Migrated In Search Of Employment, Unable To Pay Fine: Madras High Court Reduces Default Sentence Imposed On Bangladeshi National

Though Justice Nirmal Kumar upheld the sentence of 2 years and a fine of Rs 10,000, the court noted that the individuals had migrated to India in search of employment and were unable to pay the fine amount. Thus, considering the pecuniary circumstances, the court was inclined to reduce the default sentence (for non-payment of fine) from one month to one week.

“It is not in dispute that the appellant, owing to the unrest in Bangladesh and the uncertainty of their future, and being unemployed and impoverished, came in search of employment and livelihood to sustain themselves and their families. Admittedly, they are neither involved in nor convicted of any economic offence, nor have they enriched themselves so as to assume that they possess the means to pay the fine. Thus, considering the circumstances of the appellants/accused, there is no doubt that they are very poor, are seeking livelihood, have migrated in search of employment, and are in penury and unable to pay the fine amount. Considering their pecuniary circumstances and following the principles laid down in Shahejad Khan Mahebukhan Pathan (cited supra), this Court confirms the sentence of fine of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only) imposed on each of the accused and modifies the default sentence of one month Simple Imprisonment to one week. Except for the aforesaid modification in the default sentence, the sentence of two years Simple Imprisonment is confirmed,” the court said.

The court further directed the concerned authorities to make sure that the parties, along with their children are deported to Bangladesh within a period of 30 days after they have undergone the period of sentence.

“Further, in view of the directions issued by the Apex Court in the case of Maja Daruwala (cited supra), approving the Circular dated 23.11.2009 issued by the Ministry of Home Affairs, the exercise of deportation is required to be completed within a period of thirty days, and the said direction is to be followed without deviation or delay. Hence, the concerned authorities are directed to take appropriate action and ensure that the appellants, along with their children, are deported to Bangladesh within a period of thirty days after they have undergone their period of sentence and the default sentence of one week,” the court said.

The court was hearing an appeal filed by the Bangladeshi national challenging the conviction and sentence imposed by the Sessions Judge, sentencing him to 2 years simple imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs 10,000 each, and in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for 1 month each.

As per the prosecution, on May 19, 2025, the Sub Inspector of Police received a secret information that Bangladeshis were overstaying in a home. The police, who were on patrol duty, went to the house and found 25 persons staying under suspicious circumstances. The Bangladeshi National Identity cards were seized and the accused were found to have stayed in India without valid visa or travel documents.

The persons were taken to the police station was FIR was registered for offences under Sections 3 (2) (c) read with Section 14 of the Foreigners Act.

The appellants admitted the facts but pointed out that they had come to India seeking employment and for their livelihood. It was submitted that the persons were not involved in any illegal activities and had not come to the adverse notice of the police during their stay in India. it was also submitted that the parties were not conversant with the local language but the entire trial proceedings were carried out in Tamil, which denied them effective opportunity to understand the allegations and defend their case. It was also argued that though prosecution claims to have appointed a translator, his competency was not proved.

The government advocate, on the other hand, submitted that though the parties claim to have entered India for livelihood, that will not absolve them from statutory requirement of possessing valid travel documents and thus, the trial court had rightly convicted them.

After considering the materials, the court was convinced that the parties had approached India without valid travel documents and was not inclined to set aside the order of conviction. However, considering their financial circumstance, the court reduced the period of default sentence and ordered accordingly.

Counsel for Appellant: M/S. R. Bakiyalakshmi

Counsel for Respondent: M/S. Sharada Vivek Government Advocate (Criminal side) Assisted By Mr. M. Arul Raj