Back
Bangladeshi National Sujan Gets Reduced to One Week by
In a judgment that balanced strict immigration law with human compassion, the partially allowed an appeal by Bangladeshi national Sujan, upholding his conviction for illegally entering India but reducing the for from one month to one week. Justice M. Nirmal Kumar, presiding over the single-judge bench, also directed authorities to complete within 30 days after the sentence is served.
A Matter of Survival: The Quest for Livelihood
The case began on , when a police patrol in Palladam, Tiruppur district, acting on secret information, raided a house and found 25 individuals staying under suspicious circumstances. During interrogation, the group admitted they were Bangladeshi nationals who had entered India without valid passports, visas, or travel documents. They had come in search of work and were living in the house of one Poongodi, who believed they were from North India. The police seized their Bangladeshi National Identity Cards and registered a case under .
Sujan, the appellant, was convicted by the , and sentenced to two years and a fine of Rs.10,000, with a of one month. He appealed to the .
Conviction Upheld, but Compassion Shown
The court found no merit in the challenge to the conviction. The prosecution had proved that Sujan and the others were Bangladeshi citizens who had entered India without authorization. The evidence included the seized identity cards and the admissions made by the accused. The court held that the trial court's finding of guilt was correct and confirmed the conviction under .
The Argument of Language and
Sujan's counsel argued that the entire trial was conducted in Tamil, a language the appellant did not understand, and that the translator provided was not proven competent. Citing the 's ruling in v. Narottam Dhakad (), the counsel contended that this denial of violated and warranted quashing of the conviction. However, the court noted that the appellant had not raised this issue before the trial court and that the translator's assistance was recorded. The conviction was therefore sustained.
Poverty and Penury: A Mitigating Factor
On the question of sentence, the court took a different view. The appellant had come to India due to unrest and unemployment in Bangladesh, seeking livelihood through daily-wage work. He was not involved in any economic offence and had no prior adverse record. The court observed that he was "very poor" and
"unable to pay the fine amount."
Relying on the
's decision in
Shahejad Khan Mahebukhan Pathan v. State of Gujarat
(), which allows reduction of based on , the court confirmed the fine of Rs.10,000 but reduced the default imprisonment from one month to one week.
"It is not in dispute that the appellant, 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,"
the judgment stated.
"Considering their
… this Court confirms the sentence of fine of Rs.10,000/-… and modifies the
of one month
to one week."
Deportation Ordered Within 30 Days
In line with the circular of , and the 's directions in Maja Daruwala v. State of West Bengal (), the High Court directed that the deportation process be completed within 30 days after the appellant has served his sentence and the default period of one week. The court ordered the concerned authorities to ensure that Sujan, along with his children, is repatriated to Bangladesh without delay.
"The concerned authorities are directed to take appropriate action and ensure that the appellants, along with their children, are deported to Bangladesh within a period of thirty days after they have undergone their period of sentence and the
of one week,"
the court concluded.
The appeal was thus partly allowed, with the conviction upheld but the reduced. The judgment underscores the judiciary's willingness to temper strict law with empathy for those driven by dire economic circumstances.
