Page No.# 1/2 GAHC010069952025 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Crl.Rev.P./100/2025 MD FAYZAL HOQUE S/O LATE JALIM UDDIN, R/O - VILL - DANGARKUCHI P.O. - SANKUCHI P.S. BARPETA DISTRICT - BARPETA - 781314 VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ANR REP. BY THE PP, ASSAM 2:MD AZIZUL HOQUE S/ O - ABDUL BASAD R/O - VILL - BHETAPARA P.S. - HATIGAON DISTRICT - KAMRUP (M) ASSA Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. DILIP DEY, Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, :: BEFORE :: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PARTHIVJYOTI SAIKIA O R D E R 04.04.2025 Heard Mr. D. Dey, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. Also heard Ms. S.H. Borah, the learned Addl. Public Prosecutor, Assam. Page No.# 2/2 2. This is an application under Section 438/442 of the BNSS, 2023 challenging the order dated 04.03.2025 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Kamrup(M), Guwahati in C.R. (N.I.) Case No.3992/2017. 3. The petitioner has been facing the trial before the trial court. The case was posted on 4th of March, 2025 for adducing defence evidence. On that day, he filed an application praying for another date to adduce defence evidence. The ground on which he filed the application was his illness. 4. Since the said application was not accompanied by any medical documents, and since in the past, the petitioner had taken many adjournments, the trial court refused to adjourn the hearing. Therefore, the court listed the matter on 05.04.2025 for argument. 5. It has been submitted by the petitioner that in the month of Ramjan, he became ill and therefore, could not come to the court. 6. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel of both sides. 7. This Court is of the opinion that the impugned order is an unreasonable one. At least, one opportunity should have been granted to the petitioner to adduce defence evidence. Therefore, the impugned order dated 04.03.2025 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Kamrup(M), Guwahati in C.R. (N.I.) Case No.3992/2017 is set aside. 8. The trial court is directed to given one opportunity to the petitioner to adduce defence evidence. No further chance shall be given to the petitioner to that effect. With the aforesaid direction, the Criminal Revision Petition is disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant