Detailed Description Of Concealment Not Mandatory Under Section 27 Evidence Act: Bombay High Court Upholds Murder Conviction Child Is Not A Pawn To Prove Mother's Adultery: Andhra Pradesh High Court Dismisses Husband's DNA Test Petition In Desertion Divorce Case Shareholder Ratification Cannot Cure Fraud Under SEBI's PFUTP Regulations: Supreme Court Restores Rs. 70 Lakh Penalty on Company When High Court Judges Themselves Disagree on the Answer, Can a Law Graduate Be Penalised for Getting It Wrong? Supreme Court Says No Superficial Burns Don't Mean Silence: Supreme Court Explains Why 80-90% Burn Victim Could Still Make a Valid Dying Declaration Daughter's Eyewitness Account, Dying Declaration Seal Husband's Fate: Supreme Court Upholds Life Sentence for Wife-Burning Murder Supreme Court Rejects Rs. 106 Crore Compensation Claim; Directs SECL to Supply Coal to Prakash Industries at 2014 or 2019 Prices for Wrongfully Suspended Period Section 319 CrPC | Trial Court Cannot Conduct Mini Trial While Deciding Application to Summon Additional Accused: Supreme Court Accused Can't Be Left Without Documents To Defend: Calcutta High Court Directs Adjudicating Authority To First Decide Whether Complete 'Relied Upon Documents' Were Served In PMLA Proceedings Husband Who Took Voluntary Retirement at 47 Cannot Escape Maintenance Duty: Delhi High Court Upholds ₹10,000/Month to Wife and Daughter Cannot Claim Monopoly Over a Deity's Name: Gujarat High Court Dismisses Trademark Injunction Against 'Kshetrapal Construction' Eviction Appeal Cannot Require Actual Surrender Of Possession, Symbolic Possession Sufficient: J&K High Court Amendment Introducing Time-Barred Relief And Changing Nature Of Suit Cannot Be Allowed: Karnataka High Court Counter Claim Is An Independent Suit: MP High Court Rules Properties Beyond Territorial Jurisdiction Cannot Be Dragged Into Counter Claim Co-Sharer Cannot Be Bound By Passage Carved Out Without His Consent: Punjab & Haryana High Court Modifies Concurrent Decrees ‘Prima Facie True’ Is Enough to Deny Liberty: Punjab & Haryana High Court Refuses Bail in Babbar Khalsa Terror Conspiracy Case High Court Cannot Quash FIR for Forgery When Handwriting Expert's Report Is Still Awaited: Supreme Court Supreme Court Calls for Paternity Leave Law, Says Father's Absence in Child's Early Years Leaves a "Quiet Cost" That Lasts a Lifetime Three-Month Age Cap for Adoptive Mothers' Maternity Benefit Struck Down: Supreme Court Reads Down Section 60(4) of Social Security Code Bank Cannot Rely on Charter Party Agreement to Justify Remittance Contrary to Customer's Instructions: Supreme Court 19 Candidates Linked to Accused, Papers of Five Subjects Leaked: Allahabad High Court Upholds Cancellation of UP Assistant Professor Exam Result

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

Latest Legal News