Limitation For Executing Partition Decree Not Suspended Till Engrossment; Right To Seek Engrossment Subsists During 12-Year Execution Period: Allahabad HC Unilateral Revocation Of Registered Gift Deed Through Sub-Registrar Is Void, Donor Must Approach Civil Court: Andhra Pradesh High Court Mediation Cannot Be Forced Upon Unwilling Party In Civil Suits; Consent Of Both Sides Essential: Bombay High Court Unmarried Daughter Not Entitled To Freedom Fighter Pension If Gainfully Employed At Time Of Father's Death: Calcutta High Court Section 125 CrPC | Maintenance Cannot Be Denied For Lack Of Formal Divorce From First Marriage: Delhi High Court ONGC Cannot Demand Security From Award Holder After Giving ‘No Objection’ To Withdrawal Of Deposited Amount: Andhra Pradesh High Court Sedative Drugs Like Tramadol Impact Mental Fitness Of Declarant; Bombay High Court Acquits Man Relying On Doubtful Dying Declarations Postal Tracking Report Showing 'Refusal' Not Conclusive Proof Of Service If Denied On Oath: Delhi High Court Encroachments Near Military Installations Pose National Security Threat; Remove Illegal Constructions Within Three Months: Rajasthan High Court Punjab & Haryana High Court Directs State To Decide On Legality Of Charging Fees For Downloading FIRs From 'SAANJH' Portal Wife’s Educational Qualifications No Bar To Seeking Maintenance If Actual Employment Is Not Proven: Orissa High Court Mere Telephonic Contact Without Substance Of Conversation Cannot Establish Criminal Conspiracy: Madhya Pradesh High Court Serious Allegations Like HIV/AIDS Imputations Require Corroboration, Cannot Rest Solely On Unsubstantiated Testimony: Karnataka High Court Family Court Cannot Refuse Mutual Consent Divorce Merely Because Parties Are Living Separately 'Without Valid Reason': Kerala High Court Collective Attempts By Advocates To Overbear Presiding Officer Not Protected Professional Conduct: Madras High Court Dismisses Quash Petitions No Legal Evidence Required To Forward A Person To Trial? Rajasthan HC Slams Police For Implicating Accused In NDPS Case Solely On Co-Accused's Statement Accused Must Be Physically Present In Court To Furnish Bonds Under Section 91 BNSS: Punjab & Haryana 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