CHOWDHARY SUJITH CHANDRA Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is the 2nd accused in Crime No.1069 of 2020 of Anchalamoodu Police Station. The case was registered on 29.04.2020 alleging offence under Section 7 read with Sections 14(b) and 14(c) of the Foreigners Act, 1946 and Sections 4 and 5 of the Kerala Epidemic Diseases Ordinance, 2020. On completion of investigation, charge sheet was laid before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Kollam where the case has been taken on file as C.C.No.1702 of 2020.

(2.) Petitioner is a foreign national, citizen of Bangladesh, who had reached India on 03.03.2020 on a visiting visa. His term of visa was valid till 18.02.2021. As per the terms of the visa, he is not expected to do any employment in the country. It is alleged that, in violation of the Foreigners Registration Rules, he did not report the matter before the authorised officer and also engaged in employment in the hollow bricks factory and buffalo farm of the 1st accused and thus the crime was registered. Now he faces allegations as stated above along with the 1st accused Thomas Leon, who is a citizen of the country. The petitioner has moved this Court under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. for quashing the proceedings. According to him, the allegations are incorrect; no materials have been collected by the prosecution to establish that he was employed by the 1st accused in a brick manufacturing unit; such a unit remains closed during lockdown. According to the learned counsel, the petitioner was a co-worker of the brother-in-law of the 1st accused in Persian Gulf, he had reached the country to attend the marriage of the brother of 1st accused, that he got stranded here for the last 17 months; lockdown was clamped on 23.03.2020 so that he could not continue his occupation in a hotel. He had already booked his return ticket and had to go back to his native country on 31st May, 2020. Due to travel restrictions, he could not go back. By the time, the period of the visa expired and now everyday's stay in the country is illegal. The learned counsel also wanted to convince me that the 1st accused had given Form C certificate on time; the petitioner had never worked in the brick manufacturing unit of the 1st accused; if he was an employee under the 1st accused, an amount would not have been transferred to the credit of the 1st accused; he had no option but to stay with the help of his friends since all hotels had evacuated its inmates. According to the learned counsel, the prosecution has no case that the petitioner is posing any security threat to the country. In the precarious situation, the 1st accused was giving him asylum and accommodated him. No provision under the Foreigners Act or Kerala Epidemic Diseases Ordinance has been violated by him.

(3.) As directed by this Court, the Union of India represented by its Secretary, Ministry of External Affairs was impleaded as additional 2nd respondent.