Gauhati High Court
Page No.# 1/4 vs The State Of Assam And Anr on 25 February, 2025
Page No.# 1/4
GAHC010036352025
undefined
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : Crl.Pet./212/2025
JAHIDUL ISLAM AND 3 ORS
S/O KAJIMUDDIN, R/O VILL CHUNBARI, P.S- GOBARDHANA, DIST- BAKSA,
ASASAM
2: JAKIR @ ZAKIR HUSSIAN
S/O. HAIDAR ALI
R/O. KUTHURIJHAR
P.S. GOBARDHANA
DISTRICT- BAKSA
ASSAM
3: ABU SHAMA AHMED
S/O
MIR ALI
R/O. VILLAGE SHANTI NAGAR
WARD NO. 09
P.S. BARPETA ROAD
DISTRICT -BARPETA
ASSAM
4: ZAKIR HUSSAIN
S/O- ABDUR RAZAK R/O- KAYA KUCHI PAM
P.S AND DIST- BARPET
VERSUS
THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ANR
REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, ASSAM
2:OMPRAKASH TIWARI
S/O- LATE- DHLLA TIWARI
R/O-46A
BHASKAR NAGAR BLOCK B
FATASHIL AMBARI
Page No.# 2/4
GUWAHATI
ASSAM SERVING AS S.I AT BARPETA ROAD POLICE STATION
DISTRICT BARPETA
ASSA
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR S BORTHAKUR, MR. A. HAQUE,A M RAHMAN,MR. S U
AHMED
Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM,
BEFORE
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MRIDUL KUMAR KALITA
ORDER
Date : 25-02-2025
1. Heard Mr. S Borthakur, learned counsel for the petitioner.
2. Also heard Mr. D Das, learned Additional Public Prosecutor.
3. This Criminal Petition has been filed by the petitioners namely, (i)
Jahidul Islam, (ii) Jakir Hussain @ Jakir, (iii) Abu Salman Ahmed and (iv)
ZakirHussain, impugning the order dated 09.01.2025 passed by learned
Sessions Judge, Barpeta in Sessions Case No. 125/2023, directing the
prosecution to produce original sanction order and also to produce witnesses on
the basis of charges framed earlier.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that on an earlier
occasion, i.e. on 13.09.2023, learned Sessions Judge,Barpeta, had framed
charges against the petitioners under Section 10/13/18 of Unlawful Activities
(Prevention) Act, 1967.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the charges were
framed at that time without there being any prosecution sanction order as
mandated by the statute. Hence, the petitioner that the petitioners approached
this court on an earlier occasion by filing an application under Section 482 of the
Page No.# 3/4
Cr.P.C impugning the order of framing charges against them. The said
application was disposed of by a co-ordinate bench of this Court, on
28.06.2024, in Criminal Petition No. 1105/2023, whereby, the order of framing
of charges against the petitioners was set aside and quashed and the trial Court
was directed to proceed from the stage of taking of cognizance.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that after the quashing of
the order dated 13.09.2023, by which charges were framed against the
petitioners, no prosecution sanction order has been placed before the Trial Court
and no fresh charges are framed till date. However, The trial Court, by the
impugned order dated 09.01.2025, erroneously observed that the charges
against the accused persons are already framed and fixed the case for
production of prosecution sanction, as well as, evidence of prosecution
witnesses.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the impugned
order as ex-facie, erroneously and in violation of the order of the co-ordinate
bench of this Court, i.e., order dated 28.06.2024 passed in Criminal Petition No.
1105/2023.
8. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor also submits that, apparently it
appears that the prosecution sanction order is yet to be produced by the
prosecution side before the Trial Court, as well as the original charge framing
order has already been quashed by a co-ordinate bench of this Court. Hence, he
submits that, it appears that the impugned order has been passed erroneously.
9. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for both
the sides and gone through the materials available on record.
10. It appears that by order dated 28.06.2024 passed in Criminal
Petition No. 1105/2023, a co-ordinate bench of this Court had set-aside the
Page No.# 4/4
order dated 13.09.2023, whereby the Sessions Judge had framed charges
against the present petitioners. By the said order the parties were relegated to
the stage of cognizance and the trial Court was directed to conduct the trial
accordingly from that stage. However, from a bare perusal of the impugned
order it appears that the Trial Court, the impugned judgment, had erroneously
observed that charges are already framed.
11. In view of the clear direction of the order of the co-ordinate
bench of this Court, discussed hereinabove, it appears that the impugned order
is not sustainable. The Trial Court shall consider the question of framing of
charges against the present petitioner on after receipt of the prosecution
sanction order, as has already been directed by the co-ordinate bench of this
Court.
12. In view of the above observations, this Criminal Petition is
allowed and the order dated 09.01.2025, passed in Sessions Case No. 125/2023
is hereby set-aside.
13. The Trial Court is directed to comply with the order dated
28.06.2024 passed (by co-ordinate bench of this Court) in Criminal Petition No.
1105/2023 and proceed accordingly.
14. Let a copy of this order, along with a copy of order dated
28.06.2024 passed in Criminal Petition No. 1105/2023, be sent to the Trial Court
for compliance.
15. This Criminal Petition is accordingly allowed.
JUDGE
Comparing Assistant
