Vague Allegations Unsupported by Evidence Cannot Sustain Criminal Prosecution: Supreme Court Quashes FIR Under Sections 354 and 506 IPC Acquittal in Primary Offence Nullifies Proclaimed Offender Status and Section 174A IPC Proceedings: Supreme Court Merits of the Case Should Not Be Prejudged at Bail Stage: Supreme Court Quashes High Court’s Bail Order in MCOCA Case Quashing | Cognizance Without Compliance to Section 195 CrPC Vitiates Entire Proceedings: Supreme Court Quashes Criminal Proceedings Suspicious Circumstances Must Be Resolved Even After Valid Execution of Will: Supreme Court Procedural Rules Cannot Obstruct Access to Justice: Litigants Should Not Suffer for Counsel's Negligence: Supreme Court Restores Suit Dismissed Ex-Parte Writ Jurisdiction Cannot Be Used to Reappreciate Evidence or Reverse Well-Founded Factual Findings: Supreme Court IBC | Corporate Guarantee Under Hypothecation Deeds Qualifies as Financial Debt: Supreme Court Beneficial Legislation Must Be Interpreted Purposively to Protect the Rights of Senior Citizens: Supreme Court Quashes Gift Deed Executed by Senior Citizen Attempt Must Go Beyond Preparation: Rajasthan High Court Alters Conviction in 33-Year-Old Case Punjab & Haryana High Court Directs Aided Institution to Pay Leave Encashment to Retired Employees Kerala High Court Allows Review Petitions in Custody Dispute, Recalls Earlier Judgment Granting Interim Custody to Father Copyright in Sound Recordings Must Be Protected: Delhi High Court in Interim Injunction Grounds of Arrest Must Be Served in Writing, But Remand Report Can Satisfy Constitutional Mandate: Andhra Pradesh High Court

Mere Passivity and Insouciance Will Not Tantamount to Offence of Abetment – Calcutta High Court Acquits Man in Foreigners Act Case

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a significant judgment, the Calcutta High Court today acquitted Akhirujjamal @ Akhirujjaman @ Afrul Doctor of charges under Section 14C of the Foreigners Act, emphasizing that mere passivity does not amount to abetment.

The core legal issue in this appeal was whether mere passivity could be considered as abetment under Section 14C of the Foreigners Act. The High Court’s decision hinged on the interpretation of ‘abetment’ as active encouragement, instigation, or aiding in the commission of an offense, which was found lacking in Akhirujjamal’s actions.

The case stemmed from an FIR lodged on October 17, 2014, involving the detention of two Bangladeshi nationals who were residing in a house reportedly rented from the appellant, Akhirujjamal. The trial court had convicted him on January 25 and 27, 2017, for harboring foreigners without valid documents. Akhirujjamal appealed against this conviction, questioning the evidential basis for his alleged abetment.

The court noted that there was insufficient evidence to prove that Akhirujjamal had any knowledge of the foreigners’ status or that he had actively engaged in harboring them.

Reference was made to the Supreme Court’s decision in Abinash Dixit Vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh, which clarified the necessity of active engagement for abetment under the Foreigners Act.

The judgment reasserted the legal definition of abetment, which requires more than passive behavior or mere lack of action. It emphasized that abetment involves a certain degree of active participation or encouragement.

The court highlighted the prosecution’s failure to establish a direct link between Akhirujjamal and the alleged abetment. There was no evidence presented that convincingly showed that Akhirujjamal had rented the house to the detained individuals knowing they were foreigners without valid documents.

Decision: The High Court set aside the conviction and sentence passed by the Sessions Judge, Cooch-Behar, thereby acquitting Akhirujjamal of the charges under Section 14C of the Foreigners Act. He was released from his bail bonds, and all connected applications were disposed of.

Date of Decision: May 3, 2024

Akhirujjamal @ Akhirujjaman @ Afrul Doctor versus The State of West Bengal

Similar News