Introduction:

The Madras High Court has upheld the conviction of Bangladeshi nationals for entering and remaining in India without valid passports, visas or other travel documents, while taking into account their severe financial circumstances to reduce the imprisonment prescribed in default of payment of fine. Justice Nirmal Kumar confirmed the substantive sentence of two years’ simple imprisonment and the fine of ₹10,000 imposed on each accused, but reduced the default sentence for non-payment of the fine from one month to one week.

The judgment, reported as [2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 487], arose from an appeal filed by Bangladeshi nationals challenging their conviction and sentence imposed by the Sessions Court for offences under Section 3(2)(c) read with Section 14 of the Foreigners Act. The appellants were represented by M/s R. Bakiyalakshmi, while the State was represented by M/s Sharada Vivek, Government Advocate (Criminal Side), assisted by Mr. M. Arul Raj.

The prosecution case arose from an incident on May 19, 2025, when a Sub-Inspector of Police allegedly received secret information that several Bangladeshi nationals were staying in a house. Police personnel who were on patrol proceeded to the location and found approximately 25 persons staying there under circumstances considered suspicious by the authorities. During the investigation, Bangladeshi National Identity Cards were seized from the persons found at the premises.

According to the prosecution, the investigation revealed that the accused had entered India and were residing without valid visas or travel documents. They were consequently taken to the police station and an FIR was registered alleging violations of the Foreigners Act, particularly Section 3(2)(c) read with Section 14.

The accused did not substantially dispute the factual circumstance that they had entered India without the requisite travel documents. Their explanation, however, was that they had come to India in search of employment and livelihood. They contended that they were unemployed and impoverished and had migrated because of the prevailing unrest and uncertainty in Bangladesh.

The appellants also sought to challenge the fairness of the criminal proceedings on linguistic grounds. It was submitted that they were not conversant with the local language, whereas the trial proceedings had been conducted in Tamil. According to the appellants, this created a serious difficulty in understanding the allegations and effectively defending themselves.

The appellants further contended that although the prosecution claimed that a translator had been provided, the competency of the translator had not been properly established. They therefore sought interference with the conviction on the ground that the proceedings had not afforded them an effective opportunity to understand and defend the case.

The State opposed the appeal. The Government Advocate submitted that the appellants’ claim that they had entered India for employment or livelihood could not absolve them from compliance with the statutory requirement of possessing valid travel documents. Whatever their personal or economic circumstances, the State contended, a foreign national entering India was required to comply with the legal requirements governing entry and stay in the country.

After considering the material placed before it, the High Court was not persuaded to interfere with the finding of guilt. The Court concluded that the prosecution had established that the appellants had entered India without valid travel documents and that the conviction under the Foreigners Act could not be set aside merely because they had entered the country in search of employment.

At the same time, the Court took a different approach to the default sentence attached to the fine. The Bench considered the appellants’ economic circumstances and noted that they were poor, unemployed and had migrated in search of livelihood. There was no material to indicate that they had committed an economic offence or accumulated wealth in India from which the fine could readily be paid.

The Court therefore invoked the principles governing sentencing in cases involving persons unable to pay a fine and reduced the default imprisonment from one month to one week.

The Court further directed the concerned authorities to ensure that the appellants, along with their children, were deported to Bangladesh within 30 days after completion of the substantive sentence and the reduced default sentence, in accordance with the directions of the Supreme Court and the Ministry of Home Affairs’ Circular dated November 23, 2009.

The judgment thus draws a distinction between the legality of entering India without valid documents and the financial capacity of an accused to satisfy a monetary sentence. While the former resulted in confirmation of the conviction, the latter persuaded the Court to modify the consequences of non-payment of the fine.

Arguments of the Parties:

The appellants challenged the conviction and sentence imposed by the Sessions Court, which had sentenced each of them to two years’ simple imprisonment and a fine of ₹10,000, with a further sentence of one month’s simple imprisonment in default of payment of the fine.

The principal factual explanation advanced on behalf of the appellants was that they had not entered India with the intention of engaging in criminal activity. They submitted that their circumstances were driven by the need to find employment and sustain themselves and their families.

The appellants relied upon the difficult conditions prevailing in Bangladesh and their own impoverished circumstances. Their case was that they were unemployed and had travelled to India in the hope of obtaining work and securing a means of livelihood. They therefore sought the Court’s consideration of their background while examining both their conviction and sentence.

It was also submitted that the accused had not been involved in any other illegal activity during their stay in India. According to the appellants, they had not come to the adverse notice of the police and there was no allegation that they had enriched themselves through any economic or criminal activity.

The appellants sought to distinguish their conduct from cases involving foreign nationals who enter a country for criminal or other unlawful purposes. Their submission was essentially that their presence in India was motivated by economic necessity rather than an intention to commit an offence beyond the violation of immigration requirements.

A separate and important challenge concerned the language used during the criminal proceedings. The appellants submitted that they were Bangladeshi nationals who were not conversant with the local language in which the trial was conducted. According to them, the proceedings before the trial court were conducted in Tamil, making it difficult for them to understand the allegations, evidence and legal consequences of the proceedings.

The appellants argued that a criminal trial must provide an accused with a meaningful opportunity to understand the case against them and to defend themselves. Merely formally appointing a translator, they contended, would not be sufficient unless the prosecution established that the translator was competent to communicate effectively with the accused.

It was therefore submitted that the prosecution’s assertion that a translator had been appointed could not, by itself, establish that the appellants had been afforded an effective opportunity to participate in the proceedings. The competency of the translator, according to the appellants, had not been properly demonstrated.

The appellants consequently sought interference with the conviction on the ground that the language barrier had affected the fairness of the trial.

They also sought relief with regard to the sentence. In particular, they argued that the fine of ₹10,000 imposed on each accused and the one-month default imprisonment had to be considered in the context of their extreme poverty.

The State, represented by the Government Advocate (Criminal Side), opposed the challenge to the conviction. The prosecution maintained that the statutory requirement applicable to foreign nationals entering India could not be disregarded merely because an individual claimed to have entered the country for employment.

The State’s position was that the Foreigners Act imposes specific legal requirements concerning the entry and stay of foreign nationals. Possession of valid travel documents is a statutory requirement, and failure to satisfy that requirement attracts the consequences prescribed by law.

The Government Advocate therefore submitted that the appellants’ stated motive of seeking livelihood could not provide a legal justification for entering India without valid travel documents. Economic hardship might be relevant to sentencing, but it could not erase the underlying statutory violation.

The State consequently defended the conviction recorded by the Sessions Court and submitted that the appellants had been rightly found guilty of violating the provisions of the Foreigners Act.

The prosecution also relied upon the evidence gathered during the investigation. The police had received information regarding the presence of Bangladeshi nationals at the premises, and approximately 25 persons were found there. Bangladeshi identity cards were seized, and the investigation established, according to the prosecution, that the accused did not possess valid visas or other travel documents permitting their stay in India.

The State therefore maintained that the essential ingredients of the offence had been established and that there was no legal basis to interfere with the finding of guilt.

In relation to the sentence, the State’s case was that the statutory violation could not be overlooked merely because the appellants claimed financial hardship. The fact that they had entered India without the required documentation remained established and warranted the substantive sentence imposed by the trial court.

The High Court was thus presented with two competing considerations. On one hand was the State’s obligation to enforce the statutory requirements governing the entry and stay of foreign nationals. On the other was the need to ensure that sentencing remained proportionate and took into account the actual financial capacity and circumstances of the persons before the Court.

The Court ultimately accepted the State’s position on the conviction while giving considerable weight to the appellants’ economic circumstances while considering the default sentence.

Court’s Judgment:

Justice Nirmal Kumar, after examining the material placed before the Court, declined to interfere with the conviction of the appellants under the Foreigners Act. The Court found that the prosecution had established that the accused had entered India without the requisite valid travel documents.

The Court’s approach makes clear that the motive behind an unlawful entry and the legality of that entry are two separate questions. The appellants’ assertion that they had come to India to search for employment and support their families was considered by the Court, but it could not operate as a statutory exemption from the requirement of possessing valid travel documents.

The Foreigners Act regulates the presence of foreign nationals within India and requires compliance with the conditions prescribed under law. A person entering India cannot rely solely upon economic necessity to disregard those requirements.

The Court was therefore not persuaded that the appellants’ personal circumstances were sufficient to overturn the finding of guilt. The conviction was consequently maintained.

The Court also considered the argument relating to the language of the trial. The appellants had contended that they were not conversant with Tamil and that the trial proceedings had been conducted in that language. They further submitted that the prosecution had relied upon the appointment of a translator without adequately establishing the translator’s competency.

However, after considering the materials, the Court was not inclined to set aside the conviction on this ground. The available material did not persuade the Court that the alleged language difficulty was sufficient to invalidate the criminal proceedings or otherwise warrant interference with the finding of guilt.

The Court consequently proceeded to examine the sentence imposed upon the appellants, particularly the fine and the imprisonment prescribed in default of payment.

The Sessions Court had imposed two years’ simple imprisonment and a fine of ₹10,000 on each accused, with one month’s simple imprisonment in default of payment of the fine. The High Court maintained the substantive sentence of two years’ simple imprisonment.

However, the Court treated the question of default imprisonment differently.

Justice Nirmal Kumar noted that the appellants were poor and had come to India in search of employment and livelihood. Their circumstances, as placed before the Court, indicated that they were unemployed and impoverished.

The Court specifically noted that the appellants were not involved in any economic offence and there was no material suggesting that they had enriched themselves in a manner that would justify an assumption that they possessed sufficient means to pay the fine.

This aspect became important because imprisonment in default of payment of a fine can have particularly severe consequences for persons who genuinely lack the financial capacity to satisfy the monetary component of a sentence.

The Court therefore considered the appellants’ pecuniary circumstances while determining whether the default sentence imposed by the Sessions Court should remain unchanged.

The High Court confirmed the fine of ₹10,000 imposed on each accused. It did not consider it appropriate to eliminate the fine altogether. However, it found that the one-month default sentence required modification in light of the appellants’ financial condition.

Relying upon the principles laid down in Shahejad Khan Mahebukhan Pathan, the Court reduced the default sentence from one month of simple imprisonment to one week.

The Court’s reasoning was not an acceptance of the appellants’ unlawful entry. Rather, it represented a sentencing consideration based upon their inability to pay the fine and their overall economic circumstances.

The distinction is important. The Court confirmed the substantive two-year imprisonment because the violation of the Foreigners Act had been established. At the same time, it recognised that the consequences of inability to pay a monetary fine should be considered with regard to the actual financial position of the accused.

The Court observed that the appellants had migrated because of the unrest and uncertainty in Bangladesh and had come in search of employment and livelihood. Their circumstances demonstrated that they were in penury and lacked the means to pay the fine.

The Bench stated that the appellants were “very poor, are seeking livelihood, have migrated in search of employment, and are in penury and unable to pay the fine amount.”

In these circumstances, the Court considered it appropriate to confirm the fine itself while substantially reducing the default imprisonment.

The judgment therefore does not establish that poverty excuses violation of immigration law. Instead, it illustrates the principle that sentencing consequences must be calibrated to the circumstances of the person being sentenced.

The Court then addressed the question of deportation.

Since the appellants were foreign nationals who had been convicted of violating the statutory requirements governing their entry and stay in India, the Court directed the competent authorities to undertake the necessary steps for their deportation after completion of the sentence.

The direction extended not only to the appellants but also to their children.

The High Court relied upon directions issued by the Supreme Court in Maja Daruwala, which had approved the Circular dated November 23, 2009 issued by the Ministry of Home Affairs concerning deportation.

The Court noted that the deportation exercise was required to be completed within 30 days and that the direction was to be followed without deviation or delay.

Accordingly, the concerned authorities were directed to ensure that the appellants, along with their children, were deported to Bangladesh within 30 days after they had completed their substantive sentence and the reduced one-week default sentence, if applicable.

This direction gave the judgment a further practical dimension. The Court did not merely uphold the conviction and leave the authorities without a clear framework for dealing with the foreign nationals after completion of their sentence. Instead, it directed the authorities to ensure timely deportation in accordance with the applicable administrative and judicial framework.

The deportation direction also reflects the distinction between punishment for the offence and the subsequent immigration consequence. The two-year imprisonment constituted the criminal sentence confirmed by the Court, while deportation was directed to be carried out thereafter by the competent authorities.

The High Court’s final disposition was therefore carefully balanced. It did not interfere with the conviction because the evidence established that the appellants had entered India without valid travel documents. Nor did it reduce the substantive two-year imprisonment.

At the same time, the Court recognised that the financial circumstances of the appellants were relevant to the default sentence attached to the fine. It therefore retained the ₹10,000 fine but reduced the default imprisonment from one month to one week.

The decision demonstrates that courts may distinguish between the finding of guilt and the manner in which a sentence operates in the particular circumstances of an accused. While statutory compliance concerning foreign nationals remains mandatory, sentencing discretion can take into account poverty, livelihood concerns and the inability of an accused to satisfy a fine.

The Court’s reliance on Shahejad Khan Mahebukhan Pathan is particularly significant in this context. The precedent provided the basis for considering the financial capacity of the accused while determining the consequences of non-payment of the fine.

The Court also considered the humanitarian circumstances surrounding the appellants without treating those circumstances as a defence to the offence itself. Their claim that they had migrated to India in search of work could not legalise their entry without valid documents, but their economic hardship could legitimately be considered while determining the appropriate default sentence.

The judgment therefore strikes a distinction between compassion in sentencing and immunity from statutory requirements. The former was warranted on the facts; the latter was not.

The Court ultimately confirmed the sentence of two years’ simple imprisonment and the fine of ₹10,000 imposed on each accused. It modified only the default sentence, reducing it from one month of simple imprisonment to one week.

The authorities were further directed to complete the deportation of the appellants and their children to Bangladesh within 30 days after completion of the sentence and the applicable default sentence.

The ruling is significant in the context of cases involving foreign nationals who enter India without valid documentation. It reinforces that economic hardship or a desire to find employment cannot override the statutory requirement to possess valid travel documents. At the same time, it confirms that courts can and should considerthe individual financial circumstances of accused persons while determini