Criminal Liability Is Personal; Mere Membership of Trust Board Not Enough to Prosecute Under Foreigners Act, Rules High Court
Jammu, July 28: The High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh has ruled that a trustee of a charitable trust or institution cannot be subjected to criminal prosecution merely because a foreign national stayed at a trust-run premises, unless there are specific allegations establishing that the trustee was personally responsible for fulfilling statutory obligations under the Foreigners Act, 1946.
Justice M.A. Chowdhary made the observation while quashing an FIR registered against a member of the Board of Trustees of the erstwhile Ishwar Ashram Trust, now known as the Kashmir Shaiva Institute, in connection with the alleged failure to report the stay of a foreign national at the Trust’s Jammu Ashram.
According to the prosecution, Lara Hiopec, an Argentine national, stayed at the Jammu Ashram during 2021-22 after arriving from the Trust’s Srinagar centre. The police alleged that the mandatory online C-Form, required to be submitted to the Bureau of Immigration regarding the stay of foreign nationals, was not filed. Consequently, FIR No. 115/2024 was registered under Sections 7 and 14 of the Foreigners Act, 1946.
The petitioner, through counsel, argued that he was only a trustee of the institution and had no role in the day-to-day administration of the Ashram, management of guest accommodation, maintenance of records, or compliance with statutory reporting obligations relating to foreign visitors.
Accepting the contention, the High Court held that criminal liability is personal in nature and cannot be imposed merely because an individual is associated with the management of a trust, institution or organisation.
The Court observed that the mere fact that a person is a member of the Board of Trustees does not automatically make him criminally liable, unless there are specific allegations demonstrating his direct involvement in the commission of the alleged offence.
Justice Chowdhary further clarified that Section 7 of the Foreigners Act casts the statutory obligation upon the “keeper” of the premises providing accommodation to foreign nationals, and not upon every trustee or member of the governing body of the institution.
The Court noted that the FIR did not contain any allegation that the petitioner was the keeper of the Ashram, supervised accommodation facilities, maintained records of foreign guests, or was responsible for filing the mandatory C-Form with the Bureau of Immigration.
Holding that continuation of criminal proceedings against the petitioner would amount to an abuse of the process of law, the High Court quashed the FIR against him.
However, the Court clarified that its order would not prevent the investigating agency from proceeding against any other person if the material on record establishes a prima facie case against such individual.
Advocate Ayushman Kotwal appeared for the petitioner, while Deputy Advocate General Pawan Dev Singh represented the respondents.(KNC)
