CRL A/1065/2026 of MD.Ismail Hussain Akhanda Vs The State Rep. by, The Inspector of Police on 30 September 2026

JUDGMENT

This Criminal Appeal has been filed to set aside the conviction and sentence made in SC.No.333 of 2025 on the file of the learned II-Additional District and Sessions Judge, Tiruppur, dated 10.07.2026 and acquit the Appellants/Accused 1-4.

2. The conviction and sentence imposed on the appellants/Accused 1 to 4, vide impugned judgment dated 10.07.2026, are as follows:- Accused Sections Imprisonment Fine amount In Default A1 to A3 U/s. 468 of IPC (Sec.336(3) of BNS) Rigorous imprisonment for a period of 3 years each Rs.2,000/- each Simple Imprisonment for a period of 2 months each U/s.14(A)

(b) of Foreigners Act, 2004 Rigorous imprisonment for a period of 2 years each Rs.10,000/- each Simple Imprisonment for a period of 6 months each All the sentences are ordered to run concurrently. Accused Section Imprisonment Fine amount In Default A4 U/s.14(A)

(b) of Foreigners Act 2004 Rigorous imprisonment for a period of 2 years each Rs.10,000/- Simple imprisonment for a period of 3 months

3. Aggrieved by the said conviction and sentence, the appellants have preferred this appeal before this Court.

4. The case of the prosecution is that on 13.09.2025, at about 10:00 a.m., P.W.1, the Sub-Inspector of Police, North Police Station, Tiruppur, while on regular patrol duty along with Head Constable Senthilnathan, Grade-I PC Kalikumar, Grade-II PC Madhan, and Female Constable Vijayalakshmi, noticed three men and one woman talking to each other in Hindi at Radha Nagar, near Factum Wears Company. Upon seeing the police personnel, they attempted to flee from the spot. However, they were successfully apprehended by P.W.1 and the accompanying police team.

4.1. During interrogation, the suspects continued to speak only in Hindi. Consequently, they were questioned with the assistance of an interpreter, Manishkumar, who is proficient in both Hindi and Tamil. During the inquiry, they disclosed their identities and admitted that they were Bangladeshi citizens possessing Bangladeshi National Identity Cards as well as Indian Aadhaar cards.

4.2. As they did not possess any valid travel documents and were residing illegally in Tiruppur, the Sub-Inspector of Police brought them to the police station along with their seized identity cards. A First Information Report (FIR) was registered as Crime No. 1063 of 2025 under Sections 3(2)(a), 3(2)(c), and 14A(b) of the Foreigners Act, and Sections 336(2), 336(3), and 342(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS). The Sub-Inspector then handed over the case files to the Inspector of Police for further investigation.

5. The Inspector of Police, P.W.7, took up the investigation of the case on the same day. He seized the National Identity Cards and Aadhar Cards of Accused 1 to 3 and Aadhar Card of 4th accused and three mobile phones. Thereafter, at about 13.15 hours, the Inspector of Police visited the scene of occurrence and prepared an observation mahazar and a rough sketch. At about 14.45 hours, he arrested the accused and during the interrogation, the accused voluntarily gave their confession statements, which were recorded in the presence of witnesses, namely Manishkumar and Ananthakumar. Upon completion of the investigation, charge sheet was filed before the Court.

6. During the trial, the prosecution examined P.W1 to P.W.7 and marked Exs.P1 to P14, and produced material objects M.O.1 to M.O.3.

7. The learned counsel for the appellants submitted that although P.W.7, the Inspector of Police, took up the investigation and seized the Identity Cards and mobile phones, the prosecution failed to prove the alleged forgery of the Aadhaar Cards. He further submitted that the genuineness of the Aadhaar Cards was never verified, as they were not sent to the concerned authority for authentication. Further, he contended that the prosecution merely presumed that the said documents were forged based on the assertion that the accused are Bangladeshi nationals in possession of Indian Aadhaar Cards. Furthermore, the respondent police failed to collect any official identification documents to conclusively confirm that the appellants are indeed nationals of Bangladesh, nor did they take any steps to ascertain the duration of the appellants' stay in India in violation of the Foreigners Act.

7.1. The learned counsel for the appellants further submitted that the respondent police filed the final report solely based on photostat copies of the Aadhaar Cards and admitted during cross-examination that no steps were taken to seize the original Aadhaar Cards or verify their authenticity. Despite these gaps, 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 were genuine, which runs completely contrary to the fundamental principles of criminal jurisprudence. Hence, the learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the conviction of the appellants, namely Accused A1 to A3, for the offences under Sections 468 of the IPC is unsustainable.

7.2. The learned counsel further submitted that as regards the conviction of appellants A1 to A4 for the offence under Section 14(A)(b) of the Foreigners Act, she fairly conceded that the appellants had entered India without valid travel documents.

7.3. The learned counsel for the appellants strongly urged that, even by the prosecution’s own admission, the appellants are foreign nationals from Bangladesh who were apprehended in Tiruppur. The appellants are not conversant with the local language and can neither read, write, nor understand Tamil. Despite this, the entire trial proceedings were conducted in the regional language, Tamil. Consequently, the appellants were denied an effective opportunity to understand the allegations against them and to defend their case. Furthermore, although the prosecution projected that the appellants were examined with the assistance of Manishkumar, a Hindi translator, his formal qualifications and competency as an interpreter were never established or proved. She drew the attention of this Court to the decision of Apex Court, in the case of Central Bureau of Investigation Vs. Narottam Dhakad, reported in

2023 SCC OnLine SC 1069, and submitted that, if the denial of an effective opportunity is established, it amounts to violation of Article 21 of the Constitution of India, and the benefit has to be given to the appellants, rendering the conviction unsustainable.

7.4. The learned counsel for the appellants referred to the guidelines issued by Ministry of Home Affairs in Circular F.14011/55/09 F-VI, dated 23.11.2009, and contended that procedure of deportation of Bangaladeshi Nationals have been specifically stated in the said circular, which has not been scrupulously followed by the respondent police. She also highlighted paragraph No.2(v) of the circular, which reads thus:- “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 has referred to the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court Judgment in the case of M/s.Maja Daruwala and another v. State of West Bengal reported in 2025 Law Finder SC 4783, wherein it has been held as under: “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. It is also contended by the learned counsel for the appellants that the appellants are in Prison without any earnings and no relatives nearby, are unable to pay the fine amount of Rs.10,000/- each and sought waiver of the same or atleast default sentence imposed under Section 14(A)(b) of Foreigners Act,

1946 maybe reduced. In support of his contentions, the learned counsel has 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. Ms.Sharada Vivek, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent police, vehemently opposed the contentions of the appellants. Filing a counter-affidavit reiterating the prosecution's case, she submitted that on 13.09.2025, at about 10.00 a.m., P.W.1, the Sub-Inspector of Police, North Police Station, Tiruppur, while on regular patrol duty along with other personnel, found three men and one woman acting in a suspicious manner and speaking in Hindi. Upon seeing the police, they attempted to flee but were apprehended and questioned with the assistance of one Manishkumar, who is proficient in both Hindi and Tamil. Their statements were subsequently recorded, wherein they admitted that they were Bangladeshi citizens in possession of Bangladeshi National Identity Cards. She further submitted that the accused gave their voluntary confession statements and admitted to entering India from Bangladesh without valid travel documents.

8.1. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor pointed out that the house owners, P.W.4 and P.W.5, confirmed that the appellants resided in their respective houses as tenants while working in a local factory. They also deposed that at the time of renting the premises, the accused persons had produced their Aadhaar cards. Regarding the Aadhaar cards of the accused, she submitted that the respondent police had collected photostat copies of the same during the course of the investigation.

8.2. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor further produced a 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 is 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”.

8.3. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor further submitted that the trial Court, upon considering the oral and documentary evidence and after hearing arguments on both sides, found the appellants/accused guilty of the aforesaid offences, and subsequently convicted and sentenced them as stated above, vide its judgment dated 10.07.2026.

9. Heard the learned counsel for the appellants and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent and also perused the materials available on record.

10. Considering the submissions made by the learned counsel on either side and upon a perusal of the materials available on record, it is evident that on 13.09.2025, at about 10.00 a.m., the Sub Inspector of Police, North Police Station, Tiruppur, along with his patrol team, intercepted Accused 1 to 4 on suspicion. During interrogation, the appellants admitted that they were Bangladeshi citizens who had entered India without valid travel documents. Thus, the prosecution has successfully established that the appellants are Bangladeshi nationals who entered and stayed in India without valid travel documents. Upon consideration of oral and documentary evidence adduced by the prosecution, the Trial Court convicted the appellants for the offence under Section 14(A)(b) of the Foreigners Act, 1946. There is no reason to interfere with the said conclusion arrived at by the Trial Court and accordingly, this Court confirms the conviction of the appellants under Section 14(A)(b) of the Foreigners Act, 1946.

11. However, as regards the sentence imposed on the appellant is concerned, it is observed that the appellants entered India in search of their livelihood, had been staying in Tiruppur for a considerable time, and were employed there as daily wage labourers. It is not in dispute that the appellants, due to unrest and uncertainty about 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 nor convicted of any economic offence and they have not enriched so as to assume that they possess means to pay the fine amount. Thus, considering the circumstances of the appellants/accused, that they are very poor, seeking livelihood, have migrated in search of employment, and unable to pay the fine amount, and considering their penurious circumstances and following the principles laid down by the Apex Court in Shahejad Khan Mahebukhan Pathan (cited supra), while this Court confirm the sentence of imprisonment as well as the fine of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only) imposed on each of the appellants, this Court modifies the default sentence of six months' of Simple Imprisonment imposed on appellants 1 to 3 to one week of simple imprisonment. As regards, the default sentence of three months imposed on 4th appellant, is modified to one week of simple imprisonment.

12. With regard to the charges of forgery levelled against the appellants and convicted by the trial Court, this Court found that P.W.7, the Investigating Officer, failed to take elementary steps in sending requisition letter to the Deputy Director General of UIDAI, Bangalore to verify the genuineness of the Aadhaar Cards. The investigation was left incomplete and no verification reports or replies received from the authorities concerned. As such, this Court is of the view that no investigation done to confirm and prove forgery alleged against the appellants and knowingly using the forged documents as genuine. In view of failure to prove forgery, the conviction and sentence imposed on the appellants for the offence under Section 468 of IPC cannot be sustained and therefore, the same is hereby set aside.

13. In the light of the dictum laid down by the Apex Court in Maja Daruwala (cited supra), and in terms of the Circular dated 23.11.2009 issued by the Ministry of Home Affairs, extracted supra, the exercise of deportation is required to be completed within a period of thirty days. Accordingly, the Authorities concerned 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 undergoing the default sentence of one week, and the said direction shall be followed without any deviation or delay.

14. Accordingly, this Criminal Appeal is partly allowed in the terms stated above. 30-09-2026 Jd Neutral Citation:Yes/No To

1. I-Additional District and Sessions Judge, Tiruppur.

2. The Inspector of Police, North Police Station, Tiruppur District. Crime No.1063 of 2025.

3. The Public Prosecutor, Madras High Court.

M.NIRMAL KUMAR J. jd CRL A No. 1065 of 2026

30-09-2026