Sentence for illegal foreign entrants may be reduced to custody undergone where deportation is directed with State consent.

The appellants, stated to be Bangladeshi nationals, were apprehended by a BSF patrolling party on 27 February 2025 near Srirampur Manu Bridge, Tripura, along with other persons.

They allegedly admitted that they had crossed into India from Bangladesh without valid passports or identity documents.

An FIR was registered on 28 February 2025, and after investigation a charge-sheet was filed.

The Sessions Court framed charges under Section 3 of the Passport (Entry into India) Act, 1920, read with Rule 6 of the Passport (Entry into India) Rules, 1950, and Section 14A(b) of the Foreigners Act, 1946.

The appellants pleaded guilty and declined trial.

By judgment dated 1 November 2025, they were fined Rs. 5,000 each under the Passport Act provisions and sentenced to two years’ rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 10,000 each under Section 14A(b) of the Foreigners Act.

In appeal, they sought reduction of sentence to the period already undergone or repatriation to Bangladesh.

The State informed the Court that it had no objection to their being pushed back to Bangladesh instead of being detained for the remainder of their sentences.

Whether the sentence imposed on the appellants for illegal entry into India without valid passports or documents ought to be reduced or modified in view of their guilty plea, period of custody already undergone, and absence of criminal antecedents?

Whether the appellants could be directed to be pushed back or repatriated to Bangladesh, with the remaining custodial sentence waived, when the State Government had no objection to such course?

The Court applied Section 3 of the Passport (Entry into India) Act, 1920, read with Rule 6 of the Passport (Entry into India) Rules, 1950, which penalise entry into India without the required passport or travel document, and Section 14A(b) of the Foreigners Act, 1946, concerning entry or stay in India in contravention of applicable passport requirements.

The Court also applied its appellate sentencing jurisdiction to consider mitigating circumstances, including a guilty plea, custody already undergone, absence of antecedents, and the executive authorities’ position regarding deportation or repatriation.

The appellants’ guilt was not reconsidered because both had pleaded guilty to the charges and declined trial.

In determining the appropriate sentence, the Court considered that the appellants had already remained in custody from the date of arrest, had no criminal antecedents, and had not disputed their identity or the fact of illegal entry.

The Court further relied on the State Government’s written communication expressly stating that it had no objection to their being pushed back to Bangladesh instead of being kept in custody for the full sentence.

Treating the offence as a primary offence and adopting a lenient approach, the Court modified the sentence to the period already undergone and waived the remaining sentence, subject to the appellants’ repatriation in accordance with law.

The remaining sentence was waived, and the State was directed to take all necessary steps to push the appellants back to Bangladesh in accordance with the prescribed procedure.

Until their actual repatriation, they were to remain in jail custody, but were not to be treated as convicts.