A miscarriage of justice happens when an innocent person is found guilty, allowing the actual perpetrator to flee the scene. The criminal justice system is meant to be set up so that it punishes those who are found guilty and acquits those who are found not guilty. The High Court Of Gauhati upheld this through the Learned Single Bench MRS. JUSTICE RUMI KUMARI PHUKAN in the case of M.D. AMIR KHAN. V. THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ANOTHER (Criminal Petition No.128/2020).
Facts of the case – After getting information that specific Rahingiya individuals lived as tenants in the Sonarighat area, informant Anjan Kumar Roy, the in-charge of Rangikhari Town Out Post, filed an FIR. Accordingly, he and others launched a raid and discovered eight renters (both male and female) at the home of accused No. 1, who claimed that they had traveled from Bangladesh through Tripura and had been living there as tenants for the last four months.
The Petitioner filed a Criminal Petition to quash the impugned order dated 10.07.2019. Following the filing of a charge by the learned trial court under Section 14-A of the Foreigners’ Act against the present Petitioner and three others, they all pleaded guilty to the authorities. They were sentenced to simple imprisonment for two years and a fine of Rs.10,000/-, with a two-month extension in default. The learned trial court further ordered the Deputy Commissioner, Cachar, to take the required measures for their deportation after their jail sentences were completed.
The Learned Counsel of the Petitioner contended that the Petitioner is a permanent resident of the hamlet of Motinagar in the West Tripura District. The Petitioner provided his birth certificate, Annexure-6, which stated that he was born on November 19, 1991, in V.M. Hospital in Tripura. The Counsel claims that he had his elementary education at Kalam Khet S.B. School, located in the Sonamara Police Station in the West Tripura District. The Petitioner read up to Class VIII, which he attempted to verify by annexing the school certificate (Annexure-7). The Petitioner’s pled argument is that he is not a foreigner. Still, the learned trial Court framed the accusation against him under Section 14-A of the Foreigners’ Act, and the accused people pleaded guilty. The learned trial Court convicted them based on the inappropriate advice of the hired Counsel.
On pursuing both sides, the Learned Judge contends that the Petitioner failed to present any papers at the time of the investigation, as evidenced by the numerous witness statements. After pleading guilty and completing a one-year term, the Petitioner filed the current case with specific papers that he never submitted before the I/O or the court and now challenges the impugned decision, which cannot be upheld. Accordingly, the petition is rejected since there is no compelling reason to overturn the learned trial court’s decision.
Reviewed by Rangasree.