Page No.# 1/7 GAHC010010742014 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Crl.Rev.P./239/2014 SMTI BIDISHA RAJBONGSHI W/O SRI NETRA DIHINGIA R/O MACHKHOWA CHARIALI P.O. and P.S. MACHKHOWA, DIST. DHEMAJI, ASSAM. VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ANR 2:SMTI JUBATI DOLEY W/O RANJAN KUMAR DOLEY R/O JONAI BAZAR P.O. and P.S. JONAI DIST. DHEMAJI ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MR.R SARMA, MR.M K DUTTA,MR.T J MAHANTA Advocate for the Respondent : MR.A MATIN, PP, ASSAM,MR.A AHMED,MR.I A HAZARIKA BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N. UNNI KRISHNAN NAIR ORDER Date : 15-10-2025 Heard Mr. R. Islam, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Ms. S.H. Bora, learned Addl. P.P. Assam appearing for the State/ respondent No. 1 as well as Mr. A. Page No.# 2/7 Ahmed, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No. 2. 2. The present criminal revision petition has been instituted assailing the judgment dated 09-04-2014 passed, by the learned Sessions Judge, Dhemaji in Crl. Appeal No. 19(2)/2013 upholding the judgement dated 22-05-2013 passed by the Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dhemaji in C.R. Case No. 45/2012, convicting the petitioner, herein, under Section 420 IPC and sentencing him to undergo simple imprisonment for 02 (two) years along with fine of Rs. 5000/- (Rupees Five Thousand), in default to undergo simple imprisonment for 06 (six) months. 3. The respondent, herein, had lodged a complaint before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dhemaji. The said complaint was transferred to the court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Dhemaji for disposal. On 05-04-2012, on perusal of the complaint petition, it was found that the complaint had earlier filed an FIR before the Superintendent of Police, Dhemaji and the same was forwarded to the Machkhowa Police Outpost, the Court had required an report from the In-Charge, Machkhowa Police Outpost with regard to the status of investigation in the matter. The report being submitted and the same revealed that the parties having amicably settled the issue, the case was not registered by the police. The above position having emerged in the matter, the court proceed with the complaint and examined the complainant under Section 200 Cr.P.C. After examination of the complainant and on perusal of the complaint petition, a prima facie case under Section 406/ 420 ICP having been found against the petitioner, herein, cognizance was taken and summons issued to the petitioner. The case of the complainant is that the petitioner had met her and during her Page No.# 3/7 conversation, the respondent agreed to pay a sum of Rs. 80,000/- (Rupees Eighty Thousand) to the petitioner, herein, for installation of IDEA and Vodafone towers at Jonai on the land of her husband. The said amount was paid to the petitioner through cheque issued by the husband of the respondent in 04 (four) instalments. It was also alleged that the petitioner, herein, had collected several amounts from different persons for installation of Idea and Vodafone towers, however, no such installation was carried out and the amount involved was mis-appropriated. The complainant adduced evidence of 04 (four) witnesses and accordingly, a charge against the petitioner, herein, under Section 420/ 406 IPC was framed to which the petitioner, herein, had pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried and accordingly, a trial ensued. On conclusion of the trial, the learned Trial Court vide judgment and order dated 22-05-2013 proceeded to convict the petitioner, herein, under Section 420 IPC and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for 02 (two) years along with fine of Rs. 5000/-, in default to undergo simple imprisonment for 06 (six) months . Being aggrieved by the conviction of the learned Trial Court vide judgment and order dated 22-05-2013 passed in CR. Case No. 35/2012, the petitioner, herein, instituted an appeal being Crl. Appeal No. 19(2)/2013, before the court of learned Sessions Judge, Dhemaji. The learned Appellate Court upon appreciating the evidences appearing on record was pleased vide judgment dated 09-04-2014 to dismiss the said appeal and thereby upheld the conviction of the petitioner, herein, by the learned Trial Court under Section 420 IPC. Being aggrieved the petitioner has instituted the present proceeding. Page No.# 4/7 4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and also perused the materials available on record. 5. A perusal of the evidences brought on record before the learned Trial Court would go to reveal that the petitioner, herein, by posing herself to be an agent of Vodafone and Idea companies had promised the complainant to install towers of Vodafone and Idea at her residence and basing on such promise had received an amount of Rs. 80,000/- (Rupees Eighty Thousand) in instalments from the respondent, herein. The learned Trial Court upon appreciating the evidences coming on record found that there being no entrustment made by the complainant with the petitioner, herein, the offence under Section 406 IPC cannot be held to have been established against the petitioner, herein. However, the evidences coming on record having established the charge of commission of offence punishable under Section 420 IPC, proceeded to convict the petitioner, herein, under Section 420 IPC and sentenced as noticed, hereinabove. The evidences brought on record clearly establishes ingredients required for establishing a charge under Section 420 IPC against the petitioner, herein. Accordingly, this Court is of the considered view that the conviction of the petitioner under Section 420 IPC by the learned Trial Court would not mandate any interference. 6. Having drawn the above conclusions, this would examine the judgment dated 09- 04-2014 passed by the learned Appellate Court. On a perusal of the conclusions drawn by the learned Appellate Court in the matter, this Court finds that the same to have been so drawn basing on the evidences coming on record during the trial. No infirmity is found with regard to the conclusions drawn in the matter by the learned Appellate Court. Page No.# 5/7 Accordingly, this Court is of the considered view that the judgment and order dated 09- 04-2014 passed by the learned Appellate Court would not mandate any interference. Accordingly, the conviction of the appellant, herein, under Section 420 IPC stands upheld. 7. Having upheld the conviction of the appellant, herein, under Section 420 IPC, this Court finds that the learned Trial Court while proceeding to sentence the petitioner, herein, had noticed the provisions of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958, however, the benefit there-under not being extended to the petitioner only by considering the nature of offence committed by her in the matter. 8. This Court notices that the offence involved in the matter was committed by the appellant in the year 2012, 13 (thirteen) years have passed since the date of commission of the offence by the petitioner, herein. The materials brought on record does not reveal that the petitioner, herein, had committed any offence similar in nature prior to 05-04- 2012 and or thereafter, during the pendency of the proceeding involved in the matter. It is seen that the petitioner, herein, has been litigating in the matter initially before the learned Trial Court, thereafter, before the learned Appellate Court and presently in the present criminal revision petition before this Court. Considering the long lapse of time occasioning in the matter since the date of commission of the offence by the petitioner, herein, this Court is of the considered view that the petitioner is entitled to extend the benefit of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958. 9. On appreciation of the matter, this Court finds that the learned Trial Court had refused to extend to the petitioners, herein, the benefit of the Act of 1958 only by considering the nature of the offence alleged against the petitioners. Page No.# 6/7 10. In view of the above reasons, this Court is of the considered view that this is a fit case wherein the benefits of the Act of 1958 is required to be extended to the petitioners, herein, by this Court, in exercise of its revisional powers. 11. Accordingly, for the reasons noticed hereinabove, the petitioners are granted the benefit under the Act of 1958 and the sentence modified to the effect that instead of sending the petitioners to the jail, they should be given the benefit of the Section 4 of the Act of 1958. However, the fines as imposed upon the petitioners by the learned Trial Court is not interfered with. 12. As such, it is directed that the appellant, herein, will file 02 (two) sureties to the tune of Rs. 10,000/- (Ten Thousand) each along with a personal bond before the learned District & Sessions Judge, Dhemaji and undertake to the effect that the appellant shall keep peace and good behaviour during the period of 06 (six) months from the date of filing of such bond. The aforesaid bond shall be filed by the appellant within a period of 02 (two) months from today along with deposit of the fine amount as awarded by the learned Trial Court . 13. With the above observations and directions, the present appeal stands disposed of. 14. Registry to send back the TCR forthwith along with a copy of the present order for information and necessary action. JUDGE Page No.# 7/7 Comparing Assistant