CRL A/934/2026 of MD Rayhan Vs State represented by The Inspector of Police on 30 September 2026

JUDGMENT

This criminal appeal has been preferred against the conviction and sentence made in S.C.No.396 of 2025 on the file of the Learned II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Tiruppur, dated 07.07.2026 and to acquit the Appellants/Accused 1-3.

2. The conviction and sentence imposed on the appellants/Accused 1 to 3, vide impugned judgment dated 07.07.2026, are as follows:- Accused Sections Imprisonment Fine amount In Default A1 to A3 U/s.14(A)

(b) of Foreigners Act, 1946 Rigorous imprisonment for a period of 2 years each Rs.10,000/- each Simple Imprisonment for a period of 6 months each U/s. 468 of IPC (Sec.336(3) of BNS) Rigorous imprisonment for a period of 2 years each Rs.2,000/- each Simple imprisonment for a period of 2 months each

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 02.02.2025, the Sub-Inspector of Police, Velampalayam Police Station (P.W.1), along with his police team, was on regular patrol duty. Upon receiving secret information, they proceeded to

Anthoni Garments at Sirupulavapatti, where the accused persons attempted to flee the spot. The police personnel apprehended the accused, who spoke only in Hindi and Bengali. They were subsequently questioned with the assistance of a translator, Salman. During the interrogation, the accused admitted that they were Bangladeshi citizens working as company labourers in Tiruppur. The accused were found in possession of Bangladeshi National Identity Cards and fake Aadhaar cards.

4.1. Consequently, the accused were brought to the Police Station, and a Special Report was prepared. The confession statements of the accused were recorded in the presence of P.W.3. Based on the Special Report submitted by P.W.1, a First Information Report (FIR) was registered in Crime No. 113 of 2025 under Sections 3(2)(c) and 14A(b) of the Foreigners Act, 1946, and Sections 336(3) and 340(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS). P.W.5, the Inspector of Police, took up the investigation on the same day. Upon completion of the investigation, the final report (charge sheet) was duly filed.

5. During the trial, the prosecution examined P.W1 to P.W.5 and marked Exs.P1 to P11.

6. The learned counsel for the appellants submitted that P.W.1, the Sub-

Inspector of Police, had apprehended and arrested the appellants merely during a routine patrol. He argued that the respondent police failed to examine the owner of the factory where the appellants were allegedly employed. P.W.5, the Investigating Officer, admitted during cross-examination that the accused were conversant only in Hindi and were entirely unfamiliar with the regional language, Tamil. Even during the initial inquiry, they were questioned solely with the assistance of an interpreter. Furthermore, as no translator was provided during the trial, the appellants were unable to comprehend the court proceedings, thereby reducing the trial to a mere namesake exercise and violating the principles of a fair trial. However, the learned counsel fairly submitted that the appellants had admitted that they had migrated from Bangladesh to India purely in search of employment and livelihood, have no adverse criminal record, and were residing in Tiruppur, India, for survival.

6.1. The learned counsel for the appellants further argued that while P.W.5 seized the Bangladeshi National Identity Cards and Aadhaar cards, the prosecution miserably failed to prove the alleged forgery of the Aadhaar cards. The genuineness of the Aadhaar cards was never verified, as they were not sent to the competent authorities for forensic authentication. Further, she 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 fake Aadhaar Cards. Furthermore, the respondent police failed to collect any official identification documents to conclusively establish 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.

6.2. 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 shifted to the appellants to prove 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/accused for the offences under Section 468 of IPC is unsustainable.

6.3. The learned counsel further submitted that as regards the conviction of appellants A1 to A3 for the offence under Section 14(A)(b) of the Foreigners Act, the learned counsel fairly conceded that the appellants had entered India without valid travel documents.

6.4. 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 Salman, who is conversant in Hindi and Tamil, 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.

6.5. 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, wherein the procedure of deportation of Bangaladeshi Nationals have been specifically stated. For ease of reference, paragraph No.2(v) of the circular, 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.”

6.6. 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.”

6.7. 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 of six months may be 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.

7. Mrs.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 02.02.2025, while the police team was on patrol, they found the accused moving in a highly suspicious manner. Upon being questioned, the accused admitted that they had crossed over from Bangladesh without valid travel documents to engage in daily wage labour. They admitted their illegal stay and produced their Bangladeshi Identity Cards along with forged Indian Aadhaar cards. Since the Aadhaar cards in their possession were explicitly found to be fake, the accused were arrested and produced before the learned

Magistrate. She further submitted that the appellants also admitted their illegal entry into India without valid documents. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor pointed out that regarding the Aadhaar Cards of the accused, the respondent police had collected photostat copies during the course of the investigation.

7.1. 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”.

7.2. 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 07.07.2026.

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 either side and upon a perusal of the materials available on record, it is evident that on 02.02.2025, the police team on patrol noticed the appellants acting suspiciously. During interrogation, the appellants admitted that they were Bangladeshi citizens who had entered India without valid travel documents. Based on the voluntary confessions given by the appellants and the recovery of their Bangladeshi National Identity Cards, the prosecution has successfully established that the appellants are Bangladeshi nationals who entered and stayed in India without authorization. Consequently, based on the reliable oral and documentary evidence, the Trial Court rightly convicted the appellants for the offence under Section 14(A)(b) of the Foreigners Act, 1946. Accordingly, this

Court finds no reason to interfere with the said conclusion arrived at by the Trial Court and 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, 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 laborers. 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, modifies the default sentence of six months of Simple Imprisonment to one week.

11. With regard to the charges of forgery levelled against the appellants for which they were convicted by the trial Court, this Court found that P.W.5, the Investigating Officer, failed to take elementary steps such as sending a 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 was conducted to confirm and prove forgery alleged against the appellants and for knowingly using the forged documents as genuine. In view of the above, the conviction and sentence imposed on the appellants for the offence under Section 468 of IPC cannot be sustained and is hereby set aside.

12. 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.

13. Accordingly, this Criminal Appeal is partly allowed in the terms stated above. Jd 30-09-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No JD To

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

2. The Central Prison, Puzhal-I.

3. The Inspector of Police, Velampalayam Police Station, Tiruppur District.

4. The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madras.

M.NIRMAL KUMAR, J. JD CRL A No. 934 of 2026 30-09-2026