Page No.# 1/17 GAHC010234862013 2025:GAU-AS:13393 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Crl.Rev.P./380/2013 MIR MATIUR RAHMAN S/O LT. UBDUS SALAM MIR R/O VILL- ROUMARI P.O. ROUMARI P.S. RUPAHIHAT, DIST. NAGOAN, ASSAM. VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MR.B BORA, MR.A BARUA,MR.T J MAHANTA,MR.A BHATTACHARYA,MR.P P DUTTA Advocate for the Respondent : , ,PP, ASSAM,, Page No.# 2/17 BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N. UNNI KRISHNAN NAIR ORDER Date : 18.09.2025 Heard Mr. T. J. Mahanta, learned Senior Counsel, along with Mr. T. Gogoi, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. R. J. Baruah, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, appearing for the State Respondents. 2. The petitioner by way of instituting the present Criminal Revision Petition has presented a challenge to the Judgment and Order dated 21.06.2013, passed in Criminal Appeal No.44(N)/2011, by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Nagaon, dismissing the appeal and thereby upholding the Judgment and Order dated 29.09.2011, passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nagaon, in C.R. Case No.2718/2010, convicting the petitioner, herein, under Section 174 IPC and sentencing him to undergo 10(ten) days Simple Imprisonment along with fine of Rs.500/-(Rupees Five Hundred) under Section 174 Indian Penal Code, in default of payment of fine to undergo 2(two) days Simple Imprisonment . 3. As projected in the present petition, the petitioner, herein, was at the relevant point of time, the Officer-in-Charge of Mikirbheta Police Station, in the District of Morigaon. In connection with G.R. Case No.2266/2008, (State – Versus – Muslim Rahman), instituted under Section 279/338/304(A) Indian Penal Code, summons were issued against the said accused Mir Matiur Rahman, to face trial. The said summons were required to be served upon the accused in the said Page No.# 3/17 case, through the Officer-in-Charge of Mikirbheta Police Station. The summons not being served and the said accused not having appeared in the case, the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Nagaon, on 08.12.2009, issued an order in G.R. Case No.2266/2008, fixing 07.01.2010 and requiring the Officer-in-Charge, Mikirbheta Police Station i.e the petitioner, herein, to appear before the Court in person. The said order was issued through the Superintendent of Police, Morigaon. It is projected that although the petitioner, herein, was instructed to appear before the Court on the date fixed, however, he did not turn up. Thereafter on 22.06.2010, the Court directed the Deputy Superintendent of Police(Headquarter), Morigaon, to cause appearance of the petitioner, herein, before the Court on 13.07.2010. It is seen that on 13.07.2010, the Reserve Officer ASI Sukuram Boro, appeared before the Court and informed the Court that he was directed the Deputy Superintendent of Police (Headquarter), Morigaon, to inform the petitioner, herein, to appear before the Court on 13.07.2010, in terms of the order passed in the matter by the Court. He also projected to have made a telephonic call to the petitioner, herein, informing him about the order passed by the Court. The W.T. message issued in this connection to the Deputy Superintendent of Police (Headquarter), Morigaon, was also contended to have been forwarded to the Mikirbheta P.S and the petitioner was accordingly contended to be informed of the same. 4. The petitioner not having appeared on 13.07.2010, the Court handed over an envelope to the Reserve Officer ASI Sukuram Boro, wherein an order was enclosed with a direction to handover the same to the Superintendent of Police(Headquarter), Morigaon. It is projected Page No.# 4/17 that the said envelop was handed over to the Additional Superintendent of Police, Morigaon, by the said Reserve Officer, who in turn forwarded the same to the DSP(Headquarter) for necessary action. It was also contended that the copy of the said order was also handed over to the petitioner, herein. Thereafter, the proceedings in C.R Case No.2718/2010, was instituted and the cognizance, thereof, was taken by the learned Court vide order dated 15.07.2010 and summons came to be issued to the petitioner, herein, to face Trial. On appearance of the petitioner, and after compliance with the provisions of Section 207 CrPC, the particulars of the offence under Section 174 IPC, being read over and explained to the petitioner, herein, and he having pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried, a Trial ensued in the matter. On conclusion of the Trial, which was conducted in the matter by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nagaon, the learned Trial Court upon appreciating the evidences coming on record, proceeded vide Judgment and Order dated 29.09.2011, to convict the petitioner, herein, under Section 174 IPC. On such conviction, the petitioner was sentenced to undergo 10(ten) days Simple Imprisonment along with fine of Rs.500/-(Rupees Five Hundred), in default of payment of fine the petitioner, herein, was held to be liable to undergo further 2(two) days Simple Imprisonment. 5. The petitioner being aggrieved by his conviction by the Trial Court, assailed the same by way of instituting an appeal being Criminal Appeal No.44(N)/2011, before the learned Sessions Judge, Nagaon. 6. The said matter was assigned to the Court of the Additional Page No.# 5/17 Sessions Judge, Nagaon, for disposal. Accordingly, the said appeal was taken up for consideration and upon appreciating the evidences coming on record before the learned Trial Court, the Appellate Court vide Judgment and Order dated 21.06.2013, was pleased to dismiss the Appeal upholding the Judgment and Order dated 29.09.2011, passed by the learned Trial Court in the matter. Being aggrieved the petitioner has instituted the present proceedings. 7. Mr. T. J. Mahanta, learned Senior Counsel, along with Mr. T. Gogoi, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner after taking this Court through the evidences adduced by the prosecution witnesses as well as the statement made by the petitioner under Section 313 CrPC, during his examination by the learned Trial Court, has submitted that the learned Trial Court had committed gross irregularity in convicting the accused person. It is submitted by the learned counsels that the charge under Section 174 IPC framed against the petitioner was not proved beyond reasonable doubt. By referring to the evidence adduced by PW-2 i.e. ASI Sukuram Boro, the then Reserve Officer, who had deposed with regard to the intimation being given to the petitioner, herein, of the W.T Message issued in the mater by the Court requiring the presence of the petitioner before it on 13.07.2010, which was exhibited as Exhibit-3, the learned counsels for the petitioner, submitted that the said W.T Message was issued to the Deputy Superintendent of Police (Headquarter), Nagaon, and not to the petitioner directly. 8. By referring to the Exhibit-3, it was further submitted that the Page No.# 6/17 Deputy Superintendent of Police (Headquarter), Nagaon, on receipt of the same had made an endorsement, thereon, requiring the Reserve Officer i.e. the PW-2 to inform the petitioner, herein, of the next date fixed in the matter and require his presence before the Court on the said date. By referring to Exhibit-4, which is projected to be an acknowledgment of the said W.T Message i.e Exhibit-3, it is submitted that although the same contains a signature with the words “received dated 24.06.2010” and “MBT PS”, the petitioner during the Trial had denied the signature, therein, to be of his. It is submitted that from the evidence adduced by PW-2 it is not clear as to in what manner the Exhibit 3 i.e. the W.T Message was forwarded to the Mikirbheta P.S and held to be served upon the petitioner, herein. 9. The learned counsels for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was not in the know how of the directions passed by the learned Court requiring his presence on 13.07.2010 and/or on any prior dates, inasmuch as, he was not informed of the same either by the Court and/or by his superior authorities, who had received information in the matter from Court. Accordingly, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the parties that the ingredients of Section 174 IPC not having been found to be satisfied in the matter, the conviction of the petitioner by the learned Trial Court would, mandate an interference. 10. The learned counsel for the parties by referring to the Judgment and Order dated 21.06.2013, passed in Criminal Appeal No.44(N)/2011, by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Nagaon, has submitted that although in the appeal, the learned Appellate Court was apprised of the defense taken by the petitioner in the matter, as well as the contradictions noticed in the evidences adduced by the Page No.# 7/17 prosecution during the Trial, which had the effect of rendering the conclusions drawn by the learned Trial Court, with regard to the charge framed against the petitioner, herein, under Section 174 IPC, to have been proved beyond reasonable doubt, being rendered unstable, the learned Appellate Court ignoring the said aspects of the matter, proceeded to draw conclusions to the effect that the petitioner inspite of having knowledge of the date fixed in the matter and the directions requiring him to appear before the Court on the date so fixed, had failed to comply with the directions and proceeded to uphold the conviction and sentencing of the petitioner by the learned Trial Court vide Judgment and Order dated 21.06.2013. 11. Having made the above submissions, the learned counsels for the petitioner, has made an alternative submissions to the effect that neither the learned Trial Court nor the Appellate Court had considered the provisions of Section 360 CrPC, or the provisions of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958. It is submitted that the petitioner having served in the Police Force for around 34 years at the relevant point of time, and no allegation of commission of similar offence, being leveled against the petitioner earlier, he was entitled to be extended with the benefits under the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958, which was his right and the same was not considered by the learned Trial Court nor by the learned Appellate Court, in the matter. 12. The learned counsel, for the petitioner have also submitted that the petitioner for the last around 15 years have been litigating in the matter initially before the Trial Court and thereafter before the Appellate Court and presently before this Court in the present Revision Petition and it was further submitted that the petitioner is presently Page No.# 8/17 aged around 74 years and is bedridden on account of various old age related ailments. Accordingly, it is submitted that this Court would take a lenient view in the matter and not require the petitioner to undergo the imprisonment as awarded in the matter by the learned Trial Court. 13. Per Contra, Mr. R. J. Baruah, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, appearing for the State Respondents, by referring to the evidences adduced in the matter by PW-2 i.e. the Reserve Officer, has submitted that the said evidence would bring to the forefront that the W.T Message atleast was forwarded to the Mikirbheta Police Station and the same was received, therein. He submits that even if the signature of the petitioner in the acknowledgment i.e Exhibit-4, is disputed, the fact that the said W.T Message had reached the Mikirbheta P.S is clearly established from the evidences of PW-2 and accordingly, the petitioner being the Officer-in-Charge of the Mikirbheta Police Station, non receipt of the said information as projected in the matter by the petitioner, would not mandate an acceptance by this Court. 14. Mr. R. J. Baruah, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, has further submitted that the evidences as brought on record including the statement of the petitioner recorded under Section 313 CrPC, would go to indicate that the petitioner had knowledge of the orders passed by the learned Trial Court requiring his presence on various dates including that on 13.07.2010 and it is seen that the petitioner had willfully refused to appear before the Court, and accordingly the ingredients of Section 174 IPC being satisfied in the matter, offence being established beyond reasonable doubt, the conviction of the petitioner by the learned Trial Court would not mandate any interference from this Court. He further submits that the Appellate Page No.# 9/17 Court after re-appreciation of the evidences coming on record, had drawn its conclusion which is also supported by the evidences coming on record during the Trial Court and accordingly, submits that the conclusions reached by the Appellate Court would also not mandate an interference. 15. He submits that the Court in the present Revision Petition is only required to examine as to whether there was any irregularity in the appreciation of evidences in the matter by the learned Trial Court and the Appellate Court and this Court in the present proceedings is not called upon to re-appreciate the evidences coming on record in the Trial and accordingly, he submits that the present revision petition would mandate a dismissal upholding the Judgment and Order impugned in the present proceedings passed by the learned Trial Court as well as by the Appellate Court. 16. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also perused the materials available on record. 17. For a due appreciation of the rival submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties, this Court has meticulously perused the evidences coming on record as well as the conclusion drawn both by the learned Trial Court as well as by the learned Appellate Court. 18. The learned Trial Court, on appreciating the evidences coming on record had drawn the following conclusion ; “17. Now the most pertinent question to be decided by this court is as to whether the accused M.M. Rahman refused to appear before the court of the learned JMFC Nagaon Sri. R. Page No.# 10/17 Lai inspite of receipt of the order of that court. 18. Now on careful examination of Ext-1 GR case no. 2266/08 and the evidence adduced by the prosecution side it transpires that at the relevant time accused M.M. Rahman was serving in Mikirbhesa PS as deposed by PW-2 even though during the course of his argument the learned counsel Sri B. Bordoloi by referring to the evidence of PW-1 arduously contended that during the course of his cross-examination the learned JMFC as PW-1 has failed to answer his pointed question as to whether accused was serving in Morigann PS or not at the relevant time. But after examining evidence of PW-2 RO Sri S. Bora this court finds that the argument put forth by learned counsel Sri B. Bordoloi does not stand any reason as in his evidence PW-2 categorically, deposed that at the relevant time accused Sri M.M. Rahman was the O/C in Mikirbheta PS. On perusal of Exs-1 and evidence on record it also transpires that irrespective of the fact that accused Sri M.M. Rahman received the process issued against accused Muslim Rahman in GR. 2266/08 on earlier occasion but the fact which is prominent before this court is that the O/C Mikirbheta PS Sri M.M. Rahman did not appear before the court of learned JMFC Sri R. Lal on 13-7-10 inspite of receipt of the order of court on 24-6-10 passed by learned JMFC on 22-6-10 Page No.# 11/17 and earlier occasions. 19. Now on perusal of exhibit-3 & 4 it transpires that following the order of the court the W/T Message exhibit-3 was directed to be served on the accused through RO by the DSP (HQ) Smt. Sarmistha Barua and accordingly vide exhibit-4 accused acknowledge receipt of the exhibit-3 by putting his signature on 24-6- 10. therefore, it is crystal clear that accused M.M. Rahman received the W/T message instructing him to appear in the court of learned JMFC Sri R. Lal on 13-7-10 through his superior officer DSP and RO Morigaon. But inspite of that he did not appear before the Court on 13-7-10. Therefore, there is overwhelming evidence against accused in the mouth of prosecution witnesses to show that the accused not appear in the court of the then learned JMFC Sri R. Lal on 13-7-10. 20. In his defence evidence accused M.M. Rahman nowhere mentioned that he received the W/T message exhibit-3 by way of acknowledgment did. 24-6-10 exhibit-4. During his cross-examination also he denied suggestion made by prosecution that he put his signature over exhibit-4 acknowledging receipt of W/T message. 21. During the course of argument even though the learned counsel Sri Bordoloi tried to impress upon this court that it was not the Page No.# 12/17 signature of accused, but this court after considering the overwhelming evidence of the prosecution witnesses failed to accept his argument as acceptable. In view of the fact that in order to deny the said signature accused did not made any effort to prove the said signature in FSI to substantiate his claim. It is seen that the prosecution side has proved the fact of disobedience by accused person by way of adducing primary as well as oral evidence. Exhibit-3 W/T Message & Ext-4 acknowledgment receipt shows that it was served on the accused and accused acknowledge the same by putting his signature in exhibit-4. But as it appears accused denied to have put his signature. 22. As per section 3 of Indian Evidence Act the burden of proof as to any particular fact lies on that person who wishes the court to believe in its existence, unless it is proved by any law that the proof of that fact shall lie on any particular person. Under the C, when a person denied the existence of certain fact the burden of proof that fact lies on him as provided Urs 103 Evidence Act but the accused has failed to discharge this burden. 23. On the contrary accused has also failed to offer any reasonable explanation as to what actually prevented him from appearing in court on that day. Without assigning specific reason Page No.# 13/17 or evidence mere denial of not receiving the notice of court will not help the accused person. 24. Under the circumstances this court under sub-section (g) of sec 114 of the Indian Evidence Act can very well presume that accused did not made any prayer or tried to prove the said disputed signature in Ext-4 with the fear that if it is proved it would be unfavourable to him, As such this court comes to irresistible conclusion that it was the signature of the accused in exhibit-4 and he did not appear in the court of learned JMFC Sri R. Lal on 13-7-10. This fact in the considered estimation of this court fortified by evidence of witnesses clearly shows that the accused shown disobedience to the order of a competent court of law without assigning just and reasonable cause. Therefore, his conduct squarely attracts punishment provided U/s 174 IPC 25. It is to be noted that the learned JMPC Sri R. Lal passed the order dtd. 22-6-10 in G.R. Case No. 2266/08 in the discharge of his official duty in the administration of justice and accused Sri M.M. Rahman being a responsible police officer is also duty bound to respond to such lawful order of a competent court made in the process of administration of justice but as it appears he failed to discharge his Page No.# 14/17 responsibility as is expected of him which in turn email punishment U/s 174 IPC. 26. Therefore, in view of foregoing discussion and reasons, this court has no option but to come to a conclusion that accused is guilty of committing offence Us 174 IPC As such this court hold him guilty Us 174 IPC beyond all reasonable doubt.” 19. The said conclusion have been closely perused by this Court and this Court finds that the conclusion so reached by the learned Trial Court is based on the evidences coming on record against the petitioner, herein. The evidences coming on record having demonstrated that the information required by the petitioner to appear before the Court of the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Nagaon, in the proceedings in G.R. Case No.2266/2008, having been found to have been received in the Mikirbheta P.S wherein the petitioner was the Officer-in-Charge, the onus was on the petitioner to demonstrate that such information was not brought to his notice by his subordinates in the said police station. From the evidences coming on record during the Trial, this Court finds that the said onus has not been discharged by the petitioner, herein, 20. Accordingly, the provision under Section 174 IPC, mandates that whoever, being legally bound to attend in person or by any agent at a certain place and time in obedience to a summons, notice, order or proclamation proceeding from any public servant legally competent, as such public servant, to issue the same, intentionally omits to attend at that place or time or departs from the place where he is bound to Page No.# 15/17 attend before the time at which it is lawful for him to depart, shall be punished with Simple Imprisonment for a term which may extend to one month or with fine which may extend to Rs.500/-(Rupees Five Hundred) or with both. It further mandates that if the summons, notice, order or proclamation is to attend in person or by agent before the Court of Justice, the accused would be liable to be punished with Simple Imprisonment for a term which may extend to 6(six) months or with fine which may extend to Rs.1000/-(Rupees One Thousand) or more. 21. It is seen that the order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Nagaon, requiring the presence of the petitioner before it on the date fixed, is an order passed by a Court of Justice, and the information, herein, having been held by this Court to have reached the Mikirbheta P.S and no materials having been brought on record by the petitioner, herein to discharge the onus upon him that the said information was not placed before him by his subordinates, this Court finds that the ingredients under Section 174 IPC stood established beyond reasonable doubt against the petitioner, herein. Accordingly, the conviction of the petitioner by the learned Trial Court in the considered view of this Court would not mandate any interference. 22. This Court having drawn the above conclusions would now examine the Judgment and Order dated 21.06.2013, passed by the learned Appellate Court. On consideration of the conclusion drawn by the learned Appellate Court, this Court finds that the same to be supported by the evidences coming on record and it is found that the learned Appellate Court for drawing its conclusions, had appreciated Page No.# 16/17 the evidences coming on record during the Trial Court in its proper perspective. On a close perusal of the conclusions drawn by the learned Appellate Court vide the impugned Judgment, this Court finds that the same, to suffer from no infirmity and accordingly holds that the same would not mandate any interference. 23. This Court finds that the offences alleged against the petitioner was committed by him in the year 2010. Long 15(fifteen) years have passed since then. The petitioner in the meanwhile had superannuated from his service on reaching the age of superannuation and it is projected by the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner, that the petitioner is presently around 74(seventy four) years of age and is bedridden on account of various old age ailments. This Court also notices that the petitioner, herein, has been litigating the matter, initially before the Trial Court, thereafter in the proceedings of the appeal and presently before this Court in the instant criminal revision petition for the last around 15(fifteen) years. This Court also notices that the learned Trial Court had refused to extend to the petitioner the benefits under the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958, only on consideration of the nature of the offence alleged against the petitioner, herein. This Court, however, considering the long lapse of time since the date of commission of offence by the petitioner, herein, and also noticing the fact that the materials brought on record has not reflected that the petitioner had committed similar offence prior to the one alleged against him in the present proceedings and/or had committed similar offence during the pendency of the present proceedings, also appreciating the fact that the petitioner presently is Page No.# 17/17 around 74(seventy four) years old and is bedridden on account of old age ailments, this Court is of the considered view that the petitioner, herein, is required to be extended with the benefits under the provisions of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958. 24. Accordingly, for the reasons cited above, this Court holds that the petitioner, herein, is entitled to be extended with the benefits under the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958. As such, this Court proceeds to modify the sentence awarded to the petitioner to that effect and it is provided that instead of sending the petitioner to jail, he should be given the benefit of Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958. 25. Accordingly, it is directed that the petitioner will file 2(two) sureties to the tune of Rs.10,000/-(Rupees Ten Thousand), each, along with a personal bond before the learned Trial Court i.e. the Court of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nagaon, and undertake to the effect that the petitioner shall maintain peace and good behavior during the period of 1(one) year from the date of the filing of such personal bond. The aforesaid bond be filed by the petitioner within a period of 1(one) month from today. 26. With the above observations and directions, the present Criminal Revision Petition stand disposed of. 27. Send down the records of the case to the Trial Court along with a copy of this order for information and necessary action. JUDGE Comparing Assistant