Final Order 1

Order Details: Copy  of Judgment
Pdf Text: 1 C.C. NO. 308/PW/2026
MHMM110063142026 Received on : 04.03.2026
Registered on : 17.04.2026
Decided on : 13.05.2026
Duration : Y M D
-- 02 09
Exh. 16
PART -A
IN THE COURT OF THE ADDL. CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE,
8TH COURT, ESPLANADE, MUMBAI
(Presided over by Smt. K.S. Zanwar)
Criminial Case No. 0800308/PW/2026
(L.A.C. NO. 203 OF 2026)
Police Station : Khar Police Station, Mumbai
COMPLAINANT KHAR POLICE STATION (STATE)
Through Ranjit Chandrakant Chougule
Age : 34 yrs, Occ:-- Service,
Add:-- Mahim (West), Mumbai
REPRESENTED
BY
APP Shri. A. H. Nandgiri for the State.
ACCUSED Rohima Khatun Dulal Khan
Age : 46 years,
Occupation: --
R/o.Gram- Puruliya, Post – Chyachuri, Thana – Kaliya,
Dist- Nodail, Country - Bangladesh.
REPRESENTED
BY
Ld. Advocate Ms. Anjali Talreja (for LADCS) for
accused
PART -B
Date of Offence 12.02.2026 to 16.02.2026
Date of complaint 16.02.2026
-- 1 of 14 --
2 C.C. NO. 308/PW/2026
Date of filing of charge-sheet in
previous Court
04.03.2026
Date of filing of charge-sheet in
this Court
18.04.2026
Date of plea recording 18.04.2026
Date of commencement of
evidence
23.04.2026
Date on which case reserved for
Judgment
13.05.2026
Date of the Judgment 13.05.2026
Date of the Sentencing Order 13.05.2026
Accused Details
Rank
of
accuse
d
Name of
the accused
Date of arrest Date
of
relea
se on
bail
Offence charged
with
Whether
acquitted
or
convicted
Sentence imposed Period of
Detention
Undergone
during trial
for purpose
of Section
468 of
BNSS.
1) Rohima
Khatun
Dulal Khan
16.02.2026 -- Section 21 of
Immigration and
Foreigner Act
2025
Convicted She is sentenced to
suffer Simple
Imprisonment for 03
(three) months and to
pay fine of Rs. 5000/-
(Rs. Five Thousand only)
in default to suffer
Simple Imprisonment for
05 days for the offence
under section 21 of
Immigration and
Foreigner Act 2025
16.02.2026
to
13.05.2026
J U D G M E N T
(Delivered on 13th May, 2026)
Being an Under Trial Prisoner, accused stand charge-
sheeted for the offences punishable under Section 21 of Immigration
and Foreigner Act 2025.
2] Prosecution case in brief, is as under :-
-- 2 of 14 --
3 C.C. NO. 308/PW/2026
The complainant Ranjit Chandrakant Chougule lodged a
complaint contended that on date 12.02.2026 he was attached to Khar
Police Station, Mumbai and was on day duty in ATC Khar Police Station.
That time, he received secret information from secret informer that one
Bangladeshi infiltrator was about to come at Khar Railway Station,
Khar(W), Mumbai. Accordingly, he informed the said information to PSI
Borse and he informed said information to Sr. PI. Sr. PI had given
written orders to take action after due verification. Accordingly,
alongwith team of ATC they went to the spot and prepared a trap. Trap
was arranged and during raid, accused was detained. However, during
enquiry it revealed that accused is Bangladeshi National. During initial
investigation it revealed that accused came to India by unauthorized
way by crossing border. In view of New Immigration Act on date
12.02.2026 when during enquiry they produced this accused before
SB1, CID, I branch. That time they found that on date 15.05.2025
Kasturba Marg police already deported this accused to Bangladesh. As
this accused committed breach of previous deportation order hence as
per order of DCP FRO they lodged FIR against her instead of direct
deportation process. Hence with due process they registered the crime
against this accused on date 16.02.2026 for necessary action.
3] Thereafter, L.A.C. No.203/2026 came to be registered and
it was investigated by PSI Prashant Borse. He arrested the accused
under arrest panchnama. After due investigation, he filed charge-sheet
against the accused.
4] Charge was framed against the accused. It was read over
and explained to the accused to which she pleaded not guilty and
-- 3 of 14 --
4 C.C. NO. 308/PW/2026
claimed to be tried. Prosecution has examined two witnesses. All
incriminating circumstances appeared in the prosecution side evidence
were read over and explained to the accused as enumerated under
section 351 of BNSS. Accused denied such incriminating evidence and
materials are false.
5] Heard APP Shri. A.H.Nandgiri for State and Advocate Ms.
Anjali Talreja (for LADCS) for accused.
6] Following points arose for my determination and I record
my findings against each of them with reasons to follow.
Sr.
No.
Points Findings
1. Whether the prosecution proved that on
12.02.2026 at about 15.30 hrs., to 15.45
hrs., Khar Railway Station, Khar(W),
Mumbai was found to be Bangladeshi
Nationals, having illegally entered into
India, without a valid passport or other
valid travel documents including visa
required for such entry in contravention of
provisions of 3 of this Act or of any rule or
order made thereunder or any direction
given in pursuance thereof committed
section 21 Immigration and Foreigner Act
2025 ?
Proved.
2. What order? Accused convicted.
R E A S O N S
AS TO POINT NO. 1 :
7] In order to prove aforesaid offences against the accused,
prosecution examined two witnesses informant P.W.1 Ranjit
-- 4 of 14 --
5 C.C. NO. 308/PW/2026
Chandrakant Chougule at Exh.05 and P.W.2 Investigating Officer PSI
Prashant Borse at Exh.08. Prosecution has relied upon the documents
such as FIR- Exh.06, Letter to Sr.PI -Exh.09 and order of Sr.P.I. - Exh10,
Panchanama- Exh.11, Mobile – Article A, Restriction order of accused-
Exh.12, Photocopy of Bangladeshi birth certificate of accused Rahima
Khatun is at Article-B, show cause notice – Exh.13.
8] As said above, it is the case of prosecution that accused is
Bangladeshi National, entered into India through unauthorised route,
without obtaining permission from Civil Authority and without holding
valid documents of travels. It is pertinent to note that authorised routes
for entry into India and lawful Civil Authority are prescribed by the
Rules and regulations. Furthermore, the citizenship is also necessary
established in intimate manner through requisite documents like birth
certificate, domicile certificate etc. There is no other way to establish all
these facts than the prescribed. Since accused could not furnish above
information and documents, on the contrary investigation machinery
recovered mobile phone and photocopy of her Bangladeshi birth
certificate from accused, so investigating machinery come to the
conclusion that she is Bangladeshi Nationals and has entered into India
without valid documents of travel through unauthorised route.
9] In order to prove said charge prosecution have examined
the complainant PW 1 and investigation officer, PW 2.
10] PW 1 Ranjit Chandrakant Chougule and PW 2 PSI Prashant
Borse categorically deposed in their evidence that on dated 12.02.2026
they were attached to Khar Police Station, Mumbai and on day duty.
-- 5 of 14 --
6 C.C. NO. 308/PW/2026
That time, PC Chougule received secret information from secret
informer that one Bangladeshi infiltrator was about to come at Khar
Railway Station, Khar(W), Mumbai. Accordingly PC Chougule
informed the said information to PSI Borse. Accordingly, PSI Borse
informed said information to Sr. PI. Sr. PI had given orders to take
action after due verification. Accordingly, Sr. PI formed a squad of
themselves, HC Khandvi, WPC Mhatre and PC Bakle and secret
informer. They reached the spot and prepared a trap. That time PSI
Borse called two independent panchas. At about 15.45 one lady was
found there as per description given by secret informer. That time WPC
Mhatre stopped that lady, detained and disclosed their identity and
asked her relevant questions about her name, address, proof of
nationality, residence proof. Apparently she gave reckless answers to all
questions. That time, in presence of independent panchas she disclosed
her name as Rohima Khatun Dulal Khan r/o Gram- Puruliya, Post –
Chyachuri, Thana – Kaliya, Dist- Nodail, Country - Bangladesh.
Thereafter, she admitted that she is a Bangladeshi National. In presence
of two independent panchas, WPC Mhatre took her personal search,
that time they found one itel company black coloured mobile from
accused. In presence of two independent panchas, they took search of
her mobiles in which they found IMO App and +88 series of
Bangladeshi numbers from which she frequently made call to her sister
and relatives who residing in Bangladesh. Her sister sent Bangladeshi
birth certificate of accused Rahima Khatun on her mobile.In view of
New Immigration Act on date 12.02.2026 when during enquiry they
produced this accused before SB1, CID, I branch. That time they found
that on date 15.05.2025 Kasturba Marg police already deported this
accused to Bangladesh. As this accused committed breach of previous
-- 6 of 14 --
7 C.C. NO. 308/PW/2026
deportation order hence as per order of DCP FRO they lodged FIR
against her instead of direct deportation process. Hence with due
process they registered the crime against this accused on date
16.02.2026 for necessary action.
11] P.W. No.2 deposed in his evidence that he prepared
panchanama in presence of panchas. In presence of two independent
panchas they seized mobile and photocopy of her Bangladeshi birth
certificate from the possession of accused. He also furnished Restriction
order of accused. P.W. 2 further deposed that during investigation FRO
DCP issued a show cause notice to concern accused in presence of P.W.2
but accused had not furnished any documents of her Indian citizenship.
He recorded the statement of all relevant witnesses. After due
investigation, he filed charge-sheet against accused before concern
Court against accused.
12] Here, it is visible that the author of show cause notice i.e
the Deputy Commissioner of Police is not examined here. However, said
notice is not directly denied by the accused. In this scenario, fruitful
reference can be made to the precedent of
Hon'ble Supreme Court in
the case of Abdul Sattar Vs. State of Gujrat, in AIR 1965 SC 810,
wherein it has held that, Sec. 9 of Foreigners Act, 1946 provides inter-
alia that, where any question arises with reference to this Act, or any
order made or direction given there under, whether any person is or is
not a foreigner, the onus of proving that such person is not a foreigner
shall notwithstanding anything contained in the Indian Evidence Act,
lie, upon such person. Therefore, in view above mentioned section and
the ratio of above cited precedent, it is incumbent upon present accused
-- 7 of 14 --
8 C.C. NO. 308/PW/2026
to discharge the said burden.
13] From the above precedent, it is worth to mention here that
in the cases under the provisions of Foreigners Act, 1946 there is change
in the procedure regarding burden of proof. Sec. 9 of the Foreigners
Act, 1946 speaks about the burden of proof and it says that the burden
lies on the person who is an accused. Said provision is reproduced here
for the sake of convenience :-
Sec. 9 If in any case not falling U/sec. 8, any question
arises with reference to this Act or any order made for direction
given there-under, whether any person is or is not a foreigner or is or is
not foreigner of a particular class or description, the onus of proving
that such person is not a foreigner or is not a foreigner of such
particular class or description, as the case may be, shall notwithstanding
anything contained in the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, (1 of 1872), lie
upon such person.
14] In order to establish one's citizenship, normally it is
required to give evidence of :- 1. his/her date of birth, 2. Place of Birth,
3. name of his/her parents, 4. their place of birth and citizenship.
Sometimes, the place of birth of grandparents may also be relevant. All
these facts would necessarily be within the personal knowledge of the
person concerned and not the authorities of the state. After accused has
given evidence on these points, the state authorities can verify the facts
and then can lead evidence on these points. The state authorities can
verify the facts and can lead evidence in rebuttal, if necessary. This is in
accordance with the underlying policy of Sec.106 of the Evidence Act
which says that when any fact is especially within knowledge of any
-- 8 of 14 --
9 C.C. NO. 308/PW/2026
person, the burden of proving that fact is upon him. Sec. 9 of the
Foreigners Act regarding burden of proof is basically on the same lines.
15] Here, it is pertinent to note, that accused had not furnished
any documentary as well as oral evidence to prove her citizenship.
Moreover, during cross-examination except denial nothing fruitful has
been come on record to prove her citizenship. Advocate for accused
filed pursis on record as accused do not want to adduce any defence
evidence.
16] Hence, considering the discussion made above, I have
arrived at the conclusion that prosecution have successfully proved the
charges leveled against accused beyond reasonable doubt that accused
had entered into India without permission of Civil Authority with valid
travel documents and that too through unauthorized route.
17] Here, it reveals that accused has not denied this allegation
nor adduced any evidence to prove burden lies upon them under
section 9 of Foreigners Act. Unfortunately, it reveals from the record
that no such rebuttal evidence is placed on record by the accused. Per
contra, prosecution has successfully discharged its burden to prove the
charge. However, from record it reveals that Investigating Officer
recovered mobile phone and photocopy of her Bangladeshi birth
certificate from the possession of accused. Investigating Officer also
furnished Restriction order of accused. Kasturba police already passed
order of deportation Proceeding. The evidences of PW 1 and PW 2 are
sufficient to establish point no. 1. The burden of proof is not discharged
by the accused and he failed to prove that accused is not foreigner.
-- 9 of 14 --
10 C.C. NO. 308/PW/2026
Hence, I hold that the essential ingredients of section 21 Immigration
and Foreigner Act 2025 is proved against the accused beyond all
reasonable doubts. Resultantly, I have answered point No. 1 in the
affirmative.
AS TO POINT NO. 2 :-
18] In view of my affirmative findings as to point No. 1 I hold
that accused is liable to be convicted for offences punishable Section
21 Immigration and Foreigner Act 2025. Hence, at this stage, I pause
here to hear the present accused and her counsel on the point of
sentence.
sd/-
Mumbai. (K.S. Zanwar)
Dt. 13.05.2026 Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate,
8th Court, Esplanade, Mumbai
19] Heard accused on V. C. on the point of sentence. She herself
plead guilty at the time of judgment. She herself admitted that she is
not a citizen of India. She is Bangladeshi. She wants to go to
Bangladesh. She prayed for leniency. Adv. for accused Ms. Anjali Talreja
(for LADCS) present and prayed for leniency.
20] On the other hand, APP Shri. A.H. Nandgiri vehemently
submitted that offence is of serious nature and it has bearing over
national security and hence he prayed for maximum punishment to be
awarded to the present accused.
21] I have gone through the record of the case. It has been
-- 10 of 14 --
11 C.C. NO. 308/PW/2026
proved that present accused is Bangladeshi citizen and had entered in
India unauthorized way without possessing any valid passport or travel
documents. Moreover, she resided in India illegally. A citizen of another
country who is foreigner to India cannot claim the same rights and
facilities in India as like the Indian citizen. Even though, the accused
stayed here and purported herself to be the Indian national. To my
mind, if such leniency is given, the same may prove dangerous to the
national security and even to the legitimate rights of Indian citizens as
because of such unauthorized entries, the foreigners can give taxation
on the economy of India. Therefore, I hold that the accused is liable to
be convicted and sentenced to imprisonment for a justified period.
Similarly, accused is liable for deportation. Hence, I hold that following
sentence will suffice the ends of justice.
O R D E R
1) Accused Rohima Khatun Dulal Khan is held guilty and convicted
U/sec. 271 (2) of the BNSS and sentenced to suffer Simple
Imprisonment for 03 (three) months and to pay fine of Rs.5000/- (Rs.
Five Thousand only) in default to suffer Simple Imprisonment for 05
days for the offence Punishable under section 21 of Immigration and
Foreigner Act 2025.
2) The accused is in jail since 16.02.2026. Set off be given to the
accused from 16.02.2026 till today i.e 13.05.2026 as per Sec. 468
of BNSS.
3) Muddemal property i.e. a) itel-A667LP company black coloured
mobile phone be returned to the accused after appeal period is
over.
-- 11 of 14 --
12 C.C. NO. 308/PW/2026
4) Prosecution is directed to take steps for deportation of above
named accused out of India after she is undergone the above
sentence, if she is not required in any other case and report the
compliance.
5) The copy of this judgment be furnished to the accused free of
cost.
6) Accused is informed of her right to appeal.
(Dictated and pronounced in open Court. )
(K.S. Zanwar)
Esplanade, Mumbai. Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate,
Date : 13.05.2026 08th Court, Esplanade, Mumbai
APPENDIX-I
PART 'C'
LIST OF COMPLAINANT / DEFENCE / COURT WITNESSES
A. Complainant :
RANK NAME NATURE OF EVIDENCE
PW1-Exh.05 Ranjit Chandrakant Chougule Complainant
PW2-Exh.08 PSI Prashant Borse Investigating
Officer
B. Defence Witnesses, if any :
RANK NAME NATURE OF
EVIDENCE
- - -
-- 12 of 14 --
13 C.C. NO. 308/PW/2026
LIST OF COMPLAINANT / DEFENCE / COURT EXHIBITS
A. Complainant :
Sr.
No.
Exhibit Number Description
1 Exh.06 FIR
2 Exh.09 Letter to Sr.PI
3 Exh.10 Order of Sr. P.I
4 Exh.11 Panchanama
5 Exh.12 Restriction order
6 Exh.13 Show cause Notice
7 Article A Mobile Phone
8 Article B Photocopy of birth certificate
B. Investigating Officer
Sr.
No.
Exhibit
Number
Description
-- -- --
C. Defence :
Sr.
No.
Exhibit Number Description
- - -
sd/-
(K.S. Zanwar)
Esplanade, Mumbai. Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate,
Date : 13.05.2026 08th Court, Esplanade, Mumbai
Judgment typed on :- 13.05.2026
Judgment checked
and signed on :- 13.05.2026
-- 13 of 14 --
14 C.C. NO. 308/PW/2026
-- 14 of 14 --