Delhi District Court
State vs Santosh on 18 August, 2025
IN THE COURT OF MS. DEEKSHA SETHI, JMFC-08,
SOUTH WEST DISTRICT, DWARKA COURTS, DELHI
CNR No. : DLSW02-054643-2023
ID. No. : 12120/2023
FIR No. : 600/2023
U/s : 14 C Foreigners Act
P.S. : Uttam Nagar
State v/s Santosh
a) Name & address of the : HC Ashish Kumar
complainant No. 617/DW
b) Name & address of : Santosh
accused W/o Suresh Kumar
R/o G-1/431, Dal Mil
Road, Uttam Nagar, New
Delhi.
c) Date of Commission of : 19.09.2023
offence
d) Offence complained of : 14C Foreigners Act
e) Plea of the accused : Pleaded not guilty.
f) Final Order : Acquitted.
g) Date of Institution : 21.10.2023
h) Judgment Pronounced on : 18.08.2025
JUDGMENT
Brief facts
1. The prosecution version in brief is that on 19.09.2023, accused Santosh was found to have inducted a foreign national namely Chukwuemeka Afoh as tenant at house no. D-3, Second Floor, Block D, Om Vihar, Phase V, Uttam Nagar, New Delhi. The said foreign national did not State v/s Santosh Page 1 of 10 Cr. Case No. 12120/2023 possess any valid Visa to stay in India. The case against accused Santosh is thus, that she had abetted the offence u/s 14A of Foreigners' Act.
2. The complainant HC Ashish Kumar informed about the said incident to the duty officer at the police station and an FIR bearing no. 600/2023 u/s 14C of Foreigners' Act was registered at PS Uttam Nagar. Investigation of the case was conducted by Investigating Officer HC Ashish Kumar.
Proceedings before the Court
3. On completion of investigation, a chargesheet u/s 14C of Foreigners' Act was filed against the present accused, i.e., Santosh. After taking cognizance of the offence, the accused was summoned to face trial.
4. On her appearance, a copy of chargesheet along with documents were supplied to the accused in terms of Section 207 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as 'CrPC'). On finding prima facie case against the accused, a charge under section 14C of Foreigners' Act was framed against her, to which she had pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
5. During the trial, prosecution has examined the following witnesses:
(i) PW-1 HC Ashish Kumar has deposed that on 25.09.2023, he was posted as head constable at PS Uttam Nagar. He received DD no. 156A vide which he got the information that a foreign national has State v/s Santosh Page 2 of 10 Cr. Case No. 12120/2023 been apprehended in FIR no. 578/23 NDPS Act. It was found that the said foreign national was residing at the house of accused as a tenant without any valid Visa and Passport to remain in India. He prepared tehrir in the present case (Ex. PW1/A). After registration of FIR, he conducted further proceedings. He obtained the relevant documents pertaining to FIR 578/23. On 07.10.2023, the accused and her husband were interrogated at PS Uttam Nagar and accused was arrested vide memo Ex. PW1/B. The accused was released on bail bond (Ex. PW1/C) and a pabandinama was executed (Ex.
PW1/D), after which the accused was released. Finally, he submitted the charge-sheet in the present case. Witness identified the accused in the court. This witness was cross-examined by Ld. Counsel for the accused.
(ii) PW-2 SI Sapna Sharma has deposed that on 19.09.2023, she was posted as Sub-Inspector at Anti-Narcotics Cell, Dwarka. On that day, she arrested accused Chukwuemeka Afoh in case FIR no. 578/2023 under section 8/22 NDPS Act, registered at PS Uttam Nagar, in front of house no. D-3, Block D, Om Vihar, Phase-V, Uttam Nagar. She also made personal search of the accused and recovered electricity bill of Hno.D3, IInd floor, Block D, Om Vihar, Phase-V, Uttam Nagar and the State v/s Santosh Page 3 of 10 Cr. Case No. 12120/2023 accused was found to be not in possession of valid visa or passport. The accused told that he was living for the past one year at the abovementioned address. On 25.09.2023, she informed at PS Uttam Nagar vide telephone about the arrest of the accused and made a complaint against the owner of abovementioned house and DD no. 156A was registered at the police station. IO HC Ashish Kumar inquired from her and recorded her statement u/s 161 CrPC. This witness was cross-examined by Ld. Counsel for the accused.
6. Vide separate statement of the accused u/s 294 CrPC, she had admitted the genuineness of the FIR no. 600/2023 and certificate u/s 65B of Indian Evidence Act. The above-said documents were exhibited as Ex. X-1 and Ex. X-2 respectively. Accordingly, the concerned witnesses were dropped by the prosecution.
7. The prosecution evidence was closed and thereafter the statement of accused u/s 313 CrPC r/w section 281 CrPC was recorded wherein all the incriminating evidence appearing against the accused was put to her, which she had denied to be correct and submitted that she was innocent and falsely implicated. The accused chose not to lead any evidence in her defence.
8. It is argued by Ld. APP for the State that it is clear from the statement of the complainant and other witnesses as well as the documents appearing on record that the accused State v/s Santosh Page 4 of 10 Cr. Case No. 12120/2023 had allowed the foreign national namely Chukwuemeka Afoh, who did not possess valid Visa to stay in India, to reside as a tenant at her property and thus, she had abetted the offence u/s 14A of Foreigners' Act. He has thus, submitted that the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt against the accused and she be, therefore, held guilty and convicted for the offence u/s 14C of Foreigners' Act.
9. Per contra, Ld. Counsel for the accused has argued that the State has failed to establish its case beyond reasonable doubt and since nothing incriminating has appeared against the accused, she be, therefore, acquitted for the offence charged.
10. I have heard the Ld. APP for the State and Ld. Defence counsel at length, perused the record, gone through the relevant provisions of law and given my thoughts to the matter.
Findings of the Court
11.It is a well settled principle of criminal law that the burden of proof is on the prosecution and the presumption of innocence of the accused has to be rebutted by the prosecution by adducing cogent evidence that points towards the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt.
12.Let this Court first discuss the provisions of law which are involved in the present case. Section-14A of the Foreigners Act deals with the offence of entering or staying in India State v/s Santosh Page 5 of 10 Cr. Case No. 12120/2023 without valid documents required for such entry i.e. visa etc. It reads as under:
"14A. Penalty for entry in restricted areas, etc. --
Whoever. --
(a) enters into any area in India, which is restricted for his entry under any order made under this Act, or any direction given in pursuance thereof, without obtaining a permit from the authority, notified by the Central Government in the Official Gazette, for this purpose or remains in such area beyond the period specified in such permit for his stay; or
(b) enters into or stays in any area in India without the valid documents required for such entry or for such stay, as the case may be, under the provisions of any order made under this Act or any direction given in pursuance thereof, shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than two years, but may extend to eight years and shall also be liable to fine which shall not be less than ten thousand rupees; and if he has entered into a bond in pursuance of clause (f) of sub-section (2) of section 3, his bond shall be forfeited, and any person bound thereby shall pay the penalty thereof, or show cause to the satisfaction of the convicting court why such penalty should not be paid by him."
13.Further, if any person aids or abets in the commission of the offence punishable u/s 14A Foreigners Act, then the said person is said to have committed offence u/s 14C of Foreigners Act. The said section reads as under:
"14C. Penalty for abetment. --Whoever abets any offence punishable under section 14 or section 14A or section 14B shall, if the act abetted is committed in consequence of the abetment, be punished with the punishment provided for the offence."
14.In order to prove the guilt of the accused in the present case, the prosecution is required to establish that the accused has actively aided a foreign national to enter or remain in India without having valid documents i.e. visa, State v/s Santosh Page 6 of 10 Cr. Case No. 12120/2023 passport etc. The scope and ambit of the offence punishable u/s 14C of the Foreigners Act has been discussed in detail by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case titled Abinash Dixit vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, Criminal Appeal No.267 of 2022 (@ SLP (Crl.) No.2266 of 2020) dated 22.02.2022, wherein the Apex Court has held that the accused must have been aware about the status of visa of a foreign national in order to draw an inference that he/she has aided or abetted the commission of offence punishable u/s 14, 14A or 14B of the Foreigners Act. The relevant portion of the judgment is reproduced below:
"The word 'abet' is an essential ingredient of Section 14-C, and has received judicial interpretation. 'Abet' means to aid, to encourage or countenance. An abetment of the offence occurs when a person instigates any person to do that offence or engages with another person(s) in doing that thing. Mere passivity and insouciance will not tantamount to offence of abetment."
15.In the instant case, it should be noted that the prosecution has brought no evidence on record to prove that it was the accused Santosh who had inducted any foreign national on her property as her tenant. All the witnesses examined by the prosecution were official witnesses. Their entire testimonies are based on the statement given by the said foreign national who was never examined by the prosecution during the course of the trial. Even the public persons of the locality were not examined during the course of the investigation.
State v/s Santosh Page 7 of 10 Cr. Case No. 12120/202316.Moreover, the prosecution did not prove any document to show that the accused Sanotsh was the owner of the property situated at D-3, Second Floor, Block D, Om Vihar, Phase V, Uttam Nagar, New Delhi, where the foreign national was allegedly found to be residing on rent without having valid visa or passport. Even the complainant/ IO PW-1 in his testimony did not specifically depose that the said address belonged to the accused. Thus, the prosecution has failed to prove this material fact beyond reasonable doubts.
17.Be that as it may, even if it is assumed that the accused Santosh is the owner of the said property and has given the said property on rent to one foreign national, the same would not automatically mean that she has abetted or aided in the commission of the offence punishable u/s 14A of the Foreigners Act for the reason that it is imperative for the prosecution to prove that the accused was aware or had knowledge about the fact that the said foreign nationals had entered in India without a valid visa, as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the judgment titled Abinash Dixit (supra). If this awareness or knowledge is not proved/established by the prosecution beyond reasonable doubts, then the accused cannot be convicted for the offence punishable u/s 14C of the Foreigners Act.
18.It is observed that the complainant as well as the first IO in the present case is the same police official. Thus, the initial proceedings prior to registration of FIR and the subsequent State v/s Santosh Page 8 of 10 Cr. Case No. 12120/2023 investigation were carried out by the same official. In Mohan Lal Vs. State of State of Punjab, (2018) SCC Online SC 974, the Hon'ble Apex Court has held as under:
"If an informant police official in a criminal prosecution, especially when carrying a reverse burden of proof, makes the allegations, is himself asked to investigate, serious doubts will naturally arise with regard to his fairness and impartiality. It is not necessary that bias must actually be proved. It would be illogical to presume and contrary to normal human conduct, that he would at the end of the investigation submit a closure report to conclude false implication with all its attendant consequences for the complainant himself. The result of the investigation would therefore be a foregone conclusion. It is therefore held that a fair investigation, which is but the very foundation of a fair trial, necessarily postulates that the informant and the investigator must not be the same person. Justice must not only be done but must appear to be done also. Any possibility of bias or a predetermined conclusion has to be excluded. This requirement is all the more imperative in-laws carrying a reverse burden of proof."
(Emphasis supplied)
19.Thus, it is a settled proposition of law that the informant and the investigator must not be the same person. In the present case, HC Ashish Kumar is the complainant as well as the first IO of the present case and in view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court, the same raises doubts over the nature of investigation carried out and thus, creates a dent on the prosecution version.
20. Thus, in light of the above discussion which throws doubt on the authenticity of the prosecution version, this court is of the opinion that prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt that accused had allowed a State v/s Santosh Page 9 of 10 Cr. Case No. 12120/2023 foreign national, who did not possess proper documents to stay in India, as tenant at her property and thus, abetted the offence punishable u/s 14A of Foreigners' Act. The accused Santosh is, therefore, acquitted of the offence u/s 14C of Foreigners' Act.
21.This judgment contains ten pages and the same has been pronounced by the undersigned in open court today and each page bears my signatures.
22.Let a copy of the judgment be uploaded on the official website of District Courts, Dwarka forthwith.
Digitally
signed by
ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT DEEKSHA
DEEKSHA SETHI
TODAY, i.e., ON 18.08.2025 SETHI Date:
2025.08.18
15:18:01
+0530
Deeksha Sethi
Judicial Magistrate First Class-08
South-West District/New Delhi
18.08.2025
State v/s Santosh Page 10 of 10
Cr. Case No. 12120/2023