Gauhati High Court
Jalal Uddin vs The State Of Assam on 10 March, 2025
Author: Parthivjyoti Saikia
Bench: Parthivjyoti Saikia
Page No.# 1/5
GAHC010184152010
undefined
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : Crl.Rev.P./389/2010
JALAL UDDIN
S/O BADSA MIA, R/O VILL. KUREHA, PS. BARPETA, DIST. BARPETA,
ASSAM.
VERSUS
THE STATE OF ASSAM
-
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR.I A HAZARIKA, MR.H R A CHOUDHURY,MS.S K
NARGIS,MR.A MATIN
Advocate for the Respondent : , ,PP, ASSAM,
BEFORE
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PARTHIVJYOTI SAIKIA
JUDGMENT AND ORDER
Date : 10-03-2025
Heard Mr. HRA Choudhury, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. I.A. Hazarika,
learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. K. Baishya, the learned
Addl. Public Prosecutor, Assam.
Page No.# 2/5
2. This is an application under Section 397 read with Section 401 of the Criminal
Procedure Code whereby the judgment dated 23.08.2010 passed by the learned
Sessions Judge, Barpeta in Criminal Appeal No.08/2006 affirming the judgment dated
07.03.2006 passed by the learned SDJM (Sadar), Barpeta in G.R. Case No.582/1996, is
put to challenge.
3. On 23.05.1996, the B.A. Part-I examination of 1996 was held in the Bhawanipur
Anchalik College, Bhawanipur. On that day, it was for English-I Paper. Abdur Rahim
was to sit in the examination. But in his place, the present petitioner Jalal Uddin being
his brother, sat in the examination for writing the paper. The Invigilator Mobarak
Hussain detected the said fact. Before Sri Jayanta Goswami, the Assistant Examination
In-charge of the said examination, the petitioner Jalal Uddin admitted his guilt. The
confessional statement was accordingly recorded. Finally, the Principal of the College
Sri Nabin Ch. Kalita lodged the FIR before police alleging the aforesaid facts.
4. Police started investigation and on conclusion of investigation, the charge sheet
against the present petitioner and his brother Abdur Rahim was laid before the court.
5. The points for determination in the said trial were-
I. Whether on 23.05.96, accused Md. Jalal Uddin with his intention of
cheating, appeared in examination of English-I Paper of B.A. Part-I
examination at Bhawanipur Anchalik College impersonation to be Abdul
Rahim?
II. Whether the accused Abdur Rahim abetted the co-accused Md. Jalal
Uddin impersonating in the examination on his behalf?
6. Nabin Ch. Kalita, Mobarak Hussain, Jayanta Goswami and the Police Investigating
Officer Kurshed Ali were examined in the trial court.
7. They were extensively cross-examined by the defence counsel.
8. Finally, the trial court held that the offence against Md. Abdur Rahim was not
Page No.# 3/5
proved. Therefore, he was acquitted from the case. The court held that the offence
under Section 419 of the Indian Penal Code was proved against the present petitioner
beyond all reasonable doubt. Accordingly, the trial court convicted the present
petitioner under Section 419 of the Indian Penal Code.
9. The petitioner preferred an appeal before the court of Sessions at Barpeta. The
appeal was registered as Criminal Appeal No.08/2006.
10. The learned Sessions Judge, Barpeta after hearing both sides, found the appeal
to be devoid of merit and therefore, the appeal was dismissed.
11. Aggrieved by the aforesaid facts, the present revision petition has been filed.
12. I have given my anxious considerations to the submissions made by the learned
counsel of both sides.
13. Regarding the revisional power under Section 397 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Amit Kapoor v. Ramesh Chander, (2012) 9
SCC 460, has elaborately discussed. Paragraphs 18 and 20 of the said judgment are
quoted as under:
“18. It may also be noticed that the revisional jurisdiction exercised by the High Court
is in a way final and no inter court remedy is available in such cases. Of course, it may
be subject to jurisdiction of this Court under Article 136 of the Constitution of India.
Normally, a revisional jurisdiction should be exercised on a question of law. However,
when factual appreciation is involved, then it must find place in the class of cases
resulting in a perverse finding. Basically, the power is required to be exercised so that
justice is done and there is no abuse of power by the court. Merely an apprehension or
suspicion of the same would not be a sufficient ground for interference in such cases.
20. The jurisdiction of the court under Section 397 can be exercised so as to examine
the correctness, legality or propriety of an order passed by the trial court or the
inferior court, as the case may be. Though the section does not specifically use the
expression “prevent abuse of process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of
justice”, the jurisdiction under Section 397 is a very limited one. The legality, propriety
or correctness of an order passed by a court is the very foundation of exercise of
jurisdiction under Section 397 but ultimately it also requires justice to be done. The
jurisdiction could be exercised where there is palpable error, non-compliance with the
provisions of law, the decision is completely erroneous or where the judicial discretion
is exercised arbitrarily. On the other hand, Section 482 is based upon the
Page No.# 4/5maxim quando lex aliquid alicui concedit, concedere videtur id sine quo res ipsa esse
non potest i.e. when the law gives anything to anyone, it also gives all those things
without which the thing itself would be unavoidable. The section confers very wide
power on the Court to do justice and to ensure that the process of the court is not
permitted to be abused.”
14. Normally, a revisional court is not expected to go into the findings of fact by the
trial court. In exceptional circumstances only, the revisional court may consider the
evidence. The revisional power under the Code of Criminal Procedure can be exercised
when there is a legal flaw or error in law.
15. I have gone through the evidence available in the record.
16. The petitioner has pleaded before this Court that his recorded confession which
was exhibited as “Material Ext.GA” was an extra-judicial confession and was not a
voluntary one.
17. This Court is of the opinion that the conviction of the petitioner was not based
only on the confessional statement. He never claimed that it was not him but Abdur
Rahim was sitting in the examination hall. The offence under Section 419 of the Indian
Penal Code was proved beyond all reasonable doubt. The learned trial court as well as
the appellate court have correctly appreciated the prosecution evidence and arrived at
a correct finding.
18. For the aforesaid reasons, this Court is of the opinion that this is not a fit case
for exercising the power of revision as prescribed by the Code of Criminal Procedure.
This revision petition is found to be devoid of merit and stands dismissed accordingly.
19. The petitioner Jalal Udidn is directed to surrender before the trial court for
serving the sentence. If he does not surrender before the trial court, after receiving
the LCR, the trial court shall procure his attendance by issuing Warrant of Arrest
against him.
Page No.# 5/5
20. With the aforesaid direction, the Criminal Revision Petition is disposed of.
Send back the LCR.
JUDGE
Comparing Assistant