CRL A/1957/2025 of MD.RAFIQUL ISLAM Vs The State Rep.by Inspector of Police on 28 September 2026

COMMON JUDGMENT

Since all the Criminal Appeals arise out of the judgment in S.C.No.140 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 II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Tiruppur in S.C.No.140 of 2025, dated 13.11.2025.

3. The conviction and sentence imposed on the appellants/Accused 1 to 7, vide impugned judgment dated 13.11.2025, are as follows:- Accused Sections Imprisonment Fine amount In Default A1 and A4 to A6 U/s. 468 of IPC (Sec.336(3) of BNS) Rigorous imprisonment for a period of 5 years each Rs.2,000/- each - U/s.471 of IPC (Sec.340(2) of BNS) Rigorous imprisonment for a period of 3 years each Rs.2,000/- each - U/s.14(A)

(b) of Foreigners Act 2004 Rigorous imprisonment for a period of 2 years each Rs.10,000/- each Simple Imprisonment for a period of 6 months each All the sentences are ordered to run concurrently. Accused Section Imprisonment Fine amount In Default A2, A3 and A7 U/s.14(A)

(b) of Foreigners Act 2004 Rigorous imprisonment for a period of 2 years each Rs.10,000/- each Simple imprisonment for a period of 3 months

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 17.01.2025, at about 7.45 p.m., the Sub Inspector of Tiruppur North Police Station, while on regular patrol along with Special Sub Inspector namely, Karunaraj, Head Constable Ramesh (Grade-I); Police Constables Kalikumar and Manikandan, noticed three persons talking to each other in Hindi. Upon seeing the Police personnel, they attempted to flee from the spot. However, they were apprehended by P.W1 and the other Police personnel. During interrogation, they continued to speak in Hindi, and hence with the assistance of Jeya Durgadevi, a Hindi translator, who is proficient in Hindi, they were further questioned. During the enquiry, they disclosed their names and stated that they were residing at Jothimani Compound, Sri Vidhya Nagar, 1st Street, Mosco Nagar, Tiruppur and were employed as Tailors. Further, they admitted that they were citizens of Bangladesh and possesed Bangladesh National Identity Cards. Since they did not have any valid travel documents and were residing illegally at Tiruppur, the Sub-Inspector of Police brought them to the Police Station along with their Identity Cards and registered a First Information Report in Crime No.114 of 2025 under Sections 3(2)(c), 14(A) of Foreigners Act.

5.1. The accused 1 to 3 were produced along with Special Report, and their identity cards. The Inspector of Police, P.W.10, took up the investigation of the case on the same day at about 8.20 p.m., he seized the National Identity Cards of Accused 1 to 3 and three cell phones. At about 9.00 a.m., the following day, he visited the scene of occurrence along with Jeya Durgadevi, a Hindi translator, and also inspected the place in the presence of witnesses Suresh and Murugan. He prepared the Observation Mahazar and Rough Sketch, examined the attestors of the Observation Mahazar and recorded their statements. Thereafter, he returned to the Police Station and formally arrested appellants/Accused 1 to 3, and questioned them with the help of translator P.W.5. During the interrogation, Accused No.1 gave a voluntary confession statement, which was recorded by P.W.10 with the assistance of the translator.

5.2. Further, Accused No.1 informed the police that three more Bangladeshi Citizens were staying at Kodikambam area without valid documents and fabricated fake Aadhar Cards. Based on his confession, P.W.10 proceeded to the 5th Street of Bhavani Nagar, Kodikambam, and apprehended the accused/appellants 4 to 7. During the interrogation, they admitted that they were citizens of Bangladesh, had entered India illegally, and fabricated false Aadhar Cards. Consequently, the appellants/Accused Nos.4 to 7 were arrested, and the confession statement of appellant/accused No.4 was recorded in the presence of private witnesses. Accused No.4 handed over the mobile phones of the other accused and also produced the Bangladesh National Identity Cards belonging to Accused Nos.4 to 7. The Investigating Officer seized the Bangladesh National Identity Cards and mobile phones through a seizure mahazar in the presence of private witnesses, and brought the Accused 4 to 7 to the Police Station, and recorded the statements of the Sub Inspector, Special Sub Inspector, Head Constables and also public witnesses.

5.3. P.W.3, stood as an attestor to the Observation Mahazar and the Rough Sketch. P.W.2, the Special Sub Inspector of Police, corroborated the evidence of P.W.1 regarding the manner of enquiry of A1 to A3 and stated that he assisted in translating their Hindi conversation into Tamil. P.W.4, an attestor to confession/seizure witness, witnessed the enquiry of A1 to A3, the translation by P.W.5 and the voluntary statement of A1. P.W.5, is the translator who assisted P.W.1 and P.W.10 during the enquiry and investigation. The Investigating Officer, P.W.10, remanded the accused to judicial custody along with the seized properties viz., Vivo Y-6 Cell Phone (M.O.1), Motto-G Cell Phone (M.O.2), a Techno-Spark Cell Phone (M.O.3), a Redmi Cell Phone (M.O.4), a Galaxy Cell Phone (M.O.5), and an Oppo A36 Cell Phone (M.O.6), which were seized through Form 95 (two series) under Ex.P14. The National Identity Cards of A4, A5 and A6 were also seized. It was revealed that A1 to A3 were residing in the house of Kumaravel (P.W.6) as Tenants. When they moved in, Accused No.1 handed over an Aadhar Card to Kumaravel, which was marked as Ex.P9. P.W.6 confirmed renting of his house to the first accused, who worked at SCM

Company, claimed to be from Bangalore, and spoke Tamil fluently. At that time, the first accused gave his Aadhar Card, which was marked as Ex.P9. Further, during the enquiry, P.W.10 came to know that Accused 4 to 7 were residing as tenants in the house of Arumugam and had given their Aadhar Cards to him, which were marked as Ex.P10 to Ex.P12, all of which were later on found to be forged. Another house owner, P.W.7, confirmed that the Accused were residing as tenants in his house and had provided a forged Aadhar Card. P.W.8, the employer of A1, confirmed that A1 had been working in Srinivasa Company since January 2025 and stated that at the time of joining, the first accused produced an Aadhar Card showing the address of Bangalore, Karnataka State.

6. On completion of the investigation, the charge sheet was filed, and the case was taken on file. During the trial, the prosecution examined P.W1 to P.W.10 and marked Exs.P1 to P20, and produced material objects M.O.1 to M.O.6.

7. The learned counsel for the appellants submitted that although P.W.10, 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. He further submitted that the genuineness of the Aadhaar Cards was never verified, as they were not sent to the concerned authority for

authentication. In this case, though the Aadhaar Cards were marked as Exs.P9 to P12, it appears that the documents under Ex.P9, P10, and P12 stand in the names of Accused Nos. 1, 4, and 5, with corresponding photos affixed. However, the Aadhaar Card under Ex.P11 stands in the name of one Abdur Rofiq, with the father's name omitted, the guardian's name listed as "C/o. Abdur Nuzrul", and an illegible photograph affixed therein. 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 confirm 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.

7.1. 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 lay upon the appellants to show 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, namely

Accused A1 and A4 to A6, for the offences under Sections 468 and 471 of the IPC are unsustainable.

7.2. 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.

7.3. 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 Jeya Durgadevi (P.W.5), a Hindi translator, her 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.

7.4. 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.”

7.5. 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.”

7.6. 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 three months 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.

8. 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 17.01.2025 at about 7:45 p.m., P.W.1, while on regular patrol duty along with Special Sub-Inspector Karunaraj, Head Constable Ramesh, and Police Constables Kalikumar and Manikandan, found Accused 1 to 3 acting in a suspicious manner and speaking in Hindi. Upon seeing the police, they attempted to flee. She contended that Accused 1 to 3 were interrogated with the assistance of the Hindi translator, Jeya Durgadevi (P.W.5), and their statements were recorded, wherein they admitted that being citizens of Bangladesh, they are in possession of Bangladesh National Identity Cards. She further submitted that based on the voluntary confession of A1, the other accused (A4 to A7) were subsequently apprehended, and the appellants A4 to A7 have also admitted that they entered India from Bangladesh without valid travel documents.

8.1. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor pointed out that the house owners, P.W.6 and P.W.7, confirmed that the appellants resided in their houses as tenants while working in a local factory, with P.W.6 explicitly stating that the first accused spoke fluent Tamil and claimed to be from Bangalore. Regarding the Aadhaar Cards of the accused, she submitted that the respondent police had collected photostat copies during the investigation. The presence and employment of the appellants in Tiruppur were further corroborated by P.W.8, the Human Resources Manager of Srinivasa Company.

8.2. 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”.

8.3. 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 13.11.2025.

9. 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.

10. 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 17.01.2025 at about 07:45 p.m., P.W.1, the Sub-Inspector of Police, along with his patrol team, intercepted Accused 1 to 3 on suspicion. During interrogation, the appellants admitted that they were Bangladeshi citizens who had entered India without valid travel documents. Based on the confession statement given by the first accused, P.W.10 proceeded to the 5th Street of Bhavani Nagar, Kodikambam, and apprehended appellants 4 to 7, who likewise admitted their Bangladeshi nationality and their illegal entry into India. Thus, 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.

11. However, as regards the sentence is concerned, 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 three months' Simple Imprisonment to one week.

12. With regard to the charges of forgery levelled against the appellants and convicted by the trial Court, this Court found that P.W.10, the Investigating Officer, failed to take elementary steps in sending 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 done to confirm and prove forgery alleged against the appellants and knowingly using the forged documents as genuine. In view of failure to prove forgery, the conviction and sentence imposed on the appellants for the offence under Sections 468 & 471 of IPC cannot be sustained and therefore, the same are hereby set aside.

13. 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.

14. Accordingly, these Criminal Appeals are partly allowed in the terms stated above. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed. 28-09-2026 Jd Neutral Citation:Yes/No To

1. II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Tiruppur.

2. The Central Prison, Puzhal.

3. The Inspector of Police, Tiruppur North Police Station, Tiruppur City.

4. The Public Prosecutor, Madras High Court.

M.NIRMAL KUMAR J. jd CRL A Nos.1957 of 2025, 36, 145, 163, 195, 154,

28-09-2026