[Foreigners Act] Mere passivity not abetment; No offence under S. 14C if person not aware of visa status of foreigners: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court recently recently held that no person shall be said to have committed an offence of abetment under Section 14C of the Foreigners Act 1946, if he was not aware about the visa status of the foreigners [Abinash Dixit v. State of Madhya Pradesh]..A Division Bench of Justices Sanjiv Khanna and Bela M Trivedi while setting aside the prosecution of the appellant, one Abinash Dixit, observed that a mere passivity and insouciance will not tantamount to offence of abetment.The accused-appellant (a Senior Engineer with Spring Energy Private Limited) was alleged to have facilitated the visit by the two Chinese citizens who were on tourist visas to Rewa Solar Plant Project. Subsequently, a First Information Report (FIR) was registered for violation of Section 7 and Section 14 of the Foreigners Act.After the investigation, the police did not find any violation of Section 7 and the said provision was also not invoked in the charge-sheet. Despite that, the trial court proceeded to frame charge against the accused under Section 7 read with Section 14.The High Court declined to quash the same prompting the present appeal..The Supreme Court said that it is unable to comprehend and fathom the reasoning given by the trial court in reference to the offence under Section 7 read with Section 14 of the Foreigners Act."The learned counsel for the respondent has also not been able to justify the aforesaid observations made by the trial court in framing the charges under Section 7 read with Section 14 of the Foreigners Act," the top court said.The Court further noted that for violation of Section 14C, the requirement is that the accused should have abetted the offences under sections 14, 14A and 14B of the Foreigners Act."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," the Court observed..Further, the Court also noted that the appellant was unaware that the Chinese citizens had traveled on tourist visas.In this backdrop, the Court observed that:"The two Chinese citizens had visited the site at the behest of and along with the employee of M/s PS Enterprises, Adarsh Kumar Singh, who had brought them to the site. There is no indication or allegation that the appellant was aware and had knowledge that the Chinese citizens had traveled on tourist visas. Prosecution has not been initiated against either Adarsh Kumar Singh or M/s PS Enterprises. They are not co-accused."In view of the above, the Court proceeded to quash the case..Senior Advocate Neeraj Kishan Kaul, Advocate-on-Record Vardhman Kaushik, advocates Suyash Mohan Guru, Tosiv Goyal, Raghav Agarwal, Prasanjit Keswani and Nitin Sangra, appeared on behalf of the appellant.Additional Advocate General Sourabh Mishra, Advocate-on-Record Abhinav Shrivastava and Advocate Sunny Choudhary, appeared on behalf of the respondent..[Read Order]