Page No.# 1/4 GAHC010137602023 2025:GAU-AS:3408 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Crl.A./453/2023 MD. MANIR SON OF ABUL KASHEM, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE- JAFLONG (NOYABASTI), P.S.-GOWAINGHAT, DISTRICT- SYLHET, BANGLADESH. VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ANR. A REPRESENTED BY PP, ASSAM. 2:SRI PRITOM KUMAR HAJONG S/O- SRI PABITRA HAJONG RESIDENT OF VILLAGE-DHAMAM P.S - LAKHIPUR DIST-GOALPARA ASSAM PIN-78312 Advocate for the Petitioner : G UDDIN, MR K TALUKDAR,P ADHIKARI,MR. Y SIKDAR Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, BEFORE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SUSMITA PHUKAN KHAUND JUDGEMENT AND ORDER (ORAL) Date : 25-03-2025 Heard Mr. G. Uddin, learned counsel for the appellant, who has filed this appeal under Section 374 read with Section 375 (b) of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC for short) Page No.# 2/4 against the judgment and order dated 04.11.2022 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 2, Kamrup (M), Guwahati in connection with Sessions Case No. 131/2022. The appellant was convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 5 (Five) years and to pay a fine of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) with default stipulation for offence under Section 14A (b) of the Foreigners Act, 1946 (the Act of 1946). 2. Heard Mr. D. P. Goswami, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, Assam. 3. It is submitted that an FIR was lodged by the informant Sri Pritom Kumar Hajong alleging that Moti Sarkar, who was working as cook at BBD Brick Industries, had committed theft of Rs.3,50,000/- (Rupees Three Lacs Fifty Thousand) from the office Almirah of the Brick Industry. During investigation, it was unearthed that Md. Manir (hereinafter also referred to as the appellant) was possessing 5500 Bangladeshi currency (Taka) as well as fake Indian currency notes. Investigation against the present appellant progressed and finally, charge sheets were laid against Moti Sarkar as well as the present appellant. At the stage of trial, charges were framed under Section 14A(b) of the Act of 1946 against the appellant and under Section 381 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC for short) against Moti Sarkar. 4. Both the accused Md. Manir and Moti Sarkar pleaded guilty and vide the order dated 04.11.2022 in connection with Sessions Case No. 131/2022, both Md. Manir and Moti Sarkar were convicted. The present appellant Md. Manir was convicted under Section 14A(b) of the Act of 1946 and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 5 (Five) years and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) with default stipulation. 5. It is submitted on behalf of the appellant that the appellant was highly aggrieved as he was expecting a lower sentence. This is the reason why the appellant has preferred this appeal under section 375 (b) of CrPC and has prayed to set aside the impugned conviction and sentence or, to pass an order as this Court deems appropriate. 6. It is submitted that the appellant has already undergone more than two years in the jail and if his sentence is reduced to the period of detention already undergone by him, the petitioner is willing to go back to his native place at Bangladesh. Page No.# 3/4 7. It is submitted by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor that this case can be considered in two different parts. Reducing of the sentence can be considered by this Court but this order ought not impact the deportation and repatriation of the appellant as the same is a matter of foreigner, which ought to be dealt in accordance with the provisions of law. 8. I have considered the submissions at the bar with circumspection. 9. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that as the appellant has already pleaded guilty and as he has already been convicted, his prayer is limited only to reduction of the period of imprisonment. 10. The appellant has also relied on the decision of the High Court of Judicature at Calcutta in connection with a similar case under Section 14A(b) of the Act of 1946, wherein the sentence of the appellant was reduced from 2 (Two) years and 6 (Six) months to simple imprisonment for 2 (Two) years and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) instead of Rs.20,000/- (Rupees Twenty Thousand) (See Shoag Sardar Vs. The State of West Bengal in CRA (SB) 142 of 2023 dated 16.10.2023). 11. Having regard to all the facts and circumstances in this case, I find no reason to disallow the prayer of reducing the sentence from 5 (Five) years to 2 (Two) years and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) and in default of payment of fine to undergo imprisonment for 2 (Two) months. 12. After expiry of the period of sentence, all necessary steps should be taken for repatriation of the appellant to his country immediately thereafter. 13. Send a copy of this order to the learned Trial Court for necessary steps hereinafter for repatriation of the appellant. 14. Furnish copy of this order to the DCP (Border). 15. Considering the peculiar nature of this case where the appellant has pleaded guilty, this matter may not be taken as an example. Page No.# 4/4 16. In terms of the above observation, this Criminal Appeal stands disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant