Page No.# 1/3 GAHC010112032025 2025:GAU-AS:7034 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Crl.Rev.P./192/2025 AKRAMUL HUSSAIN SON OF JALAL UDDIN R/O VILL- PAGHALI, P.S. SAMAGURI, P.O. MOWAMARI, DIST. NAGAON, ASSAM, PIN-782140. VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ANR. TO BE REP. BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, ASSAM 2:MISS. HELEN SARKAR D/O SRI JIBAN SARKAR R/O VILL- RADHA NAGAR P.S. AND P.O. HOJAI DIST. HOJAI ASSAM PIN- 782435 (INFORMANT Advocate for the Petitioner : ALHAJJ I UDDIN, H M I HOQUE,MR ROBIUL HOQUE,MRS. R MOMTAZ Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, Page No.# 2/3 BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PARTHIVJYOTI SAIKIA ORDER Date : 30.05.2025 1. Heard Mr. A. I. Uddin, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. K. K. Parasar, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State of Assam. 2. This application has been filed under Sections 397/401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 read with Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the order dated 02.05.2025, passed in GR Case No.361/2015, pending in the Court of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hojai. 3. In the aforesaid case, there were 7(seven) persons shown as prosecution witnesses. All of them were examined and the case was posted for passing Judgment. 4. On 02.05.2025, learned Additional Public Prosecutor filed an application before the Court below praying for calling of 2(two) witnesses, namely, Kannan Bala Sarkar and Subhash Biswas. It was pleased before the Court that Kannan Bala Sarkar was named as prosecution witness in the Charge-Sheet, whereas, the name of Subhash Biswas was taken by some other witnesses. 5. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor further submitted that he was newly engaged in that case and therefore he wanted those 2(two) witnesses to be summoned. 6. I have gone through the certified copies of the evidence recorded by the Trial Court, none of the witnesses named Subhash Biswas. Moreover, Kannan Bala Sarkar was not shown as a witness in the Charge-sheet. Page No.# 3/3 7. It appears that the learned Trial Court did not exercise proper judicial mind while passing the said order. 8. Moreover, change of counsel is not a good ground to call the 2(two) witnesses for further prosecution. 9. The impugned order is bad in law and stands set aside. 10. The learned Trial Court is directed to dispose of the case expeditiously. 11. With the aforesaid direction, the Criminal Revision Petition stands disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant