CRL A/399/2026 of Ayyub Vs The State of Tamil Nadu, Represented by The Inspec on 30 September 2026

JUDGMENT

The Trial Court in S.C.No.150 of 2025 by judgment dated 05.03.2026 convicted the accused for offence punishable under Section 14(A)(b) of Foreigners Act, 1946 and sentenced to two years rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/-, in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for three months under Section 258 (2) of BNSS. Against which, appellant / second accused has preferred the present appeal.

2. The case of the prosecution is that PW1 / the Sub Inspector of Police attached to Veerapandi Police Station, on 12.01.2025 at about 07.15 a.m.., while he was on patrol duty along with Head Constables Sathiyaraj and Thirumurugan, and Grade I Constable Prabhakaran, secret information received, that Bangladeshis, overstaying in India, hence, they went to Kuppandampalayam, Kannimar Kovil Thottam, Krishnakumar Compound, they found accused persons staying under suspicious circumstances. On seeing the Police personnel, they attempted to flee, however, they were apprehended and enquired. Since the accused spoke in Hindi, with the assistance of one Arjunkumar, Hindi Translator who was conversant in Hindi, they were enquired.

3.1. During initial interrogation, the accused persons admitted that they came from Bangladesh and their names are 1)Toriqul Islam and 2) Ayyub and are residing in Tiruppur. P.W.1 seized the Birth Certificate of the appellant and National Identity Card of A1. It was found that the accused persons were staying in India without valid Visa or travel documents.

3.2. On further enquiry, it was revealed that the appellant came to India without any visa and possess no valid documents to enter India. Thereafter, P.W.1 had taken the accused along with Special report to the respondent Police

Station and produced before PW6/ Inspector of Police, Veerapandi Police Station who registered First Information Report / Ex.P7 in Cr.No.44 of 2025 for the offences under Sections 3 (2) (c) r/w 14 (A) of Foreigners Act, and thereafter PW6 visited the scene of occurrence and prepared Observation Mahazar / Ex.P2 and Rough Sketch / Ex.P8 in the presence of the witnesses. During the interrogation, the accused voluntarily admitted the offence and gave a confession statement, which was recorded in the presence of witness P.W.3. After completion of investigation, P.W.6 filed a charge sheet in this case.

4. During the trial, P.W.1 to P.W.6 were examined and Ex.P1 to Ex.P.9 were marked and MO-1 and MO-2 were produced. On conclusion of the trial, the Trial Court convicted the appellant as stated above.

5. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the admitted position of the prosecution case is that, the appellant was from Bangladesh Foreign Nation and he was found in Tiruppur. The appellant was not conversant with the local language and he was not known to read or write and understand Tamil. But the entire trial proceedings were conducted in a regional language- Tamil. Hence, appellant was denied meaningful and effective opportunity to understand the allegation and to defend his case. Further, though it has been projected that the service of interpreter, namely Arjunkumar Singh 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 appellant and the case against him to be quashed and conviction cannot be sustained.

6. 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.

7. 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.”

8. He further submitted that from the date of conviction, the appellant is confined in Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai 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 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 a counter and submitted that, during the trial, P.W.1 to P.W.6 were examined and Exs.P.1 to P9 were marked. P.W.1 had lodged the complaint, which was marked as Ex.P7. P.W.2 a neighbour of the accused who works at a Banyan company in Tiruppur, attested the observation Mahazar, Ex.P2. P.W.3 is the translator. P.W.4 is the Head constable who had corroborated the evidence of P.W.1. P.W.5 is the house owner of the appellant deposed that the appellant had been residing in his house for the past three years. P.W.6 is the Investigation Officer who took up investigation, prepared Observation Mahazar / Ex.P2 and Rough Sketch / Ex.P8 in the presence of the witnesses and filed charge sheet in this case. P.W.1 seized the Birth Certificate of the appellant, marked as Ex.P6. Ex.P5 is the Bangladesh National Identity card of A1. Ex.P3 is the seizure mahazar for A1’s Oppo mobile phone. Ex.P4 is the seizure mahazar for A2’s Realme mobile phone. Based on the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, supported by the prosecution documents and material objects, the trial Court rightly convicted the appellant.

10. The learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) further submitted that the appellant, who is the citizen of Bangaladesh had entered into India without valid passport, visa or travel documents. The appellant has admitted that he is Bangaladesh in nationality and further he has not claimed that he is Indian citizen. Thus, the prosecution had clearly proved that the appellant is a foreigner. Though the appellant take a plea that he came to India for his livelihood, this plea cannot absolve him 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 on 06.03.2026, later convicted on 12.01.2025 and he is now confined in Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai. 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 Veerapandi Police Station. On 12.01.2025, at about 07.15 a.m., while on patrol duty, he proceeded to Krishnakumar Compound and found the appellant. On suspicion, enquired him and at that time he admitted that he is Bangladesh citizen entered India without any valid documents. P.W.1 seized Birth Certificate of the accused which was marked as Ex.P6. Thus, the appellant is a Bangladesh citizen had been proved and he has not entered into India through valid documents.

12. 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.150 of 2025 dated 05.03.2026 and confirms the conviction of the appellant for offence under Section 14(A)(b) of Foreigners Act, 1946.

13. As regards the sentence imposed, it is seen that the appellant had come to India in search of livelihood, he had stayed in Tiruppur for quite some time. Ex.P6, the birth certificate of appellant confirms that he is a Bangladesh Citizen. It is not in dispute that the appellant, owing to the unrest in Bangladesh and the uncertainty of his future, and being unemployed and impoverished, came in search of employment and livelihood to sustain themselves and his 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 of the appellant 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 is 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. It is brought to the notice of this Court that the first accused was died.

15. 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. The II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Tiruppur.

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

3. The Central Prison, Puzhal-I, Chennai.

4. The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madras.

M.NIRMAL KUMAR, J. EP CRL A No. 399 of 2026 30-09-2026