Telangana High Court

Lamba Saleem vs The State Of Telangana on 25 February, 2025

      IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA
                       HYDERABAD
                          ****
          HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE E.V.VENUGOPAL

            Criminal Revision Case No.1029 of 2024

Between:

Lamba Saleem
                                                     ...Petitioner
                                v.
The State of Telangana,
rep. by its Public Prosecutor
High Court, Hyderabad
                                                 ...Respondent


             ORDER PRONOUNCED ON: 25.02.2025

           THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE E.V.VENUGOPAL


1.   Whether Reporters of Local newspapers
     may be allowed to see the Judgments?      : Yes
2.   Whether the copies of judgment may be
     Marked to Law Reporters/Journals?                 : Yes
3.   Whether His Lordship wishes to
     see the fair copy of the Judgment?                : Yes



                                      ____________________
                                           E.V.VENUGOPAL, J
                                 2



          * THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE E.V.VENUGOPAL

         + Criminal Revision Case Nos.916 & 917 of 2024


% 25.02.2025

# Between:

Lamba Saleem
                                                      ...Petitioner
                                v.
The State of Telangana,
rep. by its Public Prosecutor
High Court, Hyderabad
                                                     ...Respondent

!    Counsel for Petitioners          : Sri K.Saibabu


^    Counsel for the respondent: Public Prosecutor



<GIST:


> HEAD NOTE:



? Cases referred
                                    3

            THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE E.V.VENUGOPAL

            CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1029 OF 2024

ORDER:

1 This criminal revision case is filed under Sections 438 and

442 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023,

aggrieved by the judgment dated 26.9.2024 passed in

Crl.A.No.152 of 2024 by the learned Principal Sessions Judge,

Ranga Reddy District, wherein and whereby the conviction and

sentences imposed upon the revision petitioner / A.4, to suffer

rigorous imprisonment for five years and shall also pay fine of

Rs.10,000/-, for the offence punishable under Section 14-A of

Foreigners Act and to suffer rigorous imprisonment for five years

and shall also pay fine of Rs.10,000/, for the offence punishable

under Section 5 r/w Section 14-A of Foreigners Act, 1946, in

S.C.No.450 of 2022 by the learned IV Additional Assistant Sessions

Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar, dated 14.9.2024, was

modified and was found guilty of the offence under Section 14-A

of Foreigners Act only.

2 Heard Sri J.Ashvini Kumar, learned counsel for the revision

petitioner and Mr.E.Ganesh, the learned Assistant Public

Prosecutor representing the respondent-State, and perused the

record.

3 The factual matrix that led to the filing of the present

revision is that the ASI of police, Balapur police station filed a

complaint stating that while on perambulation he and his

colleagues found accused Nos.1 to 4 and minors moving in

suspicious circumstances and when they were detained and

questioned, they stated that they had entered into India without

proper documents from Myanmar through Bangladesh. Therefore,

he brought them to police station and on his report Ex.P.2-FIR

was registered. P.W.3 took up further investigation and filed

charge sheet against the petitioner herein and other accused

stating that they had entered into India without any proper

documents and permission and further by trafficking the minors.

4 The accused were charged under Sections 370 (b) IPC, 14-A

and Section 5 r/w Section 14-A of the Foreigners Act.

5 In order to bring home the guilt of the accused, the

prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 3 and marked Exs.P.1 and P.2.

On behalf of the accused D.Ws.1 and 2 were examined and

Exs.D.1 to D.4 were marked.

6 By judgment dated 14.9.2024, while acquitting all the

accused for the offence under Section 370 (b) IPC, the learned

trial Court found the accused Nos.1 to 4 guilty of the offence

under section 14-A of Foreigners Act, 1946 and found the

petitioner/A.4 herein guilty of the offence under Section 5 r/w

Section 14-A of the Foreigners Act, 1946 also and sentenced as

stated supra.

7 Aggrieved, the petitioner - A.4 preferred Criminal Appeal

No.152 of 2024 before the learned Principal Sessions Judge,

Ranga Reddy District. The learned appellate court, by judgment

dated 26.9.2024 allowed the said criminal appeal partly setting

aside the conviction and sentence imposed on the petitioner /A.4

by the learned trial Court in S.C.No.450 of 2022 for the offence

under Section 5 r/w Section 14-A of the Foreigners Act, 1946. As

stated supra, aggrieved by the judgment of the appellate court,

dated 26.9.2024, the petitioner preferred the present criminal

revision case.

8 The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that

P.W.3 categorically stated that there is no scene of offence in

this case and he has not collected any details personally with

regard to the accused illegally entering into India by crossing the

West Bengal boarder, boarding train at Howrah railway station

and coming to Balapur with the help of A.4 (the petitioner

herein). It is his submission that in spite of the said categorical

statement the trial court as well as the appellate court convicted

the petitioner for the offence under Section 14 of the Foreigners

Act, 1946. It is his further submission that though the burden of

proof lies on the prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused

beyond reasonable doubt, the courts below have fixed the

liability on the petitioner to establish his innocence, therefore,

the sentence is unjustified in the given facts and circumstances

of the case. The findings arrived at by the Courts below are not

based on any evidence much less legally admissible evidence.

The conviction and sentence are based solely on the alleged

admission of D.Ws.1 and 2 that they have entered into India

without any valid documents or permission, but the courts below

failed to consider the validity of the identity cards issued by the

competent authority which is valid and it shall not be construed

that the petitioner has entered illegally. Both the courts below

have not appreciated the validity of the identity card which are

valid for the years 2022 and 2023 and the validity is up to

31.01.2025. As such the petitioner is entitled to acquittal.

9 Refuting the submissions made by the learned counsel for

the petitioner, the learned Public Prosecutor, by placing reliance

on the counter, submitted that the petitioner herein / A.4 who is

Myanmar National came to India without obtaining any permit

from the authority notified by the Central Government and also

without any valid documents and remained in India and also

helped the other accused i.e. A.1 to A.3 for migrating to India

illegally, which act of the petitioner poses serious security

ramifications for the country and threat to internal and national

security. It is further submitted that previously the petitioner

involved in illegal human trafficking from Bangladesh and

Myanmar citizens into India and that he used to bring Myanmar

Rohingya Muslims illegally to Royal Colony, Balaur for which he

received commission from them. Hence, the petitioner does not

deserve any favourable consideration in this revision and the

same is liable to be dismissed.

10 During the course of arguments, the learned counsel for the

petitioner submitted a copy of the judgment passed by the

learned II Additional Assistant Judge, Ranga Reddy at L.B.Nagar

in S.C.No.651 of 2022 wherein the petitioner herein was arrayed

as A.1 and he was acquitted of the very same offence i.e. Section

14A of the Foreigners Act, 1946.

11 In the instant case, A.1 and the petitioner herein (A.4)

were examined as D.W.1 and D.W.2 before the learned trial

Court and exhibited the identity cards issued by the United

Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR), which is an

agency that leads international action to protect refugees,

resolve refugee problems and safeguard their rights and well-

being and it helps the people who lost their homes after the

second World War.

12 Section 14A of the Foreigners Act, 1946 reads as under:

14A. Penalty for entry in restricted areas, etc. --

Whoever. -- (a) enters into any area in India, which is restricted for his entry under any order made under this Act, or any direction given in pursuance thereof, without obtaining a permit from the authority, notified by the Central Government in the Official Gazette, for this purpose or remains in such area beyond the period specified in such permit for his stay; or

(b) enters into or stays in any area in India without the valid documents required for such entry or for such stay, as the case may be, under the provisions of any order made under this Act or any direction given in pursuance thereof, shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than two years, but may extend to eight years and shall also be liable to fine which shall not be less than ten thousand rupees; and if he has entered into a bond in pursuance of clause (f) of sub-section (2) of section 3, his bond shall be forfeited, and any person bound thereby shall pay the penalty thereof, or show cause to the satisfaction of the convicting court why such penalty should not be paid by him.

13 In the instant case, the petitioner himself admitted as

D.W.2 that he belong to Myanmar country and entered into India

via Bangladesh in the year 2012 without any passport or Visa. Of

course the petitioner along with another was given an I.D card,

but they were not renewed for every two years.

14 Therefore, he has clearly contravened the above section of

law. Hence I see no reason to interfere with the well-reasoned

judgment of the courts below. Hence the criminal revision case is

liable and is accordingly dismissed.

15 Miscellaneous petitions if any pending shall also stand

dismissed.

__________________ E.V.VENUGOPAL, J Date: 25-02-2025 kvsn