Madras HC Cuts Bangladeshi Man’s Forgery Sentences To Time Served After Foreigners Act Term, Directs Deportation Within 30 Days

In brief

The question

1. Whether the sentences imposed for the offences under Sections 468 and 471 IPC should be reduced to the period already undergone, having regard to the appellant’s period in custody.

The court held

The appeal was partly allowed. The convictions under the Foreigners Act and Sections 468 and 471 IPC were confirmed.

It also directed

For each IPC offence, the sentence was modified to imprisonment for the period already undergone, while the fine of ₹2,000 and the default sentence of three months’ simple imprisonment were retained.

The Foreigners Act sentence was not modified.

The authorities were directed to take appropriate action to ensure the appellant’s deportation to Bangladesh within 30 days.

01Facts

The appellant was convicted by the II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Tiruppur, of offences under Section 3(2)(c) read with Section 14 of the Foreigners Act, 1946, and Sections 468 and 471 IPC. The trial court imposed two years’ rigorous imprisonment and a fine of ₹10,000 for the Foreigners Act offence, and three years’ rigorous imprisonment and a fine of ₹2,000 for each IPC offence, with sentences to run concurrently.

p. 2

The prosecution case was that the appellant, a Bangladeshi national, had entered and remained in India without valid travel documents.

p. 2 · pp. 4–5

In appeal, the appellant principally challenged the sentences, submitting that his custody since April 2024 was sufficient; he did not challenge the finding of guilt.

p. 4 · p. 5

He had been in custody for more than 24 months, and stated that his family lived in Bangladesh and that he would return there.

p. 5

02Issues

i.1. Whether the sentences imposed for the offences under Sections 468 and 471 IPC should be reduced to the period already undergone, having regard to the appellant’s period in custody.

pp. 4–5 · p. 6

ii.2. Whether appropriate action should be taken to deport the appellant to Bangladesh following completion of his sentence.

p. 6

03Law Applied

The Court considered Section 3(2)(c) read with Section 14 of the Foreigners Act, 1946, and Sections 468 and 471 IPC, under which the appellant had been convicted and sentenced.

p. 2 · p. 6

It also referred to the appellant’s statement on sentence under Section 235(2) Cr.P.C.

p. 5

For deportation, the Court referred to the Supreme Court’s observations in M/s. Maja Daruwala and another v. State of West Bengal, reported as 2025 Law Finder SC 4783, and directed the authorities to take appropriate action in light of those observations.

p. 6

Provisions in the judgment · 6 · Linked ones open on LawLens

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 Section 374 Section 207 Section 235

Indian Penal Code, 1860 Section 468 Section 471

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 Section 351

04Reasoning

The Court noted that the prosecution evidence established the appellant’s Bangladeshi nationality and entry into India without valid documents, and that the appellant had not challenged the finding of guilt.

p. 5

As he had spent more than 24 months in custody and had already served the two-year custodial sentence imposed for the Foreigners Act offence, the Court considered that the ends of justice would be met by reducing each three-year IPC custodial sentence to the period already undergone.

p. 5 · p. 6

It also took account of his statement that his family was in Bangladesh and that he would return there when directing the authorities to address deportation.

pp. 5–6