Void Marriage Cannot Confer Legal Status: Madhya Pradesh High Court Upholds Injunction Against Woman Claiming Wife’s Status in Bigamy Dispute Mere Presence or Relationship Is Not Enough—Prosecution Must Prove Participation and Common Intention Under Section 34 IPC: Allahabad High Court Evidence of Injured Eye-Witnesses Must Be of Sterling Quality — Not of a Doubtful and Tainted Nature: Bombay High Court Acquits Five Life Convicts in Murder Case Refund of Provisional Pilferage Amount Is Lawful If Theft Not Proved: Calcutta High Court Upholds Acquittal in Electricity Theft Case Order 7 Rule 11 CPC | Plaint Cannot Be Rejected by Conducting Mini-Trial on Disputed Facts: Delhi High Court Section 17 PWDV Act | Senior Citizen’s Peace Trumps Daughter-in-Law’s Residence Right Where Alternative Accommodation Provided: Delhi High Court Access Must Meet Agricultural Necessities, Not Mere Pedestrian Use: Karnataka High Court Modifies Easement Width from 3 to 6 Feet Section 302 IPC | Suspicion Cannot Substitute Proof: Kerala High Court Acquits Man in Septic Tank Murder Case Domestic Violence Allegations Can’t Always Be Painted as Attempt to Murder: Meghalaya High Court Invokes Section 482 CrPC to Quash Matrimonial Assault Case Post-Settlement Landlord Is Best Judge Of His Need; Son’s Residence In Delhi No Ground To Deny Eviction For Hotel Project: Punjab & Haryana High Court Affirms Eviction Tribunal Has Exclusive Jurisdiction Over Grant-In-Aid Related Disputes: Orissa High Court Rejects Writ Appeal in Lecturer Promotion Case Educational Institutions Have No Lien Over Students' Future: Rajasthan High Court Slams Withholding of Certificates for Fee Recovery Mere Allegation of Forged Revenue Entries Not Enough to Disturb Settled Possession: Punjab & Haryana High Court Rejects Plea for Injunction Consent Is No Defence When Victim Is Under 16: Delhi High Court Upholds Rape Conviction Granting Pre-Arrest Bail in Minor Rape Cases Would Send a Harmful Societal Signal: Delhi High Court Refuses Anticipatory Bail to Accused Citing POCSO’s Rigorous Standards Void Marriage No Shield Against Cruelty Charges: Karnataka High Court Affirms Section 498A Applies Even In Deceptive and Void Marital Relationships Consolidation Authorities Cannot Confer Ownership Or Alter Scheme Post Confirmation Without Due Process: Punjab & Haryana High Court Reaffirms Civil Court’s Jurisdiction Over Void Post-Scheme Orders Litigation Policy is Not Law, Can’t Enforce Guidelines Through Courts: Rajasthan High Court Refuses to Entertain Quo Warranto Against Additional Advocate General’s Appointment Police and Lawyers Are Two Limbs of Justice System: Rajasthan High Court Takes Suo Motu Cognizance in Police Misconduct Incident Sole Testimony, Forensic Gaps, and Withheld Witness: No Conviction Possible: Delhi High Court Affirms Acquittal in Murder Trial Remand Keeps the Dispute Alive – Not Arrears: Bombay High Court Holds SVLDRS Relief Must Be Computed Under Litigation Category Use of ‘Absconding’ in Employment Context Not Defamatory Per Se, But A Privileged Communication Under Exception 7 of Section 499 IPC: Allahabad 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

Latest Legal News