CRL A/535/2026 of MD Monirul Islam Vs The State of Tamil Nadu on 29 September 2026

JUDGMENT

The Trial Court in S.C.No.152 of 2025 by judgment dated 27.02.2026 convicted the accused 1 to 3 for offences 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/- each, in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for three months each under Section 258 (2) of BNSS. Against which, accused No.3 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 17.02.2025 at about 13.15 hours., while on patrol duty along with Head Constable Thirumurugan / PW2 and one Prabhakaran, Head Constable, secret information received, that Bangladeshis, overstaying in India, hence, they went to 5th street, Paraikadu, Murugampalayam, near the Ramachandiran Compound, they found three persons staying under suspicious circumstances. On seeing the Police personnel, they attempted to flee, however, they were apprehended and enquired. Since all the accused spoke in Hindi, with the assistance of one Jeyadurga Devi / P.W.4, 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) SM Mostafa Al Amin, (2) Jas Khanjahan Ali, (3) MD Monirul Islam and all are residing in Tiruppur. P.W.1 seized the Bangladesh National Identity Card of A1, Birth Certificates of A2 and A3. Further, mobile phones of A2 and A3 were seized. It was found that the accused were staying in India without valid Visa or travel documents.

3.2. On further enquiry, it was revealed that they came to India without any visa and possess no valid documents to enter India. Thereafter, he had taken the accused persons along with special report produced before PW5/ Inspector of Police, Veerapandi Police Station who registered First Information Report / Ex.P7 in Cr.No.120 of 2025 for the offences under Sections 3 (2) (c) of Foreigners Act, 1946 and 14 (A) (b) of the Foreigners (Amendment) Act, 2004, and thereafter PW5 visited the scene of occurrence and prepared Observation Mahazar / Ex.P6 and Rough Sketch / Ex.P8 in the presence of the witnesses, collected documents and after completion of investigation filed a charge sheet in this case.

4. During the trial, P.W.1 to P.W.5 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 is from Bangladesh Foreign Nation and he was found in Tiruppur. The appellant is not conversant with the local language and he was not known to read or write and understand Tamil. In this case no confession statement recorded and how Ex.P3 to Ex.P5 received and seized is highly doubtful. The seizure mahazar / Ex.P2 is in Tamil and further none of the documents were signed by the appellant. P.W4 / Jeyadurga Devi, the Hindi Translator confirms that at the request of the Police, she acted as translator and she is in Home Guard Department. Hence she is obliging witness to the prosecution. Further, she had fairly admits that in none of the documents the signature of the appellant was obtained.

6. The learned counsel for the appellant further submitted that during trial no Hindi speaking person was present to explain the appellant about the Court proceedings and the recording of evidence in Tamil. Even during questioning under Section 313 (1) (b) of Cr.P.C, no proper interpreter was present and it was also recorded in Tamil. Though the trial Judge had stated that one Mohamed Sadiq Hossain, Head Clerk, Judicial Magistrate (FTC) Court, Tirupur, had acted as interpreter, he as not produced any certificate and not signed in the bottom of the questions raised under Section 313 (1) (b) of Cr.P.C. Thus, the appellant is kept in dark and the entire proceedings is vitiated. Hence, appellant was denied meaningful and effective opportunity to understand the allegation and to defend their case. 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 them to be quashed and conviction cannot be sustained.

7. 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.

8. 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.”

9. The learned counsel further submitted that from the date of conviction, the appellant is confined in Central Prison, Puzhal and now pleads that since he 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.

10. The learned Government Advocate (Criminal side) strongly opposed the appellant’s contention and submitted that P.W.1 / the Sub Inspector of Police, attached to the respondent Police Station. On 17.02.2025 at about 13.15 hours., P.W.1 while on patrol duty along with Head Constable Thirumurugan / PW2 and one Prabhakaran, Head Constable, secret information received, that Bangladeshis, overstaying in India, hence, he went to 5th street, Paraikadu,

Murugampalayam. Near the Ramachandiran Compound, he found three persons staying there under suspicious circumstances. On seeing the Police personnel, they attempted to flee, however, they were apprehended. Ex.P3 / Bangladesh National Identity card of A1, Ex.P4 and Ex.P5, Birth certificates of A2 and A3 were seized. During enquiry, appellant was unable to give any valid explanation as to how they entered India and whether they possessed valid documents. Hence, it is proved that they are foreigners who entered India without valid documents. P.W.1 had lodged a complaint, which is marked as Ex.P7. P.W.2 is the Head Constable who accompanied P.W.1. P.W.3 is the attestor to the observation mahazar / Ex.P6 and rough sketch / Ex.P.8. P.W.4 is the Home Guard person who, at the request of P.W.5, acted as a translator and translated the questions and answers for the Police and the accused during the investigation. P.W.5 is the Investigating Officer who had conducted investigation, visited the scene of occurrence and prepared observation mahazar / Ex.P6 and rough sketch / Ex.P.8. Ex.P1 is the Special Report. Ex.P2 is the seizure Mahazar. On completion of investigation, P.W.5 filed charge sheet. Based on the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, supported by the prosecution documents and material objects, the trial Court rightly convicted the appellant.

11. 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 an 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 from the date of conviction i.e on 27.02.2026, the appellant is confined in Central Prison, Puzhal. 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”

12. 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 17.02.2025 at about 13.15 hours, while on patrol duty, he found three persons near Ramachandiran Compound. On suspicion, enquired them and at that time they have admitted that they are Bangladesh citizens entered India without any valid documents. He seized Ex.P3 / Bangladesh National Identity card of A1. Ex.P4 and Ex.P5 are the Birth certificates of A2 and A3 issued by Bangladesh authorities. Thus, A1 to A3 are Bangladesh citizens had been proved and they have not entered into India through valid documents.

13. 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.152 of 2025 dated 27.02.2026 and confirms the conviction of the appellant for offence under Section 14 (A) (b) of Foreigners Act, 1946.

14. As regards the sentence imposed, it is seen that the appellant/accused had come to India in search of livelihood, they had stayed in Tiruppur for quite some time. It is not in dispute that the appellant/accused, owing to the unrest in Bangladesh and the uncertainty of 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 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 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.

15. 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 are 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.

16. It is brought to the notice of this Court that A1 / SM.Mostafa Al Amin and A2 / Jas Khanjahan Ali have not preferred an appeal. It appears that before the trial Court, accused Nos.1 to 3 were provided legal aid counsel and defended their case. However, accused Nos. 1 and 2 have not preferred any appeal before the High Court.

17. In Shanti Devi Vs. The State of Haryana, reported in 2025 SCC Online SC 1704, the Hon’ble Supreme Court considered the issue of non-filing of appeal by one of the accused and, following the decision of its earlier decision in the case of Sahadevan and another v. State of Tamil Nadu, decided on 8.12.2012 in Criminal Appeal No.1405 of 2008, held that if for compelling and inevitable reasons, like lack of finances, absence of any person to pursue his remedy and lack of proper assistance in the jail, an accused is unable to file appeal, then it would amount to denial of access to justice to such accused. The relevant paragraphs in Shanti Devi (supra), read thus:

“38. We may, at this stage, note that the appellant- accused herein as well as Rajbir (accused No.2), being the son of the appellant-accused were both provided legal aid counsel in the appeal before the High Court, manifestly for the reason of their poor financial status. Rajbir (accused No.2) has not even preferred an appeal against the judgment of the High Court. However, while discussing the case of accused-appellant Shanti Devi, we have found that the evidence led by the prosecution is not sufficient and lacks credibility so as to form a complete chain of incriminating circumstances warranting the affirmation of the prosecution case. The entire case of the prosecution having being discarded, the benefit of this judgment deserves to be extended to the non-appealing accused Rajbir (accused No.2), who has unfortunately not preferred an appeal to assail his conviction. In this regard, we may gainfully refer to Sahadevan (supra), wherein this Court observed that:- “Where the Court finds that the prosecution evidence suffers from serious contradictions, is unreliable, is ex facie neither cogent nor true and the prosecution has failed to discharge the established onus of proving the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt, the Court will be well within its jurisdiction to return the finding of acquittal and even suo moto extend the benefit to a non-appealing accused as well, more so, where the Court even disbelieves the very occurrence of the crime itself. Of course, the role attributed to each of the accused and other attendant circumstances would be relevant considerations for the Court to apply its discretion judiciously. There can be varied reasons for a non-appealing accused in not approaching the appellate Court. If, for compelling and inevitable reasons, like lack of finances, absence of any person to pursue his remedy and lack of proper assistance in the jail, an accused is unable to file appeal, then it would amount to denial of access to justice to such accused.” (Emphasis Supplied)

39. Thus, we give the benefit of our conclusions to Rajbir

(accused No.2) as well and also acquit him of the charges. He shall be released from custody, if not wanted in any other case.

18. Following the decision of Shanti Devi (supra), this Court is inclined to extend the benefit of modifying the default sentence of three months simple imprisonment to one week for A1 / SM.Mostafa Al Amin and A2 / Jas Khanjahan Ali as well. The concerned authorities are directed to take appropriate action and ensure that A1 / SM.Mostafa Al Amin and A2 / Jas Khanjahan Ali are 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.

19. In the result, this criminal appeal is partly allowed. 29-09-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No EP

M.NIRMAL KUMAR, J. EP To

1. II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Tiruppur.

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

3. The Superintendent of Prison, Central Prison, Puzhal I, Chennai.

4. The Public Prosecutor High Court of Madras. CRL A No. 535 of 2026 29-09-2026