Authorities must deport convicted Bangladeshi nationals within 30 days after completion of their sentence.

The appellants, A5 and A18 in the case, were among 25 persons found by Palladam police at a house in Tiruppur on 19 June 2025.

The prosecution alleged that they were Bangladeshi nationals staying in India without valid travel documents; police seized Bangladesh national identity cards and registered a case under Sections 3(2)(c) read with 14 of the Foreigners Act.

The Sessions Court convicted the appellants under Section 14(A) of the Foreigners Act and sentenced each to two years’ simple imprisonment and a fine of ₹10,000, with one month’s simple imprisonment in default.

On appeal, the appellants challenged the fairness of the Tamil-language proceedings and the translator’s competence, and sought relief concerning the fine and default sentence.

Whether the appellants’ convictions under Section 14(A) of the Foreigners Act were sustainable on the evidence, including in light of their contention that they lacked an effective opportunity to understand and defend the proceedings.

Whether the sentence should be modified, including the default term for non-payment of the fine, and whether the authorities should be directed to deport the appellants after completion of their sentences.

Section 14(A) of the Foreigners Act was the basis of the convictions; the prosecution case arose under Section 3(2)(c) read with Section 14 of that Act.

In considering the default sentence, the Court relied on Shahejad Khan Mahebukhan Pathan v. State of Gujarat, 2013 (1) SCC 570, as cited in the judgment, in addressing the appellants’ inability to pay the fine.

For deportation, the Court relied on paragraph 2(v) of the Ministry of Home Affairs circular dated 23 November 2009 and Maja Daruwala v. State of West Bengal, 2025 Law Finder SC 4783, as cited in the judgment, concerning completion of the verification and deportation exercise within 30 days.

The appellants also invoked Article 21 and Central Bureau of Investigation v. Narottam Dhakad, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1069, on effective opportunity to defend; the judgment records that submission but does not set out a separate ruling on it.

The Court found that the evidence, including the police witnesses’ testimony, the appellants’ admissions as recounted in the prosecution case, and the seized Bangladesh identity cards, established that the appellants were Bangladeshi citizens who had entered India without valid documents; it therefore found no reason to disturb the convictions.

Although the Court recorded the appellants’ challenge concerning the language of the proceedings and the translator, its reasons do not separately assess that contention.

On sentence, the Court considered the appellants’ poverty and inability to pay the fine, reduced the default imprisonment, and applied the cited deportation authorities to direct timely deportation after the sentences were served.

The convictions under Section 14(A) of the Foreigners Act and the two-year terms of simple imprisonment were confirmed; the ₹10,000 fine imposed on each appellant was also confirmed, but the default term was reduced from one month to one week.

The authorities were directed to take appropriate action to deport the appellants, along with their children, to Bangladesh within 30 days after they had undergone their sentences and the one-week default term.