Page No.# 1/3 vs The State Of Assam
2025 Latest Caselaw 855 Gua

Gauhati High Court

Page No.# 1/3 vs The State Of Assam on 4 June, 2025

Author: Parthivjyoti Saikia

Bench: Parthivjyoti Saikia

                                                                                   Page No.# 1/3

GAHC010107522011




                                                                             2025:GAU-AS:7252

                             THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
   (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)

                              Case No. : Crl.Rev.P./267/2011

            FIZNUR ALI
            S/O SYED ALI, VILL- KENDUGURI, P.O. KENDUGURI, P.S. SIPAJHAR, DIST.
            DARRANG, ASSAM, PIN- 784148.



            VERSUS

            THE STATE OF ASSAM




Advocate for the Petitioner : MR.T ALI, MR.S DAS,MS.N JAHAN,MS.M BEGU,MISSQ
DAS,MR.J AHMED,MR.K PASHA

Advocate for the Respondent : , ,,PP, ASSAM,,,

:: PRESENT ::

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PARTHIVJYOTI SAIKIA

For the Petitioner : Mr. J. Ahmed, Advocate.

                    For the Respondent:                        Mr. K.K. Parasar,
                                                               Addl. P.P. Assam.

                    Date of Hearing  :                         27.05.2025.
                    Date of Judgment :                         04.06.2025.
                                                                            Page No.# 2/3



                           JUDGMENT AND ORDER (CAV)

Heard Mr. J. Ahmed, the counsel appearing for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. K.K. Parasar, the learned Addl. Public Prosecutor, Assam.

2. This is an application under Section 401 read with Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code challenging the judgment and order dated 01.07.2011 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Mangaldai in Criminal Appeal No.5(D-1)/2001 upholding the judgment dated 05.01.2011 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Darrang, Mangaldai in G.R. Case No.602/2004.

3. On 11.01.2004, the petitioner collected 6 quintals of rice from the office of the Circle Officer, Patharighat. The said consignment was meant to be distributed amongst flood affected victims of Haripur Gaon. The petitioner allegedly handed over 3 quintals of rice to the Councillor Shri Rebati Hazarika and allegedly misappropriated the remaining 3 quintals of rice.

4. In order to prove the offence against the petitioner, the prosecution side examined 8 witnesses and one Court Witness. The petitioner also examined 2 witnesses in defence. On the basis of the evidence on record, the trial court convicted the petitioner under Section 406 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to undergo 6 months of simple imprisonment and a fine of Rs.1,000/- with default stipulations.

5. The petitioner preferred an appeal before the Sessions Court. The learned sessions Judge upheld the conviction.

6. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel of both sides.

7. I have gone thorugh the evidence and I find that the learned trial court had correctly appreciated evidence and arrived at a correct finding. The learned appellate court also correctly upheld the judgment passed by the trial court.

Page No.# 3/3

8. The incident occurred 21 years ago. The petitioner had misappropriated only 3 quintals of rice, belonging to the State, which were to be delivered to the flood victims. This Court is of the opinion that after 21 years of occurrence, sending the petitioner to 6 months of imprisonment would not serve any purpose. Rather, it would be against the tenats of natural justice. He should compensate the loss to the Government. Therefore, the sentence part of the trial court judgment is modified. The direction asking the petitioner to suffer 6 months of imprisonment and to pay fine of ₹1,000/-, is set aside.

9. The petitioner, instead, is directed to pay a fine of ₹10,000/- and in default, he shall undergo simple imprisonment of 1 month.

10. This Court is of the opinion that payment of ₹10,000/- by the petitioner will be sufficient to make up the loss suffered by the State.

With the aforesaid direction, the revision petition is disposed of. Send back the LCR.

JUDGE

Comparing Assistant