CRL A/396/2026 of MD. Ruhul Amin Vs The State of Tamil Nadu Rep.by, The Inspector of P on 30 September 2026

JUDGMENT

This criminal appeal has been preferred against the conviction and sentence imposed on the appellants/accused by the learned II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Tiruppur in SC.No.156 of 2025, dated 17.02.2026, and to acquit the appellants/accused 1 to 6.

2. The conviction and sentence imposed on the appellants/Accused 1 to 6, vide impugned judgment dated 17.02.2026, are as follows:- Accused Sections Imprisonment Fine amount In Default A1 to A6 U/s.14(A)

(b) of the Foreigners (Amendme nt) Act,

Rigorous imprisonment for a period of 2 years each Rs.10,000/- each 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 24.09.2024, at about 10.00 a.m., while the Sub-Inspector of Police (P.W.1), along with other police personnel were discharging patrol duty, they noticed six persons standing in a suspicious manner near the Lacky Bavan Hotel. On suspicion, P.W.1 intercepted and interrogated them, during which they conversed exclusively in Hindi. Consequently, with the assistance of one Jayadurga Devi, a Home Guard of Tiruppur Town Police Station, who was proficient in Hindi, they were enquired. During the enquiry, the suspects admitted that they were Bangladeshi nationals residing in India without valid travel documents. They were found in possession of six Bangladesh National Identity Cards, which were promptly seized under seizure mahazars (6 numbers). Further, the suspects disclosed that they had previously been employed at Om Veera Company at Mudalipalayam, SIPCOT. However, when the Company management repeatedly demanded their Identity proof, they left the job and moved towards the old Bus Stand at Tiruppur in search of alternative employment. Following the interrogation, the patrol team brought them to the Police Station along with the seized Identity Cards. On receipt of a special report from P.W.1, the Inspector of Police (P.W.6) registered First Information Report in Crime No.663 of 2024 under Section 14(C) of the Foreigners Act 1946. Thereafter, P.W.6, took up the investigation on the same day, and visited the scene of occurrence in the presence of independent witnesses and also recorded their statements, arrested the accused, recorded the confession statement of the accused and recovered their mobile phones under recovery mahazars. Upon completion of the investigation, a charge sheet was filed by P.W.6 before the learned Judicial Magistrate II, Tiruppur, which was taken on file as P.R.C.No.24 of 2025 and thereafter, the case was committed to the Sessions Court and the Sessions Court has taken the case on file as S.C.No.156 of 2025.

5. During the trial, the prosecution examined P.W1 to P.W.6 and marked Exs.P1 to P20, and produced material objects M.O.1 to M.O.4.

6. The learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the entire trial proceedings including the preparation of the Special Report, recording of confession statements and seizure mahazars (Exs.P2 to P13) were conducted in Tamil. She further submitted that the prosecution projected that the statements were translated from Hindi to Tamil by Jeyadurga Devi. However, she was not examined before the trial Court and her formal qualifications or competency as an interpreter was also not established. Further, no independent Hindi translator was appointed during the trial. She pointed out that the material witnesses are exclusively police personnel and also highlighted that the appellants are conversant only in Hindi. Further, she submitted that the arrest and the intimation of arrest was not served on the family members of the appellants. Furthermore, the respondent police failed to collect official identification documents to conclusively confirm that the appellants are nationals of Bangladesh, nor did they take steps to ascertain the precise duration of the appellants' stay in India, thereby violating the provisions of the Foreigners Act.

6.1. The learned counsel further submitted that as regards the conviction of appellants /A1 to A6 for the offence under Section 14(A)(b) of the Foreigners Acts, she fairly conceded that the appellants had entered India without valid travel documents.

6.2. 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 city. 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 levelled against them and to defend their case. Furthermore, although the prosecution projected that the appellants were examined with the assistance of Jeyadurga Devi, a Hindi translator, her 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.

6.3. 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.”

6.4. Further, the 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.”

6.5. 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 imposed on them and sought waiver of the fine amount or atleast default sentence of three months maybe reduced. In support of her contentions, the learned counsel has referred to the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Shahejad Khan Mahebukhan Pathan v. State of Gujarat reported in 2013 (1) SCC 570.

7. Mrs.Sharada Vivek, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent State, vehemently opposed the contentions of the appellants. Filing a counter-affidavit reiterating the prosecution's case, she submitted that on 24.09.2024, P.W.1 along with other police personnel noticed six accused under suspicious circumstances during their patrol duty. Upon seeing the police, the accused attempted to flee. She contended that Accused 1 to 6 were properly interrogated with the assistance of the Jeyadurga Devi, a Hindi-knowing person and their statements were recorded, wherein they admitted to being citizens of Bangladesh in possession of Bangladesh National Identity Cards. She further submitted that the accused clearly admitted to have entered India from Bangladesh without valid travel documents. She further submitted that the prosecution also examined P.W.5, the Manager of Om Veera Factory, who confirms that the accused joined the company on 13.09.2024 but were subsequently terminated and evicted from company housing when they failed to produce valid Aadhar Cards or ID proofs.

7.1. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor has 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”.

7.2. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor further submitted that the trial Court, upon considering the oral and documentary evidence and after hearing the arguments on both sides, found the appellants/accused guilty of the aforesaid offence, and subsequently convicted and sentenced them as stated above, vide its judgment dated 17.02.2026. She further submitted that the appellants/accused are in Trichy camp since 17.08.2026.

8. 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.

9. Considering the submissions made by the learned counsel on both sides and upon perusal of the materials available on record, it is evident that on 24.09.2024, the patrol team intercepted the appellants on suspicion. During interrogation, the appellants admitted that they were Bangladeshi citizens who had entered India without valid travel documents. Based on the voluntary confession statements given by the accused, the prosecution has successfully established that the appellants are Bangladeshi nationals who entered and stayed in India without valid legal papers. 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.

10. However, as regards the sentence imposed on the appellants is concerned, it is observed that the appellants, who entered India in search of their livelihood, had been staying in Tiruppur District 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, modify the default sentence from three months simple imprisonment to one week simple imprisonment.

11. 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.

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

1. II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Tiruppur.

2. The Inspector of Police, South Police Station, Tiruppur District. Cr.No.663 of 2024.

3. The Public Prosecutor, Madras High Court.

M.NIRMAL KUMAR J. jd CRL A No. 396 of 2026 30-09-2026