Lack Of Title Documents In Lal Dora Land Does Not Relieve Plaintiff From Proving Continuous Possession To Claim Ownership: Delhi High Court Unauthorized Video Recording Of Court Proceedings Without Prior Permission Amounts To Contempt Of Court: Bombay High Court Finality Of Litigation | State Cannot Re-Litigate Settled Decrees By Alleging Collusion After Affirmation Up To Supreme Court: Allahabad High Court SC/ST Act | Court Cannot Determine Conversion Status To Quash FIR Before Completion Of Investigation: Andhra Pradesh High Court Absence Of Manufacturing Activity And Dilapidated Condition Of Premises Constitute Valid Grounds For Closure: Bombay High Court Non-Disclosure Of Existing Insurance Policies In Proposal Form Entitles Insurer To Repudiate Claim: Calcutta High Court Will Interpretation | Bequest Of "Above Said Property" Includes Entire Estate, Not Just Descriptive Portions Mentioned Therein: Delhi High Court Limitation Act | Court Can Balance Equities By Denying Interest For Delay Period In Land Acquisition Appeals: Gujarat High Court Article 21 Constitution Of India | Personal Liberty Of Detenue Cannot Be Curtailed Without Authority Of Law Post-Acquittal: Jharkhand High Court Order 8 Rule 1A CPC | Trial Court Should Not Reject Documents Merely For Delay If Foundation Is Laid In Pleadings: Andhra Pradesh High Court Order XXII CPC Applies To SCC Suits; Rule 25 Of U.P. Urban Buildings Rules Does Not Govern Substitution Where Act Is Inapplicable: Allahabad High Court Recruitment Authorities Cannot Insist On Impossible Experience Criteria: Karnataka High Court Rules Against Rejection Of Motor Vehicle Inspector Candidates Order 38 Rule 8 CPC | Claim Petition Cannot Be Allowed Ex-Parte Without Adjudication On Merits: Kerala High Court Succession Certificate Under Section 372 Indian Succession Act Cannot Be Granted When Title Is Subject To Intricate Questions Of Fact And Law: Madras High Court SARFAESI Act | District Magistrate Cannot Adjudicate Disputes Between Borrower And Secured Creditor While Assisting Possession: Madhya Pradesh High Court Termination Based On Caste Status Without Cancellation Of Original Certificate Is Legally Unsustainable: Orissa High Court Section 13 Punjab Village Common Lands Act | Civil Court Jurisdiction Not Ousted In Private Injunction Suits Where Title Against Panchayat Is Not Sought: High Court Rights Of Persons With Disabilities Act  | Equal Opportunity Policy Of Employer Is Mandatory; Routine Transfer Policy Must Yield To Special Provisions For Caregivers: Rajasthan High Court Compensation Must Be Just, Not A Pittance: Punjab & Haryana High Court Enhances Award In Motor Accident Claim Registration Act | Sub-Registrar Has No Power To Adjudicate Title Or Refuse Registration Based On Unauthorized Layouts: Telangana High Court Section 50 NDPS Act | Failure To Individually Communicate Right To Be Searched Before Gazetted Officer Or Magistrate Vitiates Conviction: Telangana 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