Back
IN THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH
ARUN DEV CHOUDHURY, J.
Ramakanta Deuri S/O- Late Saruful Dewri
VERSUS
The State Of Assam
Crl.Pet./36 of 2023
Decided on : 24-09-2025
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. special assignment of the case to this bench (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. overview of the procedural background of the case (Para 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 12) |
| 3. details of witness examination and procedural applications (Para 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 13) |
| 4. arguments by petitioner regarding trial court's decisions (Para 14 , 15 , 16) |
| 5. prosecutorial argument on the implications of section 311 cr.p.c. (Para 18 , 19) |
| 6. court's analysis of section 311 cr.p.c. and its implications (Para 20 , 21 , 22 , 23) |
| 7. allegations of financial misconduct relating to the statue construction (Para 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30) |
| 8. clarification on evidence relevance and consistency with original allegations (Para 31 , 32 , 33 , 34 , 35) |
| 9. discussion of timing for admitting new evidence (Para 37 , 38 , 39) |
| 10. final order and directive for expeditious trial (Para 40 , 41 , 42 , 43) |
JUDGMENT :
ARUN DEV CHOUDHURY, J.
1. This matter is specially assigned to this Bench by Hon’ble the Chief Justice in terms of the direction of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay Vs. Union of India reported in 2023 SCC Online SC 1463 as the petitioner herein is a sitting Member of Assam Legislative Assembly.
2. Heard Mr. R Dey, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. K Gogoi, learned Public Prosecutor, appearing for respondent No.1. None appears for the respondent No.2, though notices were duly served. The State of Assam is only a formal party; however, Mr. K Gogoi, learned Public Prosecutor, Assam, rendered assistance to this court on questions of law as requested by this court.
3. The present application under section 482 of the Cr.P.C., 1973, is filed assailing an order dated 15.10.2022, passed in CR Case No.386/2018, under section 120(B)/406/34 IPC read with section 8 of the ASSAM FISCAL RESPONSIBILITY AND BUDGET MANAGEMENT ACT , 2005.
4. The respondent No.2 preferred a complaint before the Court of learned CJM, Morigaon on 22.06.2018, which was registered and numbered as CR case No.386/2018. The case was transferred to the court of learned SDJM, Morigaon, for trial.
5. The petitioner appeared before the Trial Court on receipt of the summons, and the trial proceeded.
6. The complainant examined as many as three witnesses.
They were cross-examined by the defence and were discharged.
7. Thereafter, a petition registered as petition No.1285/2022 was filed by the complainant under section 311 of Cr.P.C, with a prayer to call two additional witnesses. Accordingly, by an order dated 27.05.2022, the learned Trial Court permitted to examine the said witnesses. Such an order is not under challenge.
8. These two witnesses were examined as PW-4 & PW-5 on 02.06.2022 and 28.07.2022, respectively.
9. Thereafter, on 20.08.2022, the statements of the accused were recorded under section 313 Cr. P.C.; the accused declined to adduce evidence, and accordingly, the matter was fixed for arguments on 26.08.2022.
10. Thereafter, on two consecutive dates, the complainant sought an adjournment, which the learned trial Court granted. Accordingly, the matter was fixed for arguments on 17.09.2022. On the said date, the complainant filed another application under section 311 Cr.P.C. with a prayer to summon four more witnesses and also to recall PW-5 for re-examination. On the said date, the counsel for the accused filed a written argument in the complaint.
11. Subsequently, the accused filed a written objection in the petition filed by the complainant under Section 311 Cr.P.C.
12. After hearing the parties, by the impugned order dated 15.10.2022, the learned trial court permitted the accused to recall PW-5 and permitted the complainant to call three witnesses, namely, the Sculpture, the Accountant of Tiwa Autonomous Council, Morigaon and the Deputy Director of Archaeology Department, Assam, however, rejected the prayer to examine the Branch Manager, Assam Gramin Vikash Bank, Morigaon as witness.
13. Thereafter, pursuant to the impugned order, the PW-5 was present before the Court for his re-examinatio
AI
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
