Delhi District Court
State vs Rakesh Kumar on 22 September, 2025
IN THE COURT OF MS. DEEKSHA SETHI, JMFC-08,
SOUTH WEST DISTRICT, DWARKA COURTS, DELHI
CNR No. : DLSW02-056546202213
ID. No. : 11658/2022
FIR No. : 310/2022
U/s : 14 C Foreigners Act
P.S. : Uttam Nagar
State v/s Rakesh Kumar
a) Name & address of the : Sh. Ashish Kumar
complainant
b) Name & address of : Rakesh Kumar
accused S/o Sh. Chunni Lal
R/o B-46, Khasra No.
68/12, Hastsal Vihar,
Uttam Nagar,
Dwarka, New Delhi.
c) Date of Commission of : 12.04.2022
offence
d) Offence complained of : 14C Foreigners Act
e) Plea of the accused : Pleaded not guilty.
f) Final Order : Acquitted.
g) Date of Institution : 27.09.2022
h) Judgment Pronounced on : 22.09.2025
JUDGMENT
Brief facts
1. The prosecution version in brief is that on 12.04.2022, accused Rakesh Kumar was found to have inducted a foreign national namely Ikechukwu God's Power as tenant at house no. B-46 A, Upper Ground Floor, Uttam Nagar, New Delhi. The said foreign national did not possess any State v/s Rakesh Kumar -1- Cr. Case No. 11658/2022 valid Visa to stay in India. The case against accused Rakesh Kumar is thus, that he 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. 310/2022 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., Rakesh Kumar. After taking cognizance of the offence, the accused was summoned to face trial.
4. On his 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 him, to which he had pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
5. During the trial, prosecution has examined the following witnesses:
State v/s Rakesh Kumar -2-
Cr. Case No. 11658/2022
(i) PW-1 ASI Jitender Singh deposed that on
12.04.2022, he was posted at Anti Narcotics Cell, Dwarka as Head Constable. On that day, he had apprehended accused Ikechukwu and drugs were recovered from the possession of accused. FIR No. 303/2022 was registered against the accused at P.S. Uttam Nagar. PW-1 further deposed that the accused was also found to be without any valid Visa or licence. On 15.04.2022, an information was given at PS Uttam Nagar and a DD entry no. 22 A was made with respect to the said information. This witness was not cross examined despite having been given an opportunity to do so.
(ii) PW-2 HC Ashish Kumar deposed that on 15.04.2022, he was posted at P.S. Uttam Nagar as Head Constable. On that day, a DD entry no. 22A was made at the police station regarding apprehension of one person namely Ikechukwu without any valid Visa or Licence. The foreigner was residing in rented premises belonging to a person namely Mamta, resident of H.No. D-46 A, Hastsal Vihar, Uttam Nagar, Delhi. The same was marked to him for further investigation. This witness further deposed that he made an endorsement on the DD entry which is Ex.PW2/A. After getting the FIR registered, PW-2 got the State v/s Rakesh Kumar -3- Cr. Case No. 11658/2022 address verified and gave notice to accused landlord- Rakesh Kumar, husband of Mamta u/s 41A Cr.P.C. The accused gave an electricity bill in his name of the abovesaid address which is Ex.PW2/B. This witness also prepared the site plan which is Ex.PW2/C. After completion of the investigation, PW-2 filed the charge sheet. This witness was cross examined by Ld. Defence Counsel.
6. Vide separate statement of the accused u/s 294 CrPC, he had admitted the genuineness of the FIR no. 310/2022, certificate u/s 65B of Indian Evidence Act and DD No. 22A dated 15.04.2022. The above-said documents were exhibited as Ex. X-1, Ex. X-2 and Ex. X-3 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 him, which he had denied to be correct and submitted that he was innocent and falsely implicated. The accused chose not to lead any evidence in his defence.
State v/s Rakesh Kumar -4- Cr. Case No. 11658/2022
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 had allowed the foreign national namely Ikechukwu God's Father, who did not possess valid Visa to stay in India, to reside as a tenant at his property and thus, he 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 he 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, he 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 State v/s Rakesh Kumar -5- Cr. Case No. 11658/2022 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 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:
State v/s Rakesh Kumar -6- Cr. Case No. 11658/2022 "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, 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."
State v/s Rakesh Kumar -7- Cr. Case No. 11658/2022
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 Rakesh Kumar who had inducted any foreign national on his property as his tenant. All the witnesses examined by the prosecution were official witnesses. Even the public persons of the locality were not examined during the course of the investigation.
16.Moreover, the prosecution did not prove any document to show that the accused Rakesh Kumar was the owner of the property situated at B-46A, Upper Ground Floor, Uttam Nagar, New Delhi, where the foreign national was allegedly found to be residing on rent without having valid visa or passport. 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 Rakesh Kumar is the landlord of the said property and has given the said property on rent to one foreign national, the same would not automatically mean that he 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 national 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 State v/s Rakesh Kumar -8- Cr. Case No. 11658/2022 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 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 State v/s Rakesh Kumar -9- Cr. Case No. 11658/2022 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 foreign national, who did not possess proper documents to stay in India, as tenant at his property and thus, abetted the offence punishable u/s 14A of Foreigners' Act. The accused Rakesh Kumar 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.
ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT TODAY, i.e. 22.09.2025 Deeksha Sethi Judicial Magistrate First Class-08 South-West District/New Delhi Digitally signed by DEEKSHA DEEKSHA SETHI SETHI Date:
2025.09.22 16:07:53 +0530 State v/s Rakesh Kumar - 10 -Cr. Case No. 11658/2022