CRL A/127/2026 of Ansur Rahuman @ Ansur Rahuman Misthiri Vs The State Rep.by its, The Inspector of Police on 29 September 2026

COMMON JUDGMENT

Since all the Criminal Appeals arise out of the judgment in S.C.No.134 of 2025, by consent of both sides, they are taken up together and disposed of by this common judgment.

2. These criminal appeals have been preferred against the conviction and sentence imposed on the appellants/accused by the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Erode in S.C.No.134 of 2025, dated 03.12.2025.

3. The conviction and sentence imposed on the appellants/Accused 1 to 11, vide impugned judgment dated 03.12.2025, are as follows:- Accused Sections Imprisonment Fine amount In Default A1 to A11 U/s.3(2)(c) r/w Sec.14(A) of Foreigners Act Rigorous imprisonment for a period of 2 years each Rs.10,000/- each Simple Imprisonment for a period of 1 month each U/s.3(3) of Passport (Entry into India) Act,

Rigorous imprisonment for a period of 2 years each - - U/s. 419 of IPC (319(2) of BNS) Rigorous imprisonment for a period of 6 months each - -

A8 to A11 U/s.417 of IPC (318(2) of BNS) Rigorous imprisonment for a period of 6 months each - - U/s. 468 of IPC (Sec.336(3) of BNS) Rigorous imprisonment for a period of 6 months each Rs.1,000/- each Simple imprisonment for a period of 15 days U/s.471 of IPC (Sec.340(2) of BNS) Rigorous imprisonment for a period of 6 months each Rs.1,000/- each Simple imprisonment for a period of 15 days

4. Aggrieved by the said conviction and sentence, the appellants have preferred these appeals before this Court.

5. The case of the prosecution is that, on 14.02.2025 from 11.00 p.m., onwards, the Sub Inspector of Police along with police personnel was on night patrolling duty. On 15.02.2025 at about 1.30 p.m., they found all the accused persons standing and chatting at Panickampalayam, near Perundurai. They were questioned in the presence of one Kabir Hussain Misthiri, who is conversant in Hindi and Tamil. All the accused confessed that they belonged to Bangladesh and had entered India via Calcutta, and from where they travelled to Tamil Nadu by train and they have engaged in construction and other related works. A2 and A11 were found in possession of fake Identity Cards and Aadhar Cards. While

A1 to A7 were found in possession of Bangladeshi Identity Card. They were subsequently arrested. Upon interrogation, A1 to A7 gave confession Statements, which were recorded in the presence of P.W.2 and other police personnel, and the translator, Kabir Hussain Misthiri. P.W1 recovered mobile phone and Identity Cards from A1 to A7 under Exs.P1 to P6 and the Ex.P7 seizure mahazar. The Identity Cards belonging to A1 to A7 were marked as M.O.1 to M.O.7 and the mobile phones as M.O.8 and M.O.14. A8 also gave a confession statement and produced a Bangladeshi Identity Card and a mobile phone, which were seized under Ex.P8 Recovery Mahazar. A9 also gave a confession statement, which was recorded and produced a Bangladeshi Identity Card belonging to his father and mother, along with a fake Aadhar Card and Pan Card, which were seized under Ex.P11. He also produced a Bangladeshi Birth Certificate, marked as Ex.P12. The Identiy Card of A9’s father and mother were marked as Ex.P13 and Ex.14 respectively. The fake Aadhar Card and Pan Card were marked as Exs.P15 and Ex.16 and the mobile phone was marked as M.O.16. A10 also gave a confession statement and produced his Bangladeshi Identity Card along with the Identity Card of his wife, which were seized under Ex.P17 seizure mahazar. Ex.P18 and Ex.19 are the Identity Cards belonging to A10 and his wife respectively. The fake Aadhar Cards produced by A10 are Ex.P20 series. A11 also gave a confessison statement recorded by P.W1 and produced a fake Identity Card showing address in Perundurai and West Bengal, which were seized under Ex.P21 Seizure Mahazar. The confession statements of the accused were recorded and marked as Ex.P25 to Ex.P35.

5.1. On conclusion of the investigation, a charge sheet was filed, and the case was taken on file. During the trial, the prosecution examined P.W1 to P.W.3 and marked Exs.P1 to P37, and produced material objects M.O.1 to M.O.17.

6. The learned counsel for the appellants submitted that, although it has been stated that A1 to A11 were found on a busy public road near Perundurai while talking, all three witnesses (P.W.1 to P.W.3) are police personnel. Among them, P.W.3, the Investigating Officer admitted that the accused A1 to A11 were conversant in Hindi and were not fluent in the regional language, Tamil. Even during the initial enquiry, they were questioned only with the assistance of Kabir Hussain Misthiri. He further submitted that the confession statements marked under Exs.P25 to P35 were entirely computer-typed in Tamil, and there is nothing on record to show that they were translated into Hindi to enable the accused to understand the contents before affixing their signatures. Thus, the voluntary confessions is highly doubtful. Furthermore, no Hindi translator was provided during the trial, the accused/appellants were unable to understand the proceedings, reducing the trial to a mere namesake exercise and violating the principles of a fair trial. However, the learned counsel fairly submitted that during their Section 313 Cr.P.C., questioning, 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. He further argued that while P.W.3 (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. The genuineness of the Aadhaar Cards was never verified, as they were not sent to the competent authorities 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 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/A8 to A11 for the offences under Sections 417, 419, 468 & 471 of IPC is unsustainable.

6.3. The learned counsel further submitted that as regards the conviction of appellants A1 to A7 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 Kabir Hussain Misthiri, who is conversant in

Hindi and Tamil, his formal qualifications and competency as an interpreter were never established or proved. He 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, where the Apex Court held 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 unable to pay the fine amount of Rs.10,000/- each and sought waiver of the same or atleast default sentence of one month can 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 14.02.2025 from 11.00 p.m. onwards, the Sub-Inspector of Police along with P.W.2 and other Police personnel were engaged in night patrolling duty and on 15.02.2025 at about 1.30 p.m., they found all the accused standing and talking in Hindi in a suspicious manner. Consequently, they were questioned and admitted that they had came from Bangladesh without valid documents, entering India via Calcutta, from where they travelled to Tamil Nadu by train to engage in construction and daily wage labour. They admitted their illegal stay and produced their Bangladeshi Birth Certificates, Identity Cards and other documents. The Aadhar Cards found in their possession were found to be fake/forged, hence, all 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 during their Section 313 Cr.P.C.

questioning. 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 03.12.2025.

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 on 14.02.2025 from 11.00 p.m. onwards, the Sub-Inspector of Police along with P.W.2 and other Police personnel were engaged in night patrolling duty and on 15.02.2025 at about 1.30 p.m, intercepted Accused 1 to 11 on suspicion. During interrogation, the appellants admitted that they were Bangladeshi citizens who had entered India without valid travel documents. Based on the confession statements given by the appellants/accused, the prosecution has successfully established that the appellants are Bangladeshi nationals who entered and stayed in India without valid travel documents. 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 and Section 3(3) of Passport (Entry into India) Act, 1920.

10. However, as regards the sentence, 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 one month 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.3, the Investigating Officer, failed to take elementary steps such as sending a requisition letter to the Deputy Director General of UIDAI, Bangalore, and the Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, Coimbatore, to verify the genuineness of the Aadhaar and PAN 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 offences under Sections 417, 419, 468 & 471 of IPC cannot be sustained and are 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, these Criminal Appeals are partly allowed in the terms stated above. 29-09-2026 Jd Neutral Citation:Yes/No To

1. The Principal Sessions Court, Erode.

2. The Inspector of Police, Perundurai Police Station, Erode District. Crime No.110 of 2025.

3. The Public Prosecutor, Madras High Court.

M.NIRMAL KUMAR J. jd CRL A Nos. 127, 369 &

29-09-2026