GODFREY ALBERT DECKER vs STATE OF MEGHALAYA AND ANR.

2026:MLHC:770


Serial No.01
Supplementary List

HIGH COURT OF MEGHALAYA
AT SHILLONG


Date of hearing : 15.06.2026
Crl. Rev. P. No.19 of 2019 Date of decision : 28.07.2026

Shri Godfrey Albert Decker
S/o Albert Decker
R/o Springside, Jingkieng,
Nongthymmai,
East Khasi Hills District,
Shillong-14 ….. Petitioner
-VERSUS


1. State of Meghalaya, through the
Superintendent of Police, East
Khasi Hills District, Shillong,
Meghalaya.


2. The Officer-in-Charge, Sardar
Police Station, East Khasi Hills
District, Shillong, Meghalaya.
…..Respondents


Coram:

Hon’ble Mr. Justice B. Bhattacharjee, Judge

Appearance:
For the Petitioner/Appellant(s) : Mr. R. Gurung, Adv
Ms. S.D. Sangma, Adv.

For the Respondent(s) : Mr. H. Kharmih, Addl. PP.


Judgment and Order


1. This criminal revision petition has been preferred against the impugned
Judgment and Order dated 22.02.2018 passed in G.R. Case No. 203(S) 2012
1 8
Page of

2026:MLHC:770


by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Shillong, convicting the petitioner u/s
14 of the Foreigners Act, 1946 and also the impugned Judgment and Order
dated 10.04.2019 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Shillong in Crl.
Appeal No. 2 (H) 2018 confirming the conviction and sentence of the
petitioner.

2. The revision petition discloses that the petitioner, a Nigerian citizen, is
married to a local lady and has a minor son. The petitioner, after his arrival in
India, was initially engaged in playing professional football in Delhi and had
subsequently come to Shillong for playing football, where he met his present
wife.

3. On 19.06.2012, an FIR was lodged before the Officer-in-Charge,
Shillong Sadar Police Station, by the Dy. Superintendent of Police (DSB),
East Khasi Hills District, Shillong, alleging that the petitioner, holder of
Passport No. 008143266 dated 05.02.2009, had obtained visa extension on
two occasions from the office of the Foreigners Regional Registration Officer
(FRRO), New Delhi, duly signed by the Asstt. Foreigners Regional
Registration Officer, New Delhi. On Scrutiny of the visa endorsement of the
current extension at that point of time, it was found that there were some
contradictions in the endorsement concerning the date of validity of visa and
Memo Number on the visa endorsement. A clarification was sought from the
office of the FRRO, New Delhi, upon which a Fax Message was received from
FRRO, New Delhi, dated 15.06.2012 confirming that the petitioner had never
registered with the said office and no such extension of visa was granted by
that office and that the stamp affixed on the visa was fake. On the above
backdrop, a request was made in the FIR for initiation of appropriate legal
action against the petitioner.

4. The aforesaid FIR was registered as Sadar P.S. Case No. 102 (6) of
2012 u/s 468/471 IPC r/w Section 14 of the Foreigners Act, 1946 and the
matter was investigated into. Afterwards, on completion of the investigation,
2 8
Page of

2026:MLHC:770


a chargesheet was filed against the petitioner under the aforementioned
sections of law and the petitioner was made to face trial before the Court of
the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Shillong, in G.R. Case No. 203 (S) 2012.
The learned Judicial Magistrate First Class by Judgment and Order dated
22.02.2018 acquitted the petitioner of the charges u/s 468/471 IPC, but
convicted him u/s 14 of the Foreigners Act, 1946, and by order dated
05.03.2018 sentenced the petitioner to undergo 1 month imprisonment and
imposed a fine of Rs. 5000/-. The petitioner preferred an appeal, registered as
Crl. Appeal No. 2 (H) of 2018, against his conviction and sentence before the
Court of the Additional Sessions Judge, Shillong, which came to be dismissed
by Judgment and Order dated 10.04.2019. Being aggrieved, the petitioner has
filed this revision petition before this Court.

5. Mr. R. Gurung, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, submits
that the Trial Court as well as the Appellate Court have failed to appreciate
the fact that since no case has been made out against the petitioner u/s 468/471
IPC, his conviction u/s 14 of the Foreigners Act, 1946 has no leg to stand. He
submits that the prosecution has failed to bring out any evidence to show the
petitioner’s involvement in any act of forgery or use of forged document as
genuine. He submits that there is no proof that the visa extension entry in the
passport of the petitioner was forged. He submits that the prosecution has
failed to conduct any investigation on the core allegation made in the FIR as
no official of the office of the FRRO, New Delhi was examined as witness to
prove the Fax Message dated 18.06.2012. He further submits that the original
seal of the FRRO, New Delhi was never seized or produced before the Trial
Court for examination/comparison with the alleged fake seal on the visa
extension entry. He submits that both the Courts below erred in accepting the
evidence led by the prosecution by overlooking the mandate of law contained
in Section 60 and 73 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. The learned counsel
places reliance on the decision of the Kerala High Court in K.K. Pavithran V.
3 8
Page of

2026:MLHC:770


State of Kerala, (2012) SCC OnLine Ker 4683, and submits that the allegation
of fake seal on the visa extension entry can be proved only by producing and
comparing with the original seal. He also refers to the decision of Gujarat High
Court in Arvind Balashanker Joshi V State of Gujarat, (1990) SCC OnLine
Guj 64 , to contend that once the petitioner is acquitted of the charge u/s 468
IPC, he cannot be convicted for the offence u/s 471 IPC. He submits that both
the Courts below have proceeded to decide the matter against the petitioner
without proper analysis of the prosecution evidence. He, therefore, submits
that the decisions rendered by the Trial Court and the Appellate Court are not
tenable in the facts and circumstances of the case and liable to be set aside and
quashed by this Court.

6. Mr. H. Kharmih, learned Addl. PP, appearing for the State-respondents
submits that the concurrent findings recorded by the Trial Court as well as by
the Appellate Court do not require any interference by this Court. He submits
that there are two extensions of visa, the first extension is in order, but the
second extension is found to be doubtful as it does not contain any extension
number, date of issue and the seal of the FRRO, New Delhi do not match with
the original office stamp of FRRO, New Delhi. He submits that the Fax
Message dated 15.06.2012 of the FRRO, New Delhi establishes that there was
no extension of visa of the petitioner till 16.10.2012 and further, the FSL
report dated 27.09.2012 confirms that the second extension was a fake one.
He submits that even it is assumed that the forged entry of extension of visa
in the passport (Material Exhibit-1) is genuine, the petitioner cannot be
exonerated from the charge u/s 14 of the Foreigners Act, 1946 in view of the
fact that the extension was granted till 16.10.2012 only on 15.10.2012, almost
after one year of the expiry of previous visa which was valid till 17.10.2011.
He further submits that mere acquittal of the petitioner for the offence u/s
468/471 IPC would not lead to automatic exoneration u/s 14 of the Foreigners
Act, 1946 as the petitioner failed to offer any explanation with regard to his
4 8
Page of

2026:MLHC:770


overstay in India after 17.10.2011. He, thus, submits that the conviction and
sentence of the petitioner do not suffer from any illegality or infirmity and the
instant revision petition, being devoid of merit, is liable to be dismissed.

7. Upon hearing the submissions made on behalf of the rival parties and
on perusal of materials on record as well as the evidence adduced during the
trial, it appears that the petitioner, a Nigerian citizen, was registered with the
office of the Superintendent of Police-cum-Foreigners Registration Officer,
East Khasi Hills District, Shillong vide Registration No. 96/11 dated
06.09.2011. The petitioner, at that point of time was holding a Passport
bearing No. 008143266 dated 05.02.2009 valid till 04.02.2014, having
extended visa up to 17.10.2011 issued vide extension No. 672/NIG/DL/10
dated 18.10.2010. On 12.09.2011, the petitioner left Shillong for Guwahati
and reported back to the Foreigners Registration Office (FRO), Shillong in the
month of April, 2012. On checking, it was found that his visa was extended
by the Asstt. Foreigners Regional Registration Office, New Delhi till
16.10.2012 vide a memo dated 15.10.2012. As the extension (second)
appeared to have been issued only one day prior to the date of expiry of
extended visa, it raised doubts and accordingly a clarification was sought from
the office of the FRRO, New Delhi by the office of the FRO, Shillong vide
letter dated 17.04.2012. The FRRO, New Delhi vide Fax Message dated
15.06.2012 responded by communicating that the petitioner was not registered
with their office and no extension was given to him by the office. Further, the
stamp of FRRO, New Delhi appearing on the passport was fake. The FIR
dated 19.06.2012 was, thereafter, lodged for initiating necessary legal action
against the petitioner.

8. The petitioner was charged u/s 468/471 IPC and also u/s 14 of the
Foreigners Act, 1946 at the trial. The learned Trial Court at the conclusion of
the trial exonerated the petitioner of the charges u/s 468/471 IPC, but
convicted him u/s 14 of the Foreigners Act, 1946. It appears that the decision
5 8
Page of

2026:MLHC:770


of the Trial Court was primarily based on the deposition of PW-1, the Fax
Message dated 15.06.2012 and the second visa extension entry in the passport
of the petitioner. The Fax Message dated 15.06.2012 was exhibited as Exhibit-
2 without there being any objection to the admissibility of the document. The
Passport of the petitioner was exhibited as Material Exhibit-1. In addition, the
prosecution supported its case by an opinion dated 27.09.2012 of the Forensic
Science Laboratory, Shillong, exhibited as Exhibit-5 with regard to the entries
made in the passport of the petitioner. However, it appears from Exhibit-5 and
the evidence of PW-5 that the opinion was rendered without there being any
similar specimen for comparison with the questioned seal impressions.

9. The learned Appellate Court by its Judgment and Order dated
10.04.2019 did not see any reason to interfere with the Judgment and Order
of the Trial Court and upheld the same with further observation that the
petitioner has also not adduced any evidence to show that the second visa
extension was genuine.

10. The case record indicates that the petitioner did not raise any objection
with regard to the admissibility of the Fax Message dated 15.06.2012 as
Exhibit-2 before the Trial Court on the ground that the same could not have
been considered as primary evidence and that there was a requirement of
fulfillment of conditions prescribed by section 65 of the Indian Evidence Act,
1872. No such plea has also been raised before the Appellate Court or even
before this Court. Further, there is no argument that Exhibit-2 was not
documentary evidence as it fell under the category of electronic evidence,
admissibility of which required certificate in terms of section 65B (4) of the
Indian Evidence Act, 1872. Once the Fax Message has been admitted as
documentary evidence without any objection and marked as Exhibit-2, the
mode adopted for proving the Exhibit-2 cannot be allowed to be raised before
this Revisional Court for the first time.

11. A perusal of the Material Exhibit-1 would show that there were two
6 8
Page of

2026:MLHC:770


extensions of visa. The first extension, issued vide Extension No.
672/NIG/DL/10 dated 18.10.2010, was up to 17.10.2011. The second
extension, which is alleged to be a forged one, appears to be issued on
15.10.2012, for a period up to 16.10.2012. Undisputedly, the Material Exhibit-
1 does not show any extension of visa for the period of 18.10.2011 till
15.10.2012.

12. In the above situation, the contention of the learned counsel for the
petitioner that once the petitioner is exonerated of the offences u/s 468/471
IPC, he could not have been convicted u/s 14 of the Foreigners Act, 1946 does
not hold water. In a criminal trial under section 14 of the Foreigners Act, the
prosecution must first establish a foundational prima facie case that the
accused is a foreigner and lacked a valid visa upon apprehension. In the
present case, there is no dispute to the fact that the petitioner is a Nigerian
citizen and he came to India on the strength of the Material Exhibit-1. The
basic fact that the petitioner was found in India past the authorised visa period
recorded by law enforcement is prima facie established by Exhibit-2. Once it
is admitted and proved that the petitioner is a foreign national, the burden
shifted on him as per Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 to place
on record the document which authorized him to remain in India validly.

13. The pleas raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner on the basis
of Section 60 and 73 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 is also of no
consequence as the petitioner has failed to offer any explanation as to the
validity of his stay in India from 18.10.2011 onwards. That apart, nothing has
been pointed out to persuade this Court to interfere with the concurrent finding
recorded by the Trial Court and the Appellate Court.

14. The petitioner in his statement u/s 313 Cr.P.C. did not offer any
explanation as to how the second visa extension entry came to be recorded in
his passport. The only explanation offered by him was that he was injured
during that relevant time and he gave money to his friend to renew his passport
7 8
Page of

2026:MLHC:770


and visa. However, no description or detail of any such friend was disclosed
by the petitioner before the Trial Court. The plea of engagement of third
person or agent is considered to be a weak defense without there being any
proof of such engagement. Simply blaming a third party or agent does not
wipe away personal liability.
15.
The case of K.K. Pavithran (Supra) cited by the learned counsel for the
petitioner does not lend any help to the petitioner as the Exhibit-2 is not an
opinion in terms of definition of Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872.
Further, the decision of Arvind Balashanker Joshi (Supra) has no application
in the present matter as the acquittal of the petitioner u/s 468/471 IPC is not
under challenge in this revision petition.

16. For what has been discussed above, the petitioner has failed to make
out a case for interference with the concurrent findings of the courts below.
The revision petition, as such, is devoid of merit and hereby stands dismissed.

17. The petitioner is directed to surrender before the Trial Court and be
taken into custody forthwith to serve the sentence. The bail bonds, if any, are
hereby cancelled.

The records of the Trial Court as well as the Appellate Court be returned
18.
forthwith.

19. Let an authenticated copy of this Judgment and Order be supplied to the

respective parties, free of cost, immediately.


Judge

Meghalaya
28.07.2026
“ Ahinandan,PS ”
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by
ABHINANDAN KUMAR
Date: 2026.07.28 17:36:49 IST
8 8
Page of