Guwahati, Feb 9 : The Gauhati High Court has upheld the conviction order of a trial court in Silchar declaring a person a foreigner on admission of guilt, and accordingly, dismissed the criminal petition.
The High Court held that its inherent power under Section 482 of CrPC could not be exercised in a routine manner and it was only to prevent gross miscarriage of justice or secure the ends of justice.
According to the petition under Section 482 of CrPC, the petitioner had sought for quashing of the order passed by the chief judicial magistrate, Cachar on July 10, 2019, in connection with PRC case number 913/2019 (arising out in connection with the Silchar PS case number 485/2019, under Section 14(A)/14(C) of the Foreigners’ Act.
The petitioner, along with other persons, was arrested on the suspicion of being a Bangladeshi national who had entered India via Tripura. He was taken into custody and produced before the court of chief judicial magistrate, Cachar.
The police submitted the charge-sheet with charges framed under Section 14-A of the Foreigners’ Act. The petitioner pleaded guilty to the offence and the trial court, vide the impugned order, convicted him.
By the said order, the trial court had also directed the Cachar deputy commissioner to take necessary steps for their deportation, after completion of their jail term.
The conviction order subsequently was challenged on the ground that admission of guilt was made upon wrong advice of the engaged counsel.
The petitioner had produced his birth certificate and school certificate in support of his claim that he “is a permanent resident of Motinagar village in West Tripura district and that he pursued his primary education in Kalam Khet S.B. School under Sonamara police station.
“The petitioner failed to produce any sort of documents at the time of investigation, which has been reflected from the various statements of witnesses. More so, the accused person has not claimed anything at the time of framing of charge that he has certain documents to produce in support of his case. Rather he has pleaded guilty at the time of framing of charge,” the High Court said.
“That being so, the petitioner, on being pleaded guilty and serving around one year sentence, has come up with the present petition with certain documents, which he never produced before the investigating officer as well as before the court, now challenged the impugned order, which cannot be accepted,” it said.
“There appears no illegality in the order so passed to invoke the provision under Section 482 CrPC. The inherent power under Section 482 CrPC cannot be exercised in a routine manner unless it is shown that the miscarriage of justice has been done in a given case. There being no such cogent ground to interfere with the order passed by the learned trial court, the petition is hereby dismissed,” the Court observed.