Calcutta High Court
Criminal LawCriminal Procedure and Evidence

Sentence reduced to time served, permitting the convicted foreign national’s repatriation.

TANUSHREE SARKAR @ PUTUL vs STATE OF WEST BENGAL

Calcutta High CourtJUDGMENT: October 13, 20262 MIN READSOURCE JUDGMENT
Sentence reduced to time served, permitting the convicted foreign national’s repatriation.. TANUSHREE SARKAR @ PUTUL vs STATE OF WEST BENGAL. Calcutta High Court. LawLens
THE ORIGINAL LAWLENS SUMMARY
01

Facts

The appellant was convicted under Section 14A(b) of the Foreigners Act, 1946, after pleading guilty, and sentenced to three years’ imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 6,000

Source reference: para. 1

In appeal, she raised a plea of juvenility, relying on a Bangladeshi passport recording her date of birth as 30 December 2007, and sought repatriation to Bangladesh

Source reference: paras. 2–3

The State opposed reopening the merits in light of the guilty plea but stated it would not object to repatriation and left the sentence to the Court’s consideration

Source reference: para. 3

By the time of the appeal, the appellant had served approximately one and a half years in custody

Source reference: para. 6
02

Issues

1. Whether the appellant could pursue issues other than sentence in appeal after pleading guilty.

Source reference: paras. 3–5

2. Whether the sentence of imprisonment should be reduced to the period already undergone, having regard to the appellant’s time in custody and request for repatriation.

Source reference: paras. 3–7
03

Law Applied

Section 14A(b) of the Foreigners Act, 1946, was the provision under which the appellant was convicted.

Source reference: para. 1

The Court treated the appellant’s guilty plea as a basis for declining to entertain other appellate questions and confined its consideration to sentence.

Source reference: paras. 3–5

No precedent or further legal test was cited in the judgment.

Source reference: no citation
04

Reasoning

The Court noted that the appellant had pleaded guilty and had not raised juvenility at trial; it therefore considered that questions beyond sentence could hardly be entertained.

Source reference: paras. 4–5

It then took account of the fact that she had already served about half of her three-year sentence, her wish to return to Bangladesh, and the State’s lack of objection to repatriation.

Source reference: paras. 3, 6–7

The Court concluded that continued detention would serve no purpose and reduced the custodial sentence accordingly.

Source reference: paras. 3, 6–7
05

Holding

The Court affirmed the conviction but reduced the sentence of imprisonment to the period already undergone.

It directed the appellant’s immediate release and repatriation to Bangladesh in accordance with law, and directed that her Bangladeshi passport be handed to her through the Superintendent of the Correctional Home at release.

Source reference: para. 7

Any articles seized at arrest were to be returned in accordance with law.

Source reference: para. 7

The appeal was disposed of.

Source reference: para. 8
06

Acts & Sections Cited

1 provisions across 1 statute referred to in this judgment. Linked provisions open on LawLens.

Foreigners Act, 19461

Section 14A
Calcutta High Court

Original Court PDF

TANUSHREE SARKAR @ PUTULvsSTATE OF WEST BENGAL

Calcutta High Court · October 13, 2026

Click to open original judgment

Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in

Click to open original judgment