GAHC010009642013

undefined

THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT

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

Case No. : Crl.Rev.P./333/2013

MOHIRUDDIN AHMED

S/O MD KHABIRUDDIN VILL- KAYAKUCHI, MOUZA- PAKA P.S. and DIST.

BARPETA, ASSAM.

VERSUS

THE STATE OF ASSAM

Advocate for the Petitioner : MR.S K DEORI, MR. P K ROYCHOUDHURY,MR M

HUSSAIN,MR. A K AZAD,MRK UDDIN,MR.N HAQUE,DR.B AHMED,MR.A M

BAZARBARUAH

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

BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N. UNNI KRISHNAN NAIR

ORDER

Date : 01.11.2025 Heard Mr. P. K. Roychoudhury, learned counsel for the petitioner.

Also heard Mr. M. P. Goswami, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State.

2. The present revision petition has been instituted assailing the Judgment dated 10.07.2013, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (FTC), Barpeta, in Criminal Appeal No.06/2012, dismissing the same and thereby upholding the Judgment dated 28.04.2012, passed by the learned SDJM (M), Bajali, in G.R. Case No.1781/2006, convicting and sentencing the petitioner to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of 1(one) year, under Section 406 IPC.

3. The prosecution case in brief is that on 10.12.2006, one Mir Abul Kasem, the then Inspector of Schools, Barpeta, had lodged an FIR, with the Officer-in-Charge, Barpeta Police Station, inter alia, stating, therein, that the petitioner, herein, who is the Head Master of Karaguri Pathar Anchalik High School, had collected question papers of class IX Board Examination from the Secretary of District Board by submitting requisition. It is alleged in the said FIR that on 09.12.2006 at around 2.30 p.m when Nripendra Pujari Secretary of the District Board visited the school along with 3(three) other members of the Board, they found that no examination was held. It is further alleged that the question papers having remained with the petitioner, a notice was issued to the petitioner to return the question paper packets, however the petitioner did not return the same. Apprehending that the petitioner may do something malafide with the question papers thereby causing disturbances to the secrecy of the examination as a whole, the FIR came to be lodged.

The police on receipt of the said FIR registered the same as Barpeta P.S. Case No.877/2006 under Section 406 IPC.

On conclusion of the investigation the police laid a charge-

sheet under Section 406 IPC against the petitioner, herein.

The learned Trial Court on appreciating the materials coming on record had framed a charge under Section 406 IPC against the petitioner, herein.

The charge on being read over and explained to the petitioner, he having pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried, a Trial ensued.

During the Trial, the prosecution examined 15(fifteen)

witnesses and thereafter the petitioner, herein, was examined under Section 313 CrPC.

On conclusion of the Trial, the learned Trial Court upon appreciating the evidences coming on record proceeded to convict the petitioner, herein, under Section 406 IPC and sentenced him to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for 1(one) year.

Being aggrieved the petitioner assailed his conviction under Section 406 IPC by the learned Trial Court vide Judgment dated 28.04.2012, by way of instituting an appeal, being Criminal Appeal No.06/2012, before the Court of the learned Sessions Judge, Barpeta.

The appeal was considered by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (FTC), Barpeta. The Appellate Court upon appreciating the evidences coming on record was pleased to dismiss the said appeal thereby upholding the conviction of the petitioner under Section 406 IPC, by the learned Trial Court.

Being aggrieved the petitioner, herein, has instituted the present proceedings.

4. Mr. P. K. Roychoudhury, learned counsel for the petitioner, by referring to the depositions of the prosecution witnesses as well as the statement made by the petitioner under Section 313 CrPC, during the Trial, has submitted that at best what was established against the petitioner is that the question