Gauhati High Court
Crl.Rev.P./217/2013 on 9 September, 2025
Page 1 of 12
IN THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM & ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
CRL.REV. P/217/2013
1. Md Jehiruddin Ahmed
S/o Lt. Jallaluddin Ahmed
R/o Tengakhat P.O. Tengakhat P.S.
Tengakhat, District Dibrugarh, Assam.
.....Petitioner
-Versus-
1. The State of Assam
To be represented by the Public Prosecutor,
Assam
2. Miss Jerina Begum
W/O Md Jehiruddin Ahmed
R/O Naharani Gaon
P.S. Dergaon P.O.Naharani
Distrcit Golaghat, Assam
......Respondents
For Petitioner : Mr. T. J. Mahanta, Sr. Advocate
Mr. T. Gogoi, Advocate
For Respondent(s) : Mr. B. Sarma, Additional Public Prosecutor
Date of Judgment 09.09.2025
CRL.REV. P/217/2013 Page 1
Page 2 of 12
BEFORE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MRIDUL KUMAR KALITA
JUDGMENT
1. Heard Mr. T. J. Mahanta, the learned senior counsel assisted by
Mr. T. Gogoi, the learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard
Mr. B. Sarma, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State
respondent.
2. This Criminal Revision has been filed by the petitioner, namely, Md.
Jehiruddin Ahmed, impugning the judgment and order dated
16.03.2013 passed in Criminal Appeal No. 06/2013 by the learned
Session Judge Golaghat, whereby the appeal preferred by the
present petitioner as appellant before the said Court, impugning the
judgment and order dated 06.02.2008 passed by the Court of
learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate (Sadar), Golaghat,
convicting and sentencing the present petitioner under Section
498A of the Indian Penal Code, was dismissed. The Trial Court had
convicted the present petitioner under Section 498A of the Indian
Penal Code and had sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment
for 3 three years and to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/- and in default of
payment of fine to suffer further simple imprisonment for three
months.
3. The fact relevant to consideration of the instant Criminal Revision is
that on 25.06.2006, one Jerina Begum had lodged an complaint
before the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Golaghat,
inter-alia, alleging that she was married to the present petitioner on
CRL.REV. P/217/2013 Page 2
06.10.2004 fixing a Mahr (dower) of Rs. 51,101/-. It was alleged in
the complaint that the complainant was kept by the petitioner in his
house at Tengakhat in the Dibrugarh District. It was also alleged in
the complaint that the complainant was subjected to torture by the
petitioner and other two accused persons for dowry. It was further
alleged that the complainant was treated like a maid servant and
was kept confined in a room under lock and key. She was also
physically tortured. Ultimately, on 09.05.2006, she was driven out
of her matrimonial house asking her to bring Rs. 3,00,000/- as
dowry.
4. Upon receipt of the complaint, same was transferred to the Court of
learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Golaghat. The cognizance of
offence under Section 498A/323/34 of the Indian Penal Code
against all the accused persons, including the petitioner and
summons were issued to them. Later on, the case was again
transferred to the Court of learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate
(S), Golaghat.
5. During trial, the complainant adduced the evidence of six witnesses
to bring home the charges against the accused persons. The
accused persons were examined under Section 313 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973, during which they pleaded their
innocence and denied the truthfulness of the testimony of the
prosecution witnesses. The accused persons, however, did not
adduce any evidence in their defence.
CRL.REV. P/217/2013 Page 3
6. Ultimately, by the judgment dated 06.02.2008, the Trial Court had
convicted and sentenced the petitioner in the manner as described
in the paragraph No. 2 of this judgment hereinbefore. The other
two co-accused persons were, however, found not guilty and were
accordingly, acquitted.
7. The petitioner, being aggrieved on the judgment of the Trial Court
had preferred an appeal before the Court of learned Sessions
Judge, Golaghat. The said appeal was registered as Criminal Appeal
as 06/2008. However, by the impugned judgment, the First
Appellate Court had dismissed the appeal and had upheld the
conviction and sentence imposed on the petitioner by the Trial
Court.
8. Mr. T. J. Mahanta, the learned senior counsel for the petitioner has
submitted that the Court of learned Sub-Divisional Judicial
Magistrate (Sadar), Golaghat, where the trial was conducted, lacked
territorial jurisdiction to conduct the trial. The learned senior
counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the alleged offence
under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code was committed in
Tenaghat, which falls within the jurisdictions of the Court in
Dibrugarh, whereas the trial was held in the Court at Golaghat. He
has submitted that a bare perusal of the complaint petition filed by
the victim woman, it would reveal that the cause of action for the
said complaint case arose within Dibrugarh district, which is beyond
the territorial jurisdiction of the said Court where the trial was
conducted. He submitted that the First Appellate Court has erred in
CRL.REV. P/217/2013 Page 4
observing the impugned judgment that no prejudice has been
caused to the appellate due to holding of the trial in a Court which
did not have jurisdiction.
9. The learned senior counsel for the petitioner has submitted that no
witness from the area where the alleged offence was committed,
except the victim woman, was examined in the trial. All the
witnesses belong to the Golaghat district. The learned senior
counsel for the petitioner has also submitted that had the witnesses
from the place where the offence is alleged to have been
committed were examined, the real facts would have been
revealed, and due to non-examination of such witnesses, the
petitioner has been prejudiced.
10. The learned senior counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the
Appellate Court also did not give proper reasons for non-application
of the provisions of the Section 360 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 or Section 4 of the provisions of Probation of
Offenders Act, 1958. He submits that by merely stating that the
offence alleged is of serious nature, the petitioner was deprived of
the benefit of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 as well as the
provisions of Section 360 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973,
which is an error committed by the Trial Court as well as by the
Appellate Court.
11. The learned senior counsel for the petitioner has submitted that all
other witnesses except the victim, were the relatives of the victim
from Golaghat district. He further submits that this appeal is also
CRL.REV. P/217/2013 Page 5
pending since last 13 years before this Court and due to long
pendency of the appeal also, the appellant has suffered and he,
therefore, prays that the petitioner may be given the benefit of the
Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 as well as the provisions of
Section 360 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, at this stage
also. In support of his submission, the learned Senior Counsel for
the petitioner has cited the following rulings:
a. Sitaram Paswan and Others Vs. State of Bihar
reported in (2005) 13 SCC 110
b. Abdul Rahman Mandal and Others Vs. Rukia Khatun
and Another (Judgment dated 6.01.2025 in Criminal
Revision Petition No. 273/2009)
c. Rajib Gogoi and Others Vs. State of Assam (Judgment
dated 07.03.2025 in Criminal Revision Petition
No.501/2022)
d. Ratul Bhuyan Vs. State of Assam (Judgment dated
13.11.2024 in Criminal Revision Petition No.383/2013)
12. On the other hand, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor has
opposed the prayer of the petitioner and has submitted that the
plea of want of jurisdiction was raised by the petitioner before the
First Appellate Court, before the Trial Court as well as before the
Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Golaghat and on such
pleas, the said Courts have passed order dated 28.01.2008,
whereby it did not interfere in the order dated 27.12. 2007 passed
CRL.REV. P/217/2013 Page 6
by Court of learned Sub-Division Magistrate, Golaghat. He submits
that both the orders were not challenged by the present petitioner
and, therefore, at this stage, the petitioner cannot raise the plea of
the lack of jurisdiction. He further submits that the petitioner has
failed to show that due to the error of jurisdiction any prejudice has
been caused to the present petitioner.
13. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor has also submitted that
considering the nature of offence for which the petitioner was
convicted, the Trial Court as well as the First Appellate Court were
correct in not giving the benefit Section 360 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 or the provisions of the Probation of Offenders Act,
1958.
14. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for
both the sides and have perused the materials available on the
record including the case record of Trial Court as well as the First
Appellate Court, which were requisitioned in connection with this
case.
15. The offence under Section 498 A of the IPC is in the nature of
offence covered by Section 179 of Code of Criminal Procedure 1973,
moreover, the question of territorial jurisdiction was raised before
the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate (S) Golaghat also,
which by the order dated 28.01.2008 had rejected the objection as
regards territorial jurisdiction of the Trial Court.
16. The said order has not been impugned by the petitioner, therefore,
at this stage it may not be proper to re-open the question of
CRL.REV. P/217/2013 Page 7
territorial jurisdiction of the trial court i.e., the Court of learned
Special Division Judicial Magistrate (S) Golaghat regarding
territorial jurisdiction to try the C.R. Case No. 869/2006.
17. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that in this
case the Trial Court ought to have granted the benefit of Probation
of Offenders Act, 1958 to the petitioner considering the facts and
circumstances of this case. However, by merely holding that
"keeping in mind the serious nature of offence" the benefit of
Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 was not given in the case of
"Ratul Bhuyan Vs. State of Assam" (Supra). A coordinate Bench
of this Court has observed that:
"16. It is by now well settled that Act, 1958 is
a milestone in progress of modern liberal trend
of reform in the field of Penology. It is the
result of recognition of the doctrine that the
object of criminal law is more to reform the
individual offender than to punish him. It was
also held by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of
Ved Prakash Vs. State of Haryana reported in
1981 1 SCC 447, that sensitive sentencing an
accused person is a exercise of discretion and
not a routine mechanical prescription acting on
hunch. The Trial court should collect material
necessary to award a just punishment in
circumstances. It was further held that the
social background and the personal factors of
the crime doer are very relevant in this regard.
or
CRL.REV. P/217/2013 Page 8
17. In the case of Sita Ram Paswan Vs. State
of Bihar reported in AIR 2005 SC 3534, the
Hon'ble Apex Court has laid down certain
principle for exercise of discretionary power
under the Act and the consideration required.
The hon'ble Apex Court opined that while
exercising the discretionary power under the
Act 1958, the court is to consider the
circumstances of the case, the nature of
offence and the character of the offender.
While considering the nature of the offence,
the court must take a realistic view of the
gravity of the offence, the impact which the
offence had on the victim. It was concluded by
the hon'ble Apex Court that the benefit
available to the accused under section 4 of the
Act, 1958 is subject to the Limitation embodied
in the provision and the word 'may' clearly
indicates that the discretion is vested with the
court whether to release the offender in
exercise of power under section3/4 of the Act,
1958, having regard to the nature of the
offence, the character of the offender and
overall circumstances of the case.
18. It was further held by the hon'ble Apex
Court that such power can be exercised by the
court even at the appellate or revisional stage
or also by Apex Court hearing appeal under
Article 136 of the Constitution of India.""
18. While denying the benefit of Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 to
the petitioner, the Trial Court has merely observed that considering
CRL.REV. P/217/2013 Page 9
the serious nature of offence the petitioner was denied the said
benefit. If the reasoning made by the Trial Court is to be regarded
as correct, then in no case where a person is convicted under
Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code, he may be granted the
benefit of Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958, which
may not be the intent with which the Section 4 of the Probation of
Offenders Act, 1958 was incorporated in the said act.
19. In the instant case no previous conviction has been proved there
against the petitioner. The offence in this case was committed
about more than 19 years ago. It also appears that the execution of
sentence imposed by the Trial Court by the impugned judgment
was stayed by this Court on 12.06.2013 in Criminal MC No.
414/2013 arising out of the present Revision Petition. Thus, 15
years have been passed since the said date.
20. The provisions of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 are intended
to further to doctrine that the object of the criminal law is more to
be reform individual offender then to punish.
21. Therefore, for depriving a convict from availing the benefit of the
Probation of Offenders Act, 1958, the Court is to consider
circumstances of the case, the nature of offence, the character of
offender and the impact which the offence may leave on the victim.
22. In the instant case, the learned Trial Court by merely stating that
considering the serious nature of offence has denied the benefit of
the beneficiary provision of the aforesaid statute of law.
CRL.REV. P/217/2013 Page 10
23. As per the judgment of the Apex Court in case of "Sitaram
Paswan Vs. State of Bihar" reported in AIR 2005 SC 3534, the
Apex Court has observed that while exercising the discretionary
power under the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958, the Courts are
also to consider the circumstances of the case apart from nature of
the offence and the character of the offender.
24. It has also observed that while considering the offence, the Court
must take a realistic view of the gravity of the offence, the impact,
which the offence had on the victim.
25. In the instant case, there is no material to show that apart from the
present case in which he has been convicted, there is in fact any
allegation against him regarding his involved in any other offence of
any kind.
26. Considering of the aforesaid facts and circumstances in its entirety,
this Court is of the considered opinion that this is a fit case where
benefit of the provisions under Section 4 of the Probation of
Offenders Act, 1958 should be given to the petitioner.
27. Accordingly, upholding the conviction imposed by the Trial Court as
well as upheld by the First Appellate Court, this Court modifies the
sentence imposed on him to the extent that instead of sentencing
the petitioner at once, he is directed to be released on his entering
a bond of Rs. 30,000/- (Rupees Thirty Thousand only) with one
surety of like amount subject to the satisfaction of the learned Sub-
Divisional Judicial Magistrate (S) Golaghat, to appear and receive
sentence when called upon during the period of next one year as
CRL.REV. P/217/2013 Page 11
the Court may direct and in the meanwhile, he shall keep the peace
and be of good behaviour.
28. With the aforesaid observations, this writ petition is partly allowed.
JUDGE
Comparing Assistant
CRL.REV. P/217/2013 Page 12
