Page No.# 1/5 GAHC010184152010 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Crl.Rev.P./389/2010 JALAL UDDIN S/O BADSA MIA, R/O VILL. KUREHA, PS. BARPETA, DIST. BARPETA, ASSAM. VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM - Advocate for the Petitioner : MR.I A HAZARIKA, MR.H R A CHOUDHURY,MS.S K NARGIS,MR.A MATIN Advocate for the Respondent : , ,PP, ASSAM, BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PARTHIVJYOTI SAIKIA JUDGMENT AND ORDER Date : 10-03-2025 Heard Mr. HRA Choudhury, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. I.A. Hazarika, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. K. Baishya, the learned Addl. Public Prosecutor, Assam. Page No.# 2/5 2. This is an application under Section 397 read with Section 401 of the Criminal Procedure Code whereby the judgment dated 23.08.2010 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Barpeta in Criminal Appeal No.08/2006 affirming the judgment dated 07.03.2006 passed by the learned SDJM (Sadar), Barpeta in G.R. Case No.582/1996, is put to challenge. 3. On 23.05.1996, the B.A. Part-I examination of 1996 was held in the Bhawanipur Anchalik College, Bhawanipur. On that day, it was for English-I Paper. Abdur Rahim was to sit in the examination. But in his place, the present petitioner Jalal Uddin being his brother, sat in the examination for writing the paper. The Invigilator Mobarak Hussain detected the said fact. Before Sri Jayanta Goswami, the Assistant Examination In-charge of the said examination, the petitioner Jalal Uddin admitted his guilt. The confessional statement was accordingly recorded. Finally, the Principal of the College Sri Nabin Ch. Kalita lodged the FIR before police alleging the aforesaid facts. 4. Police started investigation and on conclusion of investigation, the charge sheet against the present petitioner and his brother Abdur Rahim was laid before the court. 5. The points for determination in the said trial were- I. Whether on 23.05.96, accused Md. Jalal Uddin with his intention of cheating, appeared in examination of English-I Paper of B.A. Part-I examination at Bhawanipur Anchalik College impersonation to be Abdul Rahim? II. Whether the accused Abdur Rahim abetted the co-accused Md. Jalal Uddin impersonating in the examination on his behalf? 6. Nabin Ch. Kalita, Mobarak Hussain, Jayanta Goswami and the Police Investigating Officer Kurshed Ali were examined in the trial court. 7. They were extensively cross-examined by the defence counsel. 8. Finally, the trial court held that the offence against Md. Abdur Rahim was not Page No.# 3/5 proved. Therefore, he was acquitted from the case. The court held that the offence under Section 419 of the Indian Penal Code was proved against the present petitioner beyond all reasonable doubt. Accordingly, the trial court convicted the present petitioner under Section 419 of the Indian Penal Code. 9. The petitioner preferred an appeal before the court of Sessions at Barpeta. The appeal was registered as Criminal Appeal No.08/2006. 10. The learned Sessions Judge, Barpeta after hearing both sides, found the appeal to be devoid of merit and therefore, the appeal was dismissed. 11. Aggrieved by the aforesaid facts, the present revision petition has been filed. 12. I have given my anxious considerations to the submissions made by the learned counsel of both sides. 13. Regarding the revisional power under Section 397 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Amit Kapoor v. Ramesh Chander, (2012) 9 SCC 460, has elaborately discussed. Paragraphs 18 and 20 of the said judgment are quoted as under: “18. It may also be noticed that the revisional jurisdiction exercised by the High Court is in a way final and no inter court remedy is available in such cases. Of course, it may be subject to jurisdiction of this Court under Article 136 of the Constitution of India. Normally, a revisional jurisdiction should be exercised on a question of law. However, when factual appreciation is involved, then it must find place in the class of cases resulting in a perverse finding. Basically, the power is required to be exercised so that justice is done and there is no abuse of power by the court. Merely an apprehension or suspicion of the same would not be a sufficient ground for interference in such cases. 20. The jurisdiction of the court under Section 397 can be exercised so as to examine the correctness, legality or propriety of an order passed by the trial court or the inferior court, as the case may be. Though the section does not specifically use the expression “prevent abuse of process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice”, the jurisdiction under Section 397 is a very limited one. The legality, propriety or correctness of an order passed by a court is the very foundation of exercise of jurisdiction under Section 397 but ultimately it also requires justice to be done. The jurisdiction could be exercised where there is palpable error, non-compliance with the provisions of law, the decision is completely erroneous or where the judicial discretion is exercised arbitrarily. On the other hand, Section 482 is based upon the Page No.# 4/5 maxim quando lex aliquid alicui concedit, concedere videtur id sine quo res ipsa esse non potest i.e. when the law gives anything to anyone, it also gives all those things without which the thing itself would be unavoidable. The section confers very wide power on the Court to do justice and to ensure that the process of the court is not permitted to be abused.” 14. Normally, a revisional court is not expected to go into the findings of fact by the trial court. In exceptional circumstances only, the revisional court may consider the evidence. The revisional power under the Code of Criminal Procedure can be exercised when there is a legal flaw or error in law. 15. I have gone through the evidence available in the record. 16. The petitioner has pleaded before this Court that his recorded confession which was exhibited as “Material Ext.GA” was an extra-judicial confession and was not a voluntary one. 17. This Court is of the opinion that the conviction of the petitioner was not based only on the confessional statement. He never claimed that it was not him but Abdur Rahim was sitting in the examination hall. The offence under Section 419 of the Indian Penal Code was proved beyond all reasonable doubt. The learned trial court as well as the appellate court have correctly appreciated the prosecution evidence and arrived at a correct finding. 18. For the aforesaid reasons, this Court is of the opinion that this is not a fit case for exercising the power of revision as prescribed by the Code of Criminal Procedure. This revision petition is found to be devoid of merit and stands dismissed accordingly. 19. The petitioner Jalal Udidn is directed to surrender before the trial court for serving the sentence. If he does not surrender before the trial court, after receiving the LCR, the trial court shall procure his attendance by issuing Warrant of Arrest against him. Page No.# 5/5 20. With the aforesaid direction, the Criminal Revision Petition is disposed of. Send back the LCR. JUDGE Comparing Assistant