Page No. 1/3 GAHC010137422025 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : I.A.(Crl.)/684/2025 PRABIN MAHILARY SON OF SANATAN MAHILARY R/O VILL- D.K. ROAD WARD NO. 10 P.O. N.K. DARANGA P.S. TAMULPUR DIST. TAMULPUR (BTR) ASSAM VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REP BY THE PP ASSAM Advocate for : MR P DAS Advocate for : PP ASSAM appearing for THE STATE OF ASSAM BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MANISH CHOUDHURY ORDER Date : 25.06.2025 Heard Mr. P. Das, learned counsel for the applicant-revision petitioner and Mr. R.R. Kaushik, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the opposite party-respondent, State of Assam. 2. The instant interlocutory application is preferred by the applicant-revision petitioner Page No. 2/3 seeking suspension of execution of the sentence passed against him and for his release on bail. 3. The applicant as the revision petitioner has preferred the accompanying criminal revision petition against a Judgment and Order dated 09.08.2024 passed by the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Baksa at Mushalpur [‘the Trial Court’, for short] in P.R.C. Case no. 516/2023 and a Judgment dated 20.05.2025 passed by the Court of learned Sessions Judge, Baksa at Mushalpur [‘the Appellate Court’, for short] in Criminal Appeal no. 11/2024. By the Judgment and Order dated 09.08.2024, the revision petitioner has been sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for six months and to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/-, in default of payment of fine, to undergo simple imprisonment for another three months under Section 53[1][a] of the Assam Excise Act, 2000; and to undergo simple imprisonment for six months and to pay a fine of Rs. 50,000/-, in default of payment of fine, to undergo simple imprisonment for another six months under Section 54 of the Assam Excise Act, 2000. 4. The learned counsel for the applicant-revision petitioner has submitted that during the trial, the prosecution side did not even exhibit any report of the chemical examiner, much less the chemical examiner, to establish that the articles allegedly seized from the possession of the applicant-revision petitioner was, in fact, intoxicant falling within the ambit of definition of Section 2[o] of the Assam Excise Act. 5. Upon perusal of the Judgment and Order of the learned Trial Court as well as the learned Appellate Court, prima facie it is found that the provisions of Section 293, CrPC was not followed during the trial. 6. Having regard to the aforesaid contention and after perusal of the contents of the Judgment and Order of the Trial Court as well as the Appellate Court, this Court finds prima facie force in the contention advanced by the applicant-revision petitioner. 7. In the above view of the matter, it is ordered that the execution of the sentence passed against the applicant-revision petitioner shall remain suspended till the disposal of the Page No. 3/3 accompanying criminal appeal, Crl. Rev. Pet. no. 238/2025, which has already been admitted today. Consequently, the applicant-revision petitioner is allowed to go on bail on furnishing a bail bond of Rs. 25,000/- with one surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned Trial Court with the condition that the applicant-revision petitioner shall not leave the territorial limits of the Trial Court without the prior written permission of the Trial Court. 8. The instant application stands allowed to the extent indicated above. 9. It is, however, made clear that the observations made hereinabove are only for the purpose of considering the prayer for suspension of execution of the sentence and grant of bail to the applicant-revision petitioner and the same shall not be construed as observations made with regard to the merits of the accompanying criminal revision petition. JUDGE Comparing Assistant