IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE SIDE Present: The Hon’ble Justice Jay Sengupta CRA(SB) 65 of 2026 with CRAN 1 of 2026 Abdur Rahaman @ Abdur Rahman Vs. The State of West Bengal For the appellant : Mr. Prabir Majumder Mr. Snehansu Majumder .....Advocates For the State : Mr. Sagar Saha .....Advocate Heard lastly on : 24.07.2026 Judgment on : 24.07.2026 Jay Sengupta, J: 1. This is an appeal challenging the judgement and order of conviction and sentence dated 19.09.2025 passed by the Learned Additional Sessions Judge, 2nd Court, Bongaon, North 24 Parganas in Sessions Case No. 247 of 2025 arising out of Petrapole Police Station Case 2 No. 43 of 2025 dated 18.05.2025 under Sections 319(2), 338, 336(3), 340(2) of the BNS and Section 14A(b) of the Foreigners Act, thereby convicting the appellant on his pleading guilty for commission of offence punishable and sentencing him simple imprisonment for 3 years and 6 months and to pay fine of Rs. 5,000/- with a default clause,to suffer simple imprisonment for two months for the offence punishable under Section 14A(b) of the Foreigners Act, to suffer simple imprisonment for 1 year under Section 319(2) of the BNS and to suffer a simple imprisonment for 3 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 5000/- with a default clausefor the offence punishable under Section 338 of the BNS, to suffer simple imprisonment for 2 years and pay fine of Rs. 5,000/- with a default clause for the offence punishable under Section 340(2) of the BNS, the sentences having to run concurrently and with a further directionthat the convict shall be deported to his home address at Bangladesh onthe expiry of his sentence of imprisonment. 2. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant submits as follows. The appellant accepts that he is a Bangladeshi national. He had pleaded guilty before the Learned Trial Court. However, the appeal has been preferred mainly on the question of quantum of sentence. The sentence imposed was much too harsh.Out of a maximum period of three years, the petitioner has already suffered incarceration for a period of one and half years. No fruitful purpose would be served to keep a foreign national in custody for any longer. 3 In fact, pursuant to an earlier order passed by this Court, the convict has already been deported to Bangladesh. 3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State opposes the appeal.He submits that no appeal would lie on merits of the conviction as the appellant had pleaded guilty during trial. So far as sentences imposed were concerned, the same were quite reasonable. However, pursuant to an earlier direction passed by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court, the appellant has already been deported to his own country, Bangladesh. 4. It is true that no appeal would lie on the merits of the conviction as he had pleaded guilty during trial. However, that is not what the appellant seeks to do before this Court.He is only aggrieved with the sentences imposed. 5. The quantum of sentence imposable under the relevant provisions of the Foreigners Act is also quite relevant in the present case, especially when the appellant had pleaded guilty during trial. 6. It also appears that a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court had suspended the sentence imposed and had directed the State to deport the appellant to his own country, Bangladesh and the same has been done. 7. Considering the above, the other materials available, the fact the petitioner has already undergone substantial period of sentence imposed being 1 year and 6 months, I am disposing of the appeal by upholding the conviction,but reducing the sentence to the period 4 already undergone. It is also recorded that pursuant to the earlier direction passed by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court, the convict has already been deported to his own country. 8. The connected application also stands disposed of, accordingly. 9. Urgent Photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be given to the parties, upon completion of requisite formalities. (Jay Sengupta, J.)