Page No.# 1/4 GAHC010247262025 2025:GAU-AS:16552 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Crl.Pet./1373/2025 MD FAZLUR RAHMAN S/O LATE ABDUL KADIR RESIDENT OF K.B. ROAD, TOWN HIGH MADRASSA, P.O. AND P.S. NORTH LAKHIMPUR, DISTRICT LAKHIMPUR, ASSAM PIN-787001. MOBILE NO. 8822906577 VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ANR REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, ASSAM 2:MASUMA BEGUM W/O NUR SAMIR ALOM R/O K.B. ROAD WARD NO. 13 P.O. AND P.S. NORTH LAKHIMPUR DISTRICT LAKHIMPUR ASSA Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. P D NAIR, MR S R A NASER,MR. H ROHMAN,MR. A CHETRY,MR G ALAM Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, Page No.# 2/4 BEFORE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SUSMITA PHUKAN KHAUND ORDER Date : 02-12-2025 Heard learned counsel Mr. P.D. Nair for the petitioner Md. Fazlur Rahman, who has filed this application under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, as the petitioner is aggrieved by the impugned order dated 01.07.2025 passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, North Lakhimpur in PRC No. 909/2022, rejecting the petition No. 2093/2025 filed by the petitioner under Section 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC for short), for recalling the prosecution witnesses PW-4, PW-5 and PW-6 for cross-examination through his newly engaged defence counsel and also for recalling the prosecution witnesses PW-1, PW-2 and PW-3 for cross- examination. 2. It is contended that after the charge was altered vide order dated 17.01.2024, the petitioner was granted liberty to cross-examine afresh the prosecution witnesses. The witnesses were already examined before alteration of charges. 3. On 26.07.2024, the petitioner was not represented by any lawyer and it is reflected in the order that sufficient time was granted to the petitioner to engage new advocate to cross examine the witnesses after alteration of charges, but the petitioner was unable to appoint any counsel to represent him on 26.07.2024 and thereafter, the petitioner himself cross-examined the witnesses. Page No.# 3/4 4. It is submitted that the petitioner is highly prejudiced as he is not well versed with the legal procedure and the cross-examination was not complete. Thereafter, the petitioner filed a petition under Section 311 of CrPC, which was rejected vide the impugned order dated 01.07.2025. Through the petition under Section 311 CrPC, the petitioner prayed to cross-examine the prosecution witnesses No. 1, 2 and 3 and to further cross-examine the prosecution witnesses No. 4, 5 and 6. 5. Heard learned Additional Public Prosecutor Mr. R.R. Kaushik for the respondent State. 6. The respondent No. 2 is not before this Court today. 7. I have considered the submissions that the petitioner may be highly prejudiced if he is not allowed to further cross-examine the prosecution witnesses No. 4, 5 and 6 and to cross-examine the prosecution witnesses No. 1, 2 and 3, after alteration of charges. 8. Instead of waiting for appearance of the respondent No. 2, this Court deems it appropriate to pass an order as further pendency will unnecessarily procrastinate the proceeding of PRC No. 909/2022. This Court has also taken a pragmatic view. 9. I have also considered the submissions of the learned Additional Public Prosecutor. 10. For the interest of justice, the petitioner may be accorded an opportunity to further cross-examine the witnesses, who were already cross-examined by Page No.# 4/4 him. 11. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the petitioner’s Constitutional right to legal representation has been curtailed when he was not allowed sufficient time to engage a legal aid counsel and on the same day, he was directed to cross-examine the witnesses. It is also submitted that trial is progressing and only two prosecution witnesses are yet to be examined. It is also submitted that the witnesses are local residents from North Lakhimpur. 12. In view of my foregoing discussions, it appears that the petitioner may be allowed to further cross-examine the PW-4, 5 and 6 and to cross-examine the PW-1, PW-2 and PW-3, as charges have altered and the petitioner is facing new charges. The impugned order dated 01.07.2025 passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, North Lakhimpur in PRC No. 909/2022 is set aside and the petitioner is allowed to further cross-examine PW-4, PW-5 and PW-6 and to cross examine PW-1, PW-2 and PW-3. 13. In terms of the above observation, this petition stands disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant