Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
V. SIVAGNANAM, J.
Mohamed Mominwar Hossain – Appellant
Versus
Vs. State by the Inspector of Police, Tiruppur Rural Police Station, Tiruppur – Respondent
Crl. A. No. 61 of 2023
Decided On : 01-03-2023
Foreigners Act - Exploitation of Human Trafficking - Section 3(1) r/w Section 14(c) of the Foreigners Act, 1946, Sections 42 of Aadhaar Act, 2016 r/w 109 IPC and 417 r/w 109 IPC
Fact of the Case:
The appellant, a Bangladesh national, was found residing in India without valid identity, leading to prosecution under the Foreigners Act, 1946 and other related offenses. The trial court convicted the appellant and imposed a rigorous imprisonment for three years and a fine of Rs.10,000.
Finding of the Court:
The court acknowledged the appellant's status as a victim of exploitation of human trafficking and the government's memorandum treating such victims differently. It found the appellant not involved in criminal activities in India.
Issues: The main issue was the appropriate sentence for the appellant, considering his status as a victim of human trafficking.
Ratio Decidendi: The court considered the appellant's circumstances and the government's memorandum on treating victims of human trafficking differently, leading to a modification of the sentence imposed by the trial court.
Final Decision: The criminal appeal was partly allowed, and the sentence for the appellant was modified to ten months of simple imprisonment and a fine of Rs.1,000, instead of the original rigorous imprisonment for three years and a fine of Rs.10,000.
JUDGMENT
(Prayer: This Criminal Appeal has been filed under Section 374(2) Cr.P.C. to call for the entire records in connection with S.C.No.26 of 2019 on the file of the Principal Sessions Court at Tiruppur and set aside the conviction and sentence imposed by the Learned Principal Sessions Court at Tiruppur in S.C.No.26 of 2019 dated 15.12.2022.)
1. The criminal appeal has been filed to call for the entire records in connection with S.C.No.26 of 2019 on the file of the Principal Sessions Court at Tiruppur and set aside the same.
2. The fact of the case is that this appellant is the 7th accused in S.C.No.26 of 2019 on the file of the Principal Sessions Judge, Tiruppur. The appellant/ 7th accused is Bangladesh Nationals. On 09.11.2018, this appellant (A7) with other Bangladesh National persons were found to be residing at Sevvanthanpalayam, Kunnagalpalayam and Pazhavanjipalayam of Tiruppur Town without having valid identity for their entry to India and for stay as mandate under Section 3 of the Foreigners Act, 1946. Thereby, the appellant (A7) along with other Bangladesh National persons (A1 to A6 & A8) had committed the offence punishable under Section 3(1) r/w Section 14 (c) of the Foreigners Act, 1946. Therefore, the respondent police prosecuted the accused persons A1 to A8 for having committed an offence under Section 3(1) r/w Section 14(c) of the Foreigners Act, 1946.
Further, the other accused persons A9 and A11 are operators Authorized by Unique Identification Authority of India, who prepared Aadhaar cards and A10 & A12 are agents for A1 to A8 to get the documents from A9 & A11. Hence, they are also prosecuted by the respondent police for the offences under Sections 42 of Aadhaar Act, 2016 r/w 109 IPC and 417 r/w 109 IPC. After filing the final report, the case has been taken on file in S.C.No.26 of 2019 by the trial Court. At the time of framing of charges, the Bangladesh Nationals (Foreigners) A1 to A6 and A8 admitted their offence. Therefore, the case against the accused persons A1 to A6 and A8 was split up as S.C.No.66 of 2019 by order dated 03.09.2019.
3. The trial Court, on admission of crime by the accused persons in S.C.No.66 of 2019 (A1 to A6 & A8), had convicted them for the offence under Section 3(1) r/w Section 14(c) of the Foreigners Act, 1946 and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for 10 months and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for three months and under Section 42 of Aadhaar Act, 2016 directed to undergo simple imprisonment for 10 months and under Section 417 IPC directed to undergo simple imprisonment for 10 months. The period already undergone by them was ordered to be set off by ordering the sentence to run concurrently. Each accused person was directed to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-.
4. The case in S.C.No.26 of 2019 was separately dealt with as against the appellant (A7) and the accused persons A9 to A12. Since they denied charges, a trial was conducted. In the trial Court, the prosecution examined ten witnesses as P.W.1 to P.W.10 and marked eighty three documents as Exs.P1 to P83 and produced thirty one material objects M.O.1 to M.O.31. On the side of the accused, no oral, documentary evidence and material objects were marked. By considering the evidence, the trial Court found guilty of the accused persons and in respect of the appellant(A7), the trial Court convicted for the offence under Section 3(1) r/w Section 14(c) of the Foreigners Act, 1946 and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/-, in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for three months under Section 235(2) of Cr.P.C. The period already undergone by him for the period from 10.10.2018 to 27.12.2018 was ordered to be set off under Section 428 Cr.P.C. Aggrieved by this judgment, this appellant (A7) filed this criminal appeal.
5. The learned counsel for the appellant (A7) submitted that the appellant is not challenging the conviction by the trial Court b
The judgment established the principle of considering the status of individuals as victims of human trafficking and the need to treat them differently under the law.
The court modified the sentence for illegal entry under the Foreigners Act to time already served, recognizing considerations of justice and ongoing imprisonment.
Pleaded case of the petitioner is that he is not a foreigner but the learned trial Court framed the charge against him under Section 14-A of the Foreigners’ Act and upon wrong advice of the engaged c....
Point of Law : There appears no any illegality in the order so passed to invoke the provision under Section 482 Cr.P.C. The inherent power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. cannot be exercised in a routine m....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
