000/- Simple imprisonment for a period of 3 months.

3. Aggrieved by the said conviction and sentence, the appellants / 2nd and 3rd accused have preferred the present appeals before this Court.

4. The learned counsel for the appellants 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, these Criminal Appeals are taken up for final hearing and disposal.

5. The case of the prosecution is that on 04.01.2025 at about 05.00 a.m., PW3 / the Inspector of Police attached to Uthukuli Police Station, Tiruppur, was on patrol duty along with Head Constable Ramesh, Constables Saravanan and Amarnath, received secret information, that three Bangladesh Nationals were staying at Saranam Ayyappa Nagar, Goundampalayam. On receipt of secret information, they visited the above place, and found three persons under suspicious circumstances. Since all the accused spoke in Hindi, with the assistance of one Manik, 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)Mohamed Wahed Ali (2) MD Rowshon Ali Sheikh, (3) MD Arafat Chowdory and all are residing in Tiruppur. P.W.3 seized the Bangladesh National Identity Card of A3 and Birth Certificate of the A2. She also seized Bangladesh passport of A1. 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.3 had taken the accused persons to the Police Station and registered a First Information Report / Ex.P23 in Cr.No.6 of 2025 for the offences under Sections 318 (4) of BNS and Sections 14, 3 (2) (a), 3 (2) (c) of Foreigners Act.

5.3. Thereafter, P.W.3 took up the investigation, visited the scene of occurrence and prepared an Observation Mahazar and a Rough Sketch / Ex.P22 in the presence of the witnesses. A1 handed over his Bangladeshi passport which was marked as Ex.P15. A2 handed over his Birth Certificate and Indian Aadhaar Card which were marked as Ex.P17 and Ex.P18, respectively. A3 handed over his Bangladeshi National Identity card and Indian Aadhaar Card, which are marked as Ex.P20 and Ex.P21, respectively. The mobile phones of the accused persons were seized under seizure Mahazars Ex.P14, Ex.P16 and Ex.P19 and were marked as M.O.1 to M.O.3. in the presence of witnesses. After completion of investigation, P.W.3 filed a charge sheet in this case.

6. During the trial, P.W.1 to P.W.3 were examined and Ex.P1 to Ex.P.25 were marked and MO-1 to MO-3 were produced. On conclusion of the trial, the Trial Court convicted the appellants as stated above.

7. 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. It was argued that P.W.3, the Inspector of Police, not conducted any independent investigation, and took no steps to verify the genuineness of the Indian Aadhaar cards of A2 and A3. She simply relied on the mere possession of Aadhaar Cards with the accused. But, the Trial Court erroneously held that the burden of proof lay upon the appellants to show that they were not illegal immigrants and that the seized Aadhaar cards are genuine, which is contrary to the fundamental principles of criminal jurisprudence.

7.1. Further she submitted that the appellants / 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.

7.2. She further submitted that, in this case, P.W.1 / Kumar admitted that on 04.01.2025 at about 05.00 a.m. while he was present at a marriage hall, Palanisamy / P.W.2, the owner of ten rental houses situated near the marriage hall, contacted him and informed him that the Police had arrived. P.W.2

requested him to be present at the premises. At that time, P.W3 / Inspector of Police was interrogating the accused, who were conversant only in Hindi, through which P.W.3 understood that the appellants were from Bangladesh. The evidence of P.W.2 is that the Police took the appellants from his residential premises.

7.3. Further, though it has been projected that the service of interpreter, namely Manik was employed, but his qualifications and competency have not been proved and he was not examined as a witness during the trial. 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.

7.4. 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.

7.5. 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.”

7.6. The learned counsel further submitted that from the date of conviction, the appellants are confined in Central Prison, Puzhal 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 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.

8. The learned Government Advocate (Criminal side) appearing for the respondent police, vehemently opposed the contentions of the learned counsel for the appellants. She filed a counter-affidavit, reiterating the prosecution’s case, and submitted that on 04.01.2025, P.W.3, while on regular patrol duty with Head Constable Ramesh, Constables Saravanan and Amarnath apprehended the appellants / accused as they had resided in the house of P.W2 / Palanisamy. Since the appellants spoke Hindi and broken Tamil, they were examined with the assistance of Manik, Hindi Translator and their statements were recorded. The accused admitted that they belong to Bangladesh and their confession statements were recorded. P.W.1 and P.W.2 are the attestors of confession statements of the accused and deposed the manner in which the Bangladesh passport of A1, Birth Certificate of A2 and Bangladesh National Identity card of A3 were seized. Based on the investigation P.W.3 Inspector of Police, altered the charges to Sections 318 (4), 336 (A) of BNS and Sections 14, 3 (2) (a), 3 (2) (c) Foreigners Act and prepared a Section Alteration Report / Ex.P24. Ex.P15 is the Bangladesh passport of A1. Ex.P17 and Ex.P18 are the Birth Certificate and Indian Aadhaar Card of A2. Ex.P20 and Ex.P21 are the Bangladesh National Identity card and Indian Aadhaar Card of A3. Based on the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, supported by the prosecution documents and material objects, the trial Court rightly convicted the appellants.

9. 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 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 appeals. The learned Government Advocate further submitted that appellants were arrested and remanded on 04.01.2025. Thereafter, they were convicted on 22.06.2026 and they are now confined in Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai. As on date they are in prison for nearly 632 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.”

10. Considering the submissions and upon a perusal of the materials on record, it is seen that P.W.1 is the Inspector of Police, attached to Uthukuli Police Station, Tiruppur. On 04.01.2025, at about 05.00 a.m., while she was on patrol duty along with on Head Constable Ramesh, Constables Saravanan and Amarnath, apprehended the appellants under suspicious circumstances. During the investigation, appellant/accused admitted that they are Bangladesh citizens entered India without any valid documents. Ex.P15 is the copy of Bangladesh Passport of A1. Ex.P17 is the Birth certificate of A2 . Ex.P20 is the Bangladesh National Identity card of A3 issued by the Bangladesh Authorities. Thus, A1 to A3 are Bangladesh citizens had been proved and they have not entered into India through valid documents.

11. 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.93 of 2025 dated 22.06.2026 and confirms the conviction of the appellants for the offence under Section 14(A)(b) of Foreigners Act, 1946.

12. 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, 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) each imposed on the appellants 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.

13. It is also noted that P.W.3 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 Card, 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 appellants for offence under Section 468 of I.P.C. [336 (3) of B.N.S, 2023] is hereby set aside.

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 appellants 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. It is brought to the notice of this Court that A1 / Mohamed Wahed Ali has not preferred any appeal before the High Court.

16. In Shanti Devi Vs. The State of Haryana, reported in 2025 SCC Online SC 1704, the Hon’ble Supreme Court considered the issue of non-filing of appeal by one of the accused and, following the decision of its earlier decision in the case of Sahadevan and another v. State of Tamil Nadu, decided on 8.12.2012 in Criminal Appeal No.1405 of 2008, held that if for compelling and inevitable reasons, like lack of finances, absence of any person to pursue his remedy and lack of proper assistance in the jail, an accused is unable to file appeal, then it would amount to denial of access to justice to such accused. The relevant paragraphs in Shanti Devi (supra), read thus: “38. We may, at this stage, note that the appellant- accused herein as well as

Rajbir (accused No.2), being the son of the appellant-accused were both provided legal aid counsel in the appeal before the High Court, manifestly for the reason of their poor financial status. Rajbir (accused No.2) has not even preferred an appeal against the judgment of the High Court. However, while discussing the case of accused-appellant Shanti Devi, we have found that the evidence led by the prosecution is not sufficient and lacks credibility so as to form a complete chain of incriminating circumstances warranting the affirmation of the prosecution case. The entire case of the prosecution having being discarded, the benefit of this judgment deserves to be extended to the non-appealing accused Rajbir (accused No.2), who has unfortunately not preferred an appeal to assail his conviction. In this regard, we may gainfully refer to Sahadevan (supra), wherein this Court observed that:- “Where the Court finds that the prosecution evidence suffers from serious contradictions, is unreliable, is ex facie neither cogent nor true and the prosecution has failed to discharge the established onus of proving the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt, the Court will be well within its jurisdiction to return the finding of acquittal and even suo moto extend the benefit to a non-appealing accused as well, more so, where the Court even disbelieves the very occurrence of the crime itself. Of course, the role attributed to each of the accused and other attendant circumstances would be relevant considerations for the Court to apply its discretion judiciously. There can be varied reasons for a non-appealing accused in not approaching the appellate Court. If, for compelling and inevitable reasons, like lack of finances, absence of any person to pursue his remedy and lack of proper assistance in the jail, an accused is unable to file appeal, then it would amount to denial of access to justice to such accused.” (Emphasis Supplied)

39. Thus, we give the benefit of our conclusions to Rajbir (accused No.2) as well and also acquit him of the charges. He shall be released from custody, if not wanted in any other case.

17. Following the decision of Shanti Devi (supra), this Court is inclined to extend the benefit of modifying the default sentence of six months simple imprisonment to one week for A1 / Mohamed Wahed Ali as well. The concerned authorities are directed to take appropriate action and ensure that A1 / Mohamed Wahed Ali is deported to Bangladesh within a period of thirty days from the date on which he complete his 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, these Criminal Appeals are partly allowed. 30-09-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No EP M.NIRMAL KUMAR, J. EP

To

1. II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Tiruppur.

2. The Inspector of Police, Uthukuli Police Station, Tiruppur District.

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

4. The Public Prosecutor High Court of Madras. CRL A Nos.1043 & 960 of 2026 30-09-2026