CRL A/690/2026 of Mohamed Oli Ullah Vs The Inspector of Police on 29 September 2026

JUDGMENT

This Criminal Appeal has been filed to set aside the conviction and sentence imposed on the Appellants in S.C. No.160 of 2025, dated 30.04.2026 on the file of the Principal Sessions Judge, Erode.

2. The conviction and sentence imposed on the appellants/Accused 1 to 7, vide impugned judgment dated 30.04.2026, are as follows:- Accused Sections Imprisonment Fine amount In Default A1 to A7 U/s.3(2)(c) r/w Section 14(A) of Foreigners Act, 1946 Rigorous imprisonment for a period of 2 years each Rs.10,000/- each Simple Imprisonment for a period of 1 month U/s.3(3) of Passport (Entry into India) Act,

Rigorous imprisonment for a period of 2 years each - - The sentences were ordered to run concurrently.

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 10.10.2024 at about 10.00 p.m., while P.W.1, the Sub Inspector of Police, Perundurai Police Station, along with

P.W.2 and P.W.3 and other police personnel were discharging patrol duty, at about 11.30 p.m., they noticed six persons were coming near Arul Tex, Panickampalayam. On suspicion, P.W.1 intercepted and enquired them in the presence of P.W.3, who knew Hindi and all of them admitted that they belonged to Bangladeshi nationals and without valid travel documents they came down from Bangaladesh to Perundurai via Calcutta by train and they employed as daily wage laborers. Consequently, P.W.1 arrested all the 6 accused and interrogated them in the presence of P.W.3, who was conversant in Hindi and Tamil. P.W.1 enquired the accused individually and recorded their confession statements. Based on their confession statements, material objects namely, mobile phones (M.O.1 to M.O.5) were seized under Ex.P1 to Ex.P5 Seizure Mahazars. P.W.1 also seized the expired passport and visa of accused No.5 (Ex.P6) under Ex.P7 seizure mahazar. The phones contained digital copies of their Bangladesh National Identity Cards (Ex.P8 to P12) and birth certificate of A7 (Ex.P13), which P.W.1 downloaded and printed. P.W.1 arrested the accused on the basis of the confession statements. P.W.1 brought A1 to A7 to the police station and registered an FIR in Crime No.735 of 2024 under Section 3(2)(c) r/w 14 of Foreigners Act, 1946 and 3(3) of Passport Act, 1920 against the accused persons. Upon completion of detailed investigation, a charge sheet was filed against the accused, which was taken on file by the Judicial Magistrate, Perundurai in P.R.C.No.11 of 2025 and, thereafter, the case was committed to the Sessions Court, Erode and was taken on file as S.C.No.160 of

2025.

5. During the trial, the prosecution examined P.W1 to P.W.4 and marked Exs.P1 to P27, and produced material objects M.O.1 to M.O.5.

6. The learned counsel for the appellants submitted that although the accused were allegedly apprehended by the respondent police, the prosecution failed to examine any independent public witnesses to corroborate the arrest. He noted that the material witnesses are exclusively police personnel and highlighted that the appellants are conversant only in Bengali & Hindi. 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 A7 for the offence under Section 14(A)(b) of the Foreigners Act, he 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 Erode. 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 Sureshkumar (P.W.3), Hindi & Bengali translator, 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.

6.3. 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. 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 are nearby and unable to pay the fine amount of Rs.10,000/- each and sought waiver of the same or atleast default sentence of one month 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 State, vehemently opposed the contentions of the appellants. Filing a counter-affidavit reiterating the prosecution's case, she submitted that on 10.10.2024, P.W.1 along with other police personnels noticed the six persons under suspicious circumstances during their patrol duty. Upon seeing the police, the accused attempted to flee. P.W.1 arrested A7 on the basis of the confession statement given by A1. She contended that Accused 1 to 7 were properly interrogated with the assistance of the Hindi & Bengali translator, Sureshkumar (P.W.3), 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 entering India from Bangladesh without valid travel documents. She further submitted that all the accused are confined in Trichy Special Camp, Trichy and steps have been taken for deportation.

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 30.04.2026.

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 a perusal of the materials available on record, it is evident that on 10.10.2024, the patrol team intercepted the accused 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. 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 and Section 3(3) of Passport (Entry into India) Act, 1920. 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 is concerned, it is observed that the appellants entered India in search of their livelihood, had been staying in Erode 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, modifies the default sentence of one month Simple Imprisonment to one week.

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. 29-09-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No JD To

1. The Principal Sessions Judge, Erode.

2. The Inspector of Police, Perundurai Police Station, Erode District.

3. The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madras.

M.NIRMAL KUMAR, J. JD CRL A No. 690 of 2026 29-09-2026