The court modified the sentence for illegal entry under the Foreigners Act to time already served, recognizing considerations of justice and ongoing imprisonment.

JUDGMENT :

Sunder Mohan, J.

This Criminal Appeal challenges the Judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the learned II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Tiruppur, convicting the Accused Nos.1 to 28/appellants for the offence under Section 14 of the Foreigners Act, 1946. The Accused Nos.1 to 28/appellants were sentenced as follows:

2(a). The case of the prosecution is that the appellants, A1 to A28, travelled to India without a valid permit, and they were working in a textile company at Tiruppur without any valid passport, visa, or any valid travel document from Bangladesh, and thus, committed the aforesaid offence.

(b). The appellants were arrested on 12.01.2025, and an FIR was registered on the complaint given by the Sub Inspector of Police, P.W.1. After conducting the investigation, P.W.4, the investigation officer, filed the final report for the offences under Sections 3 (2)(c) r/w 14 of the Foreigners Act, 1946, before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Palladam, which was taken on file as P.R.C.No.11 of 2025.

(c) On the appearance of the accused, the provisions of Section 207 Cr.P.C. were complied with, committed to the learned II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Tiruppur, for trial, which was taken on file as S.C.No.58 of 2025. The trial Court framed charges against the accused for the offences under Sections 3 (2)(c) r/w 14 of the Foreigners Act, 1946, and when questioned, the accused pleaded 'not guilty.'

(d) To prove its case, the prosecution had examined 4 witnesses as P.W.1 to P.W.4 and marked 30 exhibits as Exs.P1 to P30. When the accused was questioned, u/s.313 Cr.P.C., on the incriminating circumstances appearing against them, they denied the same. The accused neither examined any witness nor marked any document on their side.

(e) The trial Court found that the prosecution had established that all the appellants are Bangladeshi nationals and did not have a valid document to travel to India and found them guilty of the offence under Section 14 of the Foreigners Act, and accordingly, convicted and sentenced them as stated above. Hence, the accused has preferred the instant appeal challenging the said conviction and sentence imposed on them.

3(a). The learned counsel for the appellants/A1 to A28, would submit that the instant appeal has been filed mainly challenging the sentence imposed on the appellants; and that since the appellants have been in custody since January 2025, the period of incarceration undergone by them would be sufficient punishment for the aforesaid offences and prayed for reduction of sentence.

(b). The learned counsel also relied upon the Judgments in similar cases by this Court reducing the period of sentence.

4. Mr.Raja Kumar, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, for the respondent, submitted that the prosecution had established its case beyond reasonable doubt and there is no infirmity in the sentence imposed by the trial Court.

5. The prosecution had established that all the appellants are Bangladeshi nationals and they had entered into the territory of India without any valid document. The defence have not been able to discredit any of the witnesses. In any case, the appellants have not challenged the finding of guilt.

6. It is seen that all the appellants when they were questioned under Section 235 (2) of Cr.P.C., on sentence have stated that their respective family members are living in Bangladesh and they would return to

7. Admittedly, since the family members of the appellants are living in Bangladesh and since the appella