Foreigner’s acquittal under Sections 468/471 IPC does not mandate exoneration under Section 14 of Foreigners Act.

The petitioner, a Nigerian citizen married to a local lady with a minor son, came to India and played professional football in Delhi and later Shillong

He was registered with the SP-cum-Foreigners Registration Officer, East Khasi Hills, vide Registration No. 96/11 dated 06.09.2011, holding Passport No. 008143266 with visa extended up to 17.10.2011

On 19.06.2012, an FIR was lodged alleging contradictions in his second visa extension endorsement (valid till 16.10.2012, issued vide memo dated 15.10.2012); the FRRO, New Delhi, by Fax Message dated 15.06.2012, confirmed the petitioner was never registered with it, no extension was granted, and the stamp was fake

The case was registered u/s 468/471 IPC r/w Section 14 of the Foreigners Act, 1946

The Trial Court acquitted the petitioner u/s 468/471 IPC but convicted him u/s 14 of the Foreigners Act, sentencing him to one month's imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 5,000/-

The Additional Sessions Judge, Shillong, dismissed his appeal on 10.04.2019, leading to this revision petition

1. Whether conviction under Section 14 of the Foreigners Act, 1946 is sustainable notwithstanding the petitioner's acquittal under Sections 468/471 IPC

2. Whether the prosecution established a foundational prima facie case that the petitioner, a foreigner, lacked a valid visa from 18.10.2011 to 15.10.2012, thereby shifting the burden of proof onto the petitioner under Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872

3. Whether objections to the mode of proof/admissibility of the Fax Message dated 15.06.2012 (Exhibit-2), not raised before the courts below, can be raised for the first time before the Revisional Court

Section 14 of the Foreigners Act, 1946, holding that the prosecution must first establish a foundational prima facie case that the accused is a foreigner and lacked a valid visa upon apprehension.

Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 operates to shift the burden onto the accused to place on record the document authorizing his valid stay.

Where a document (Exhibit-2) is admitted without objection and marked as an exhibit, neither non-compliance with Section 65/65B(4) nor the mode of proof can be challenged for the first time in revision.

Under Section 313 Cr.P.C. jurisprudence, a bare plea of engagement of a third party/agent, without proof, is a weak defence that does not displace personal liability.

Settled revisional principle against interfering with concurrent findings absent demonstrated illegality.

Applying the foundational-case test under Section 14, the Court noted it was undisputed that the petitioner was a Nigerian national who entered India on Material Exhibit-1 (passport), and Exhibit-2 (the admitted FRRO Fax Message) prima facie established that he remained in India past his authorized visa period.

The Court observed that the second extension, even on its face, was issued on 15.10.2012, leaving an undisputed gap in visa validity from 18.10.2011 to 15.10.2012.

The burden having shifted under Section 106 of the Evidence Act, the petitioner failed to produce any document authorizing his stay during the gap period.

His Section 313 Cr.P.C. explanation—that he was injured and paid an unnamed friend to renew his passport and visa—was rejected as a weak, unparticularised defence, since "simply blaming a third party or agent does not wipe away personal liability".

The acquittal u/s 468/471 IPC was held not to enure to the petitioner's benefit since the Foreigners Act charge rests on the independent fact of unauthorized presence, not forgery.

Accordingly, the revision petition was dismissed as devoid of merit. The petitioner was directed to surrender before the Trial Court and be taken into custody forthwith to serve the sentence; his bail bonds, if any, were cancelled.