Recently, the Allahabad High Court declined to interfere with a trial court’s observation relating to the possible deportation of a woman convicted under the Foreigners Act, 1946, holding that the trial court had not issued any mandatory or binding direction for deportation and had merely left the matter to be dealt with by the competent authorities in accordance with law.
The case arose from a criminal revision challenging a judgment dated May, 2024, passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Maharajganj. By the impugned judgment, the trial court had convicted her under Section 14-A of the Foreigners Act, 1946, sentencing her to two years’ imprisonment along with a fine of Rs. 10,000. In default of payment of fine, she was to undergo an additional two months’ imprisonment. She was, however, acquitted of the charges under Sections 420, 467, 468 and 471 of the IPC. The trial court also observed that after completion of the sentence, action regarding her deportation to Myanmar could be taken in accordance with applicable rules.
The revisionist argued that the trial court had no jurisdiction to issue any direction concerning deportation, particularly when she claimed to possess valid identity documents establishing her as an Indian citizen.
The State opposed the plea, submitting that no mandatory deportation order had been passed. It was contended that the trial court merely left the matter to the discretion of the authorities to act in accordance with law, and therefore no interference was warranted.
After examining the impugned judgment, the High Court held that the trial court had not compelled or mandated deportation. It clarified that the observation only indicated that authorities may take action in accordance with the law after completion of the sentence, and did not amount to an enforceable or binding direction.
Finding no illegality in the trial court’s observation, the Allahabad High Court dismissed the criminal revision.
Case Title: Rashida BegumV. State of U.P.
Case No.: Criminal Revision No.3479 of 2024
Coram: Hon’ble Mr Justice Anil Kumar-X
Counsel for the Revisionist: Adv. Mohammad Danish
Counsel for the Respondent: Adv. G.A., R.P.S. Chauhan
Read Judgement @LatestLaws.com
Picture Source :
