Allahabad High Court
Shokhsanam Sapakhonova vs State Of U.P. on 20 May, 2024
Author: Subhash Chandra Sharma
Bench: Subhash Chandra Sharma
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:90935 Court No. - 81 Case :- JAIL APPEAL No. - 115 of 2024 Appellant :- Shokhsanam Sapakhonova Respondent :- State of U.P. Counsel for Appellant :- Shiv Vilas Mishra Counsel for Respondent :- G.A. Hon'ble Subhash Chandra Sharma,J.
This is jail appeal.
Heard learned amicus curiae for the appellant as well as learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material on record.
This jail appeal has been preferred against the judgment and order passed by learned Special Judge (SC/ST) Act, Maharajganj by which the appellant has been convicted and sentenced u/s 14(B) Foreigners Act, 1946 for a period of 2 years imprisonment with fine of Rs.10,000/- and on failure to pay fine two years additional imprisonment in S.T. No.757 of 2022 (State vs. Shokhsanam Sapakhonova) arising out of Case Crime No.123 of 2022, under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 I.P.C. & Section 14B of the Foreigners Act, 1946, Police Station Sonauli, District Maharajganj with request to allow the appeal.
Facts in brief are that the informant Uttam Kumar, Immigration Officer, Sonauli lodged F.I.R. as Crime No.123 of 2022 on 23.08.2022 against the present appellant a woman of Uzbekistan origin and other co-accused persons Karan Sharma and Sandeep Sharma. The appellant was caught from a car with two other persons. On query it came into knowledge that she belonged to foreign origin and she had a driving license no. DL-320200877724 on which her name was mentioned as Neha Sharma D/O of Sandeep Sharma and address E-96, Kotla, Mubarakpur, South Extension Part I, New Delhi. She was brought to immigration office and on query this fact came into knowledge that she belonged to Uzbekistan. A photocopy of passport was available and shown on her mobile phone in which Name, Father's Name, DOB, Sex, Nationality was mentinoed but there was no Passport number and Indian Visa. Her name was Shokhsanam Sapakhonova, Sultonsaid Kizi, 18.06.1991, F Uzbekistan, FA 0865751, DOI 13/11/2019, DOE 12-11-2029. On query no any passport or visa record was available. She told that she belonged to Uzbekistan and went to Oman for domestic work where she met one Hayat, an Uzbekistani woman whose boyfriend was an Omani citizen. She offered her to go India for making more money and the appellant became ready to come to India. From there she was sent to Sri Lanka and then to Kathmandu, Nepal on 20.02.2022 by flight then by Taxi she travelled from Kathmandu to Delhi where she was kept in a flat. Her passport was kept by one Sandeep Sharma, an Indian who was manager of Karan Sharma who provided her a false driving license bearing no.DL-320200877724 for showing as identity card on the basis of which she went to Chandigarh when she failed to secure any job then she planned to go back to Uzbekistan through Nepal and arrived at Sonauli by Taxi from Chandigarh but then she was caught by the said authorities. An Uzbekistani passport was shown by her which was valid for her journey till 06.04.2020. Investigation was conducted and after investigation charge sheet was filed against the present appellant u/s 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 I.P.C. and Section 14(B) Foreigners Act, 1946 and against other co-accused persons Karan and Sandeep Sharma investigation was continued. On the basis of chargesheet cognizance was taken by the learned trial court and trial was conducted but during the trial charge u/s 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 I.P.C could not be proved by the prosecution but charge u/s 14(B) Foreigners Act, 1946 was proved as a result she was convicted and sentenced for a period of two years imprisonment and fine of Rs.10,000/- vide order dated 05.01.2024 against which present appeal has been preferred by the jail authority.
It is submitted by learned amicus curiae for appellant that in this case the appellant has passport belonging to Uzbekistan and she did not have a visa to visit India. Further submitted that the appellant did not come to India voluntarily but she came here for employment and was sent by some Hayat through the way of Sri Lanka and Nepal then she was also sent to Delhi. The main accused persons are Karan and Sandeep Sharma who provided her false driving license, an identity card but when visa could not be made available to her she was going back but in the way she was arrested by the authorities. It is also submitted that learned trial court did not consider the aforesaid facts of the case and the offences u/s 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 I.P.C were not found to be established on the basis of material on record but convicted u/s 14(B) Foreigners Act, 1946 which cannot be said to be lawful therefore, requested to set aside the order passed by learned trial court and to allow the appeal.
Learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer as aforesaid and contended that in this case the appellant belonged to Uzbekistan and having passport issued from Uzbekistan authorities but having no any visa to travel in India. Since no any forged document was prepared by the appellant that was the reason she was not convicted by the learned trial court u/s 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 I.P.C but convicted under Section 14(B) Foreigners Act because she visited India without valid visa. Further contended that the burden to prove that she has valid visa was on the appellant herself which she could not discharge, therefore, being citizen of foreign origin i.e. Uzbekistan she was found in India without authority that was the reason she was convicted u/s 14(B) Foreigners Act, 1946. The sentence awarded by the learned trial court cannot be said to be excessive but it is minimum. In this way, the conviction and sentence as recorded by learned trial court cannot be said to be erroneous and against the provisions of law but the appeal being devoid of merit is liable to be dismissed.
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by learned amicus curiae as well as learned A.G.A. and material on record, the judgment passed by learned trial court, it appears that the statement of the informant Uttam Kumar, Immigration Officer as PW-1 was recorded before the learned trial court in which he has supported the prosecution version. Sudhir Kumar, Immigration Officer PW-2 has also supported the prosecution case. S.I. Ram Charan Saroj PW-3 who investigated the case and also S.I. Manisha Singh PW-4 who investigated the case after previous I.O. have proved the investigation of the case. From the material on record it is established that the passport held by the appellant belonged to Uzbekistan and she had no any valid visa but visited India which was not permissible under the law but amounted to an offence under the aforesaid Act. In this way, the finding as recorded by the learned trial court does not appear to be erroneous and against the provisions of law but this appeal being devoid of merit is liable to be dismissed.
Accordingly, the present jail appeal is, hereby, dismissed at the admission stage.
Order Date :- 20.5.2024 Ashok Gupta