Page No.# 1/6 GAHC010007642014 2025:GAU-AS:14323 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Crl.Rev.P./119/2014 PRADIP DAS and 2 ORS S/O LT. MANIK DAS 2: GOPESH DAS S/O LT. JADAV DAS BOTH ARE R/O VILL- ROUMARI P.S. SALBARI DIST. BARPETA ASSAM. 3: DAYAL DAS S/O LT. BASUDEV DAS R/O VILL- SAMUGUTI P.S. SALBARI DIST. BARPETA ASSAM VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MR.M M DEKA, MR.U C RABHA,MR.S M SARMA Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, MS.M BARMAN,MR.S K MEDHI Page No.# 2/6 BEFORE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE N. UNNI KRISHNAN NAIR ORDER 16/10/2025 Heard Mr. U C Rabha, learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. B Sarma, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, Assam for the State respondent No. 1 and Mr. S K Medhi, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No. 2. 2. The present criminal revision petition has been instituted assailing the judgment dated 22.03.2013 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (FTC), Barpeta in Crl. A. No. 7/2012, dismissing the same and thereby, upholding the conviction and sentencing imposed by the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate (M), Bajali, in G.R. Case No. 142/2004. 3. The prosecution case in brief is that one Ratan Kishor Das, had lodged an FIR on 04.02.2004 before the In-charge, Bhawanipur Police Outpost, inter-alia, alleging, therein that on 31.01.2004, the accused petitioners, herein, had taken away 70 nos. of plastic chair of red, white and blue colours along with one bucket and one big iron ladle on rent from the tent house of the informant by loading the same in a handcart pulled by an unidentified handcart puller. It was stated that the accused petitioners, herein, had not returned the same and therefore, the informant had gone on search and the accused persons, herein, were found to have taken the goods by giving false address. On receipt of the said FIR, a G.D. Entry came to be made at Bhawanipur Police Outpost and the FIR was forwarded to the Barpeta Police Station for registering a case. Accordingly, a case was registered and investigation initiated thereon. On conclusion of the investigation, police submitted a charge-sheet under Sections 420/34 IPC against the accused petitioners. The learned Trial Court on consideration of the materials brought on record was pleased to frame a charge under Sections 420/34 IPC against the petitioners, herein and the same being read over and explained to them, they having pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried, a trial ensued. During the trial, the prosecution had examined 7 (seven) witnesses including the Investigating Officer. Thereafter, the statements of the petitioners, herein, were recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. Page No.# 3/6 On conclusion of the trial, the learned Trial Court, upon appreciating the evidences coming on record, was pleased vide judgment dated 30.04.2012 to convict the petitioners, herein, under Sections 420/34 IPC. On their such conviction, the petitioners, herein, were sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for 6 (six) months each, and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- each, in default, to undergo Simple Imprisonment for 2 (two) months for committing the offence under Sections 420/34 IPC. Being aggrieved, the petitioners, herein, had assailed the judgment and order dated 30.04.2012 passed by the learned Trial Court by instituting an appeal being Crl. A. No. 7/2012 before the Court of learned Sessions Judge, Barpeta. Thereafter, the matter came to be placed before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Barpeta for disposal. Accordingly, the Appellate Court on appreciating the evidences coming on record was pleased vide judgment dated 22.03.2013 to dismiss the appeal, thereby, upholding the conviction of the petitioners, herein. 4. Being aggrieved, the petitioners, herein, has instituted the present proceeding. 5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and also perused the materials available on record. 6. The learned Trial Court vide judgment and order dated 30.04.2012 upon appreciating the evidences coming on record had drawn the following conclusions:- “………. Here in the present case, I find that the accused persons in connivance with one another hatched the conspiracy and accused Pradip Das and Gopesh Das from the inception of the transaction with the dishonest intention of cheating the complainant made a booking of Rs.20/- and giving the false address of one Niren Barman on the pretext of a marriage induced the complainant to deliver the tent goods to them and had the complainant before the transaction known the nefarious motive of the accused persons then the complainant would not have consented to deliver or delivered the tent goods to the accused persons. And thereafter when the accused persons did not return the tent articles, the complainant searched for it and found it in the possession of accued Dayal Das and Pradip Das after seven long months. And this deception committed by the accused persons caused loss and damage to the complainant, thereby bringing all the three accused persons within the ambit of Cheating i.e., 420 IPC.” Page No.# 4/6 7. Basing on the said conclusions, the petitioners, herein, were convicted under Sections 420/34 IPC and sentenced, as noticed, hereinabove. 8. This Court has perused the conclusions drawn by the learned Trial Court and finds the same to have been so drawn basing upon a due and proper appreciation of the evidences coming on record. This Court finds no infirmity with the conclusions so drawn by the learned Trial Court in the matter. The learned counsel for the petitioners has also failed to highlight any infirmity in the conclusions drawn by the learned Trial Court in the matter. 9. Having drawn the above conclusions, this Court would now examine the judgment and order dated 22.03.2013 passed by the learned Appellate Court. 10. The learned Appellate Court upon appreciating the evidences coming on record during the trial had drawn the following conclusions:- “15. In this case in hand the informant alleged that the accused/appellant dishonestly by giving false address deceived him to deliver the articles of his tent house. It is seen from the record that the learned Trial Court has carefully scrutinized the evidence on record and after a threads ear discussion came to the conclusion that the evidence of the prosecution witnesses was reliable so far the offence u/s 420 IPC is concurred and accordingly I found that the learned Trial Court carefully discussed the evidence on the material point. 16. Recovery of the articles from the houses of the accused/appellants by the investigating Officer in course of investigation reveals that he deception caused by the accused/appellants as a result of which the PW1 informant sustained loss and damage. On consideration of the matter in its entirety I find no good and sufficient reason to interference with the finding of the guilt arrived at by the learned Court below against the accused/appellants. It is also seen that the sentence and fine imposed by the learned Lower Court cannot be considered to be unreasonable and excessive. Accordingly, the appeal is found to have no merit with, which is not liable to be dismissed.” 11. Basing on the said conclusions, the learned Appellate Court proceeded to dismiss the appeal, thereby upholding the conviction of the petitioners, herein, under the provisions of Sections 420/34 IPC. 12. This Court has perused the conclusions drawn by the learned Appellate Court and finds the Page No.# 5/6 same to have been so drawn basing on a due and proper appreciation of the evidences coming on record. No infirmity is found with regard to the conclusions so drawn by the learned Trial Court and accordingly, this Court is of the considered view that the judgment and order dated 22.03.2013 passed by the learned Appellate Court would not mandate any interference. 13. Having upheld the conviction of the petitioners, herein, this Court finds that the offence was committed in the matter by the petitioners, herein, on 31.01.2004. Thereafter, the petitioners, herein, were found to have been pursuing the matter before the learned Trial Court, thereafter, before the learned Appellate Court and presently, in the present criminal revision petition. 14. Considering the long lapse of time since the date of commission of the offence by the petitioners, herein, and also noticing that the petitioners, herein, were not proceeded against for an offence of similar nature either prior to commission of the offence involved in the present proceeding and/or during the pendency of the present proceedings against them and also noticing the fact that the petitioners, herein, have been litigating the matter initially before the learned Trial Court, thereafter, before the Appellate Court and presently, before this Court, this Court is of the considered view that the petitioners, herein, are entitled to be extended the benefit under the provisions of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958. The said benefit being permissible to be granted by this Court in exercise of its Revisional jurisdiction, this Court extends the benefit under the Act of 1958 to the petitioners, herein. 15. Accordingly, for the reasons recorded, hereinabove, the petitioners, herein, are given the benefit under the Act of 1958 and the sentences modified to the effect that instead of sending the petitioners to jail, they should be given the benefit under Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958. 16. This Court has only modified the sentencing with regard to imprisonment of the petitioners, herein, and the fine as imposed by the learned Trial Court not having been interfered with, the petitioners, herein, would be liable to deposit the fine amount. 17. In view of the above discussion, it is directed that the petitioners, herein, will file two sureties to the tune of Rs.15,000/- (Rupees Fifteen Thousand) each, along with a personal bond before the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate (M), Bajali, Pathsala and undertake to the effect that the petitioners, herein, shall maintain peace and good behaviour during the period of 1 (one) year from the date of filing of the bond. The aforesaid bond be filed by the petitioners within a period of 1 (one) Page No.# 6/6 month from the date of this order, along with the deposit of the fine amount as imposed by the learned Trial Court vide judgment dated 30.04.2012. 18. With the above observations and directions, the present criminal revision petition stands disposed of. 19. Send down the records of the case to the learned Trial Court along with a copy of this order for information and necessary action. JUDGE Comparing Assistant