GAHC010022852026 2026:GAU-AS:1852 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)

Case No. : Crl.Rev.P./50/2026 SRI MASOOM AHMED SON OF MD ROFIQUDDIN ALI AHMED RESIDENT OF AJANTA PATH HATIGAON CHARIALI PO AND PS HATIGAON GUWAHATI DISTRICT KAMRUP (METRO) ASSAM VERSUS THE UNION OF INDIA REPRESENTED BY THE DIRECTOR CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. K BHATTACHARJEE, MS. P BORDOLOI,MS. A BARMAN,ABBASH U AHMED Advocate for the Respondent : SC, CBI, BEFORE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SHAMIMA JAHAN

ORDER

11.02.2026 Heard Mr. K. Bhattacharjee, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Ms. M. Kumari, learned Standing Counsel for CBI.

2. By this application filed under Section 442 of the BNSS, 2023, read with Section 438 of the BNSS, 2023, the petitioner has challenged the Order dated 21.11.2025 passed in CR Case No. 1141/2009 under Section 420/471 of the IPC pending before the Court of Special Judicial Magistrate, Kamrup (M), Guwahati, by which the prayer for furnishing certain documents at the time of cross examination of the Investigating Officer was rejected.

3. Mr. K. Bhattacharya, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has filed an application before the learned Court of Special Judicial Magistrate First Class, Kamrup, Guwahati under Section 207 of the Cr.PC on 29.08.2025 praying inter alia that when the Investigating Officer was examined on 21.08.2025, it came into light that he has relied on certain documents mentioned in the seizure memos and as such, has prayed for supply of certain documents by the said application. The said documents were seizure memo vide Exhibit-7 which contained 10 numbers of seized documents, seizure memo vide Exhibit-37 which contained 21 numbers of seized documents, seizure memo vide Exhibit-46 which contained 11 numbers of seized documents, seizure memo vide Exhibit-23 which contained 20 numbers of seized documents and seizure memo vide Exhibit-24 which contained 3 numbers of seized documents.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the said documents were vital and material documents and were not supplied to him by the prosecution. The learned Court of Special Judicial Magistrate First Class, Kamrup heard the application and upon consideration of the rival submissions made by the parties, reached a finding that the documents claimed are not new nor had been introduced at any subsequent stage of the trial. It was also held that the documents form an integral part of the case record accompanying the Charge- sheet and have always been available to the accused since the very inception of the prosecution case. As such, it was concluded that asking for documents after a lapse of more than a decade from the date of compliance under Section 207 Cr.PC appears to be a deliberate attempt to delay the proceedings and that once the Court had completed supplying documents under Section 207 Cr.PC, the accused person cannot later be permitted to re-open the issue on vague, belated and opportunistic grounds and accordingly, the said application was rejected.

5. Mr. K. Bhattacharjee, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that those documents were never exhibited during the trial at the initial stage and that the Investigating Officer has relied on the documents for the first time during his deposition and as such, he submits that he should be given an opportunity to inspect the said documents and to confront the Investigating Officer with the same. He submits that although the said documents were mentioned in the seizure memo supplied to him under Section 207 of the Cr.PC, but the documents were never supplied to him. He as such submits that for fair trial, the accused has a right to be supplied with all the documents relied on by the prosecution and to substantiate his arguments, he has placed reliance on the Judgment of P. Ponnusamy Vs. State of Tamil Nadu, reported in (2023) 12 SCC 666, wherein the H