Back
2025 Supreme(Gau) 1769
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI, ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH
ARUN DEV CHOUDHURY, J.
Rahul Gandhi S/o Late Rajiv Gandhi – Appellant
Versus
The State of Assam and Another – Respondent
Crl. Rev. Pet. No. 283 of 2024
Decided On : 13-10-2025
For the Appellants : A.M. Bora, D.K. Baidya, D. Gagai, V.H. Choudhury
For the Respondents: D. Bora, P.K. Das, N. Mahajan, A. Chaudhury, B.K. Mahajan, K. Gogoi
Judicial discretion for summoning additional witnesses must be exercised judiciously, requiring a clear basis for necessity, and revisional changes are limited to correcting procedural errors without arbitrary substitution.
Headnote:(A) Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 - Sections 438, 442, and 528 - Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Sections 244 and 254 - Application for summoning additional witnesses - Trial Court dismissed the application citing vague reasons; Additional Sessions Judge allowed it, but was set aside - The court emphasized that the discretion under Section 254(2) must be exercised judiciously, requiring a foundational basis for summoning additional evidence. The not providing grounds for the necessity of additional witnesses was underscored. (Paras 3, 4, 28, 39)
(B) Criminal Procedure - Review by Sessions Court - A Sessions Court should not substitute its own discretion for that of the trial court without a manifesting illegality. The revisional power is limited to correcting jurisdictional or procedural errors. (Paras 41, 42)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner, a sitting legislator, was accused of making defamatory statements, leading to a complaint filed under Sections 499 and 500 of the IPC. The trial magistrate dismissed a request to summon additional witnesses on grounds of vagueness.
Findings of Court:
The court held that the additional witnesses were not sufficiently justified in the application, and the revisional judge's interference was arbitrary, leading to an unlawful outcome.
Issues: Whether the additional witnesses requested by the complainant were necessary and whether the revisional court had correctly reversed the trial magistrate's ruling.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that a vague application without clear grounds for the necessity of additional evidence could not warrant an overturning of a magistrate's decision, which is protected from arbitrary interference.
Result: The impugned order was set aside.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. challenge to proceedings under ipc. (Para 3 , 5 , 6 , 9 , 41) |
| 2. arguments on legal provisions for summoning witnesses. (Para 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 19) |
| 3. court's evaluation of procedural application. (Para 22 , 23 , 24 , 27 , 30) |
| 4. discretionary power of magistrate under cr.p.c. (Para 25 , 29 , 34) |
| 5. final orders and directives of the court. (Para 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 , 2023 SCC Online SC 1463 since the petitioner herein is a sitting Legislator (Member of Parliament)
2. Heard Mr. A.M. Bora, learned Senior Counsel, assisted by Mr. V.A. Choudhury, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. K. Gogoi, learned Public Prosecutor, Assam, representing the respondent No. 1 and Mr. B.K. Mahajan, learned counsel with Mr. N. Mahajan, learned counsel for the respondent No. 2.
3. The present application under Section 438 /442 read with Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (hereinafter referred to as BNSS ), is filed challenging the impugned judgment and order dated 22.09.2023 passed by the learned Court of Additional Sessions Judge No. 2, Kamrup (M), at Guwahati in Criminal Revision No. 26/2023.
4. By the impugned order dated 22.09.2023, the learned Additional Sessions Judge has overturned the order dated 18.03.2023 passed by the trial Court, by which an application filed by the complainant in C.R. Case No. 559/2016 with a prayer to adduce three additional witnesses was rejected.
5. The respondent No.2, as complainant, filed a complaint case before the Court of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kamrup (M) at Guwahati, inter alia, projecting that on 12.12.2015, the accused/petitioner went to Barpeta and took part in a Padayatra and addressed a public rally at a place called Medhirtari. It was further alleged that the accused petitioner was supposed to visit Barpeta Satra and take blessings in the Satra; however, he kept the officials of Satra waiting, and after waiting for a considerable period of time, the people waiting for him and the other office bearers of the Satra got annoyed and expressed their anguish before different TV channels and journalists present therein. It is also further projected in the complaint that, taking a cue from such a situation, the petitioner interviewed different TV channels and made a statement that he was prevented from going to the Satra by RSS people, which was subsequently published in The Times of India, New Delhi Edition, on 15.12.2015. According to the complaint, the same was also published in a local Assamese vernacular daily, namely, Dainik Agradoot, on 15 December 2015. It was alleged that the accused petitioner had deliberately and intentionally made defamatory statements to communalise the issue to gain political mileage on the eve of the forthcoming election in the State of Assam.
6. Based on such a complaint, C.R. Case No. 559/2016 was registered under Section 499 /500 of the IPC. Before taking cognizance of the said case, the learned trial Magistrate examined as many as six listed witnesses under Section 200 /202 of the C.P.C. and thereafter took cognizance of the offences under Section 499 /500 of the IPC.
7. Pursuant to that, summon was issued against the accused petitioner, who appeared before the learned trial Court and was released on PR Bond. After the explanation of the particulars of the offence, the matter proceeded to the stage of recording of evidence. As many as 7 (seven) prosecution witnesses, including the complainant himself, were examined, cross-examined and discharged. At that stage, an application was filed by the complainant to allow him to adduce 3 (three) more witnesses named in the aforesaid petition. The contents of the aforesaid petition shall be dealt with at a later stage of this judgment.
8. The accused filed objections to the pet
