Page No.# 1/6 GAHC010012512013 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Crl.Rev.P./435/2013 SAHABUDDIN AHMED S/O MOINUDDIN, VILL. SHEDAMARI, P.O. BALAPARA, PS. JOGIGHOPA, DIST- BONGAIGAON, ASSAM VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM - Advocate for the Petitioner : MS.D BORA, MR.A M KHAN,MR.J AHMED Advocate for the Respondent : , PP, ASSAM, BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N. UNNI KRISHNAN NAIR ORDER Date : 17-10-2025 Heard Mr. J. Ahmed, learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. B. Sarma, learned Additional. P.P. Assam, appearing for the State. 2. The present revision petition has been instituted assailing the judgment dated 16- 10-2012 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, FTC, Bongaigaon, dismissing the Page No.# 2/6 appeal and thereby upholding the conviction and sentence of the petitioners, herein, by the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate (M), North Salmara, Abhayapuri vide judgment dated 25-11-2010 passed in GR Case No. 180/2006, under Section 381 IPC and sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 02 (two) years along with fine of Rs. 5000/- (Rupees Five Thousand), in default, to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for 06 (six) months. 3. The prosecution case, in brief, is that one Rama Sankar Singh had lodged an FIR on 06-05-2006 before the Superintendent of Police, Bongaigaon alleging therein that the petitioner, herein, was entrusted to receive cash amount of Rs. 15 Lakh (Rupees Fifteen Lakhs) and along with a Bank Draft of Rs. 23,53,000/- (Rupees Twenty Three Lakhs Fifty Three Thousand) from the Coal Corporation Ltd. It was alleged therein that the petitioner, herein, after receiving the cash amount and the bank draft returned from Guwahati to Jogighopa but he did not present himself in the office of the informant for handing over the cash amount along with the bank draft received by him. It was further alleged that on enquiry it was learnt that the petitioner, herein, had proceeded to Solmari, Goalpara. Accordingly, it was alleged that the petitioner, herein, had misappropriated the cash amount received along with the Bank Draft. The FIR lodged was forwarded to the Officer-in-Charge of the Jogighopa Police Station and the same was registered as Jogighopa P.S. Case No. 62/2006 under Section 380 IPC. The police upon conclusion of investigation, submitted charge-sheet against the petitioner, herein, under Section 381 IPC. The petitioner, herein, was shown as an Page No.# 3/6 absconder. The petitioner thereafter surrendered before the court of and he was enlarged on bail. The learned Trial Court upon appreciating the materials coming on record framed charge under Section 381 IPC against the petitioner, herein, and the same being read over and explained to the petitioners, they having pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried, a trial ensued in the matter. During the trial, the prosecution had examined 07 (seven) witnesses including the Investigating Officer (I/O) of the case. Thereafter, the petitioner, herein, was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. On conclusion of the trial, the learned Trial Court upon appreciating the evidences coming on record was pleased vide judgment dated 25-11- 2010 to convict the petitioner, herein, under Section 381 IPC. Upon such conviction, he was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 02 (two) years and to pay fine of Rs. 5000/- (Rupees Five Thousand), in default to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for a period of 06 (six) months. The petitioner being aggrieved by his conviction, assailed the same by way of instituting an appeal being Crl. Appeal No. 43(4)/2010, before the court of the learned Sessions Judge, Bongaigaon. The case was transferred to the court of Addl. Sessions Judge, FTC, Bongaigaon for disposal. The Appellate Court upon re-appreciating the evidences coming on record was pleased to dismiss the appeal, thereby upholding the conviction of the petitioner, herein, by the learned Trial Court. 4. Mr. J. Ahmed, learned counsel for the petitioner at the outset submits that the petitioner is now suffering from various old aged ailments and accordingly, prayed that this Court would be pleased to modify the sentencing of the petitioner leniently. He Page No.# 4/6 submits that considering the long lapse of time occasioning since the commission of offence by the petitioner, herein, the petitioner be extended with the benefit under the provision of Probation of Offenders Act, 1958. 5. Mr. M.P. Goswami, learned Addl. P.P. Assam, on the other hand, disputed the contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner and submits that the evidences coming on record during the trial established beyond reasonable doubt the commission of offence under Section 381 IPC by the petitioner, herein, and accordingly no leniency is called for to be extended to the petitioner, herein, in the matter by this Court. 6. I have considered the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the materials available on record. 7. The learned counsel for the petitioner has not disputed the conclusion drawn by the learned Trial Court as well as by the learned Appellate Court in the matter. The conviction of the petitioner, herein, has also not been disputed. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that this Court considering the long lapse of time occasioning in the matter would be pleased to consider the sentencing of the appellant leniently. The submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner has been noted. 8. This Court has examined the conclusions drawn by the learned Trial Court as well as by the learned Appellate Court, in the matter. On a close perusal of the conclusions drawn by the learned Trial Court as well as by the learned Appellate Court, this Court finds that the same were drawn on a due and proper appreciation of the evidences coming on record and no infirmity is found therein. Accordingly, the conviction of the Page No.# 5/6 appellant under Section 381 IPC would not mandate in interference. 9. Having drawn the above conclusions, this Court notices that the offence committed by the petitioner, herein, was so committed in the month of May, 2006. More than 19 years have elapsed since the date of commission of the offence by the petitioner and around 15 years have elapsed since the date of his conviction by the learned Trial Court, in the matter. 10. This Court also notices that the petitioner, herein, was litigating in the matter for the last around 19 years, initially before the learned Trial Court, thereafter, before the learned Appellate Court and presently before this Court in the present criminal revision petition. Accordingly, considering the long lapse of time occasioning in the matter, this Court is of the considered view that the petitioner, herein, is entitled to be extended with the benefit of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958. The said benefit being permissible to be extended by this Court while exercising its revisional jurisdiction, this Court directs that the petitioner, herein, be not required to undergo the sentence of imprisonment and he be extended the benefits under the provisions of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958. This Court has not interfered with the imposition of fine by the learned Trial Court. 11. As such, it is directed that the petitioner, herein, will file 02 (two) sureties to the tune of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) each, along with a personal bond before the learned District & Sessions Judge, Bongaigaon and undertake to the effect that the petitioner 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 petitioner within a period of one month from today along with deposit of the fine amount as awarded by the Page No.# 6/6 learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate (M), North Salmara, Abhayapuri within a period of 01 (one) months from today. 12. With the above observations and directions, the present criminal revision petition stands disposed of. 13. Registry to send back the TCR forthwith along with a copy of the present order for information and necessary action. JUDGE Comparing Assistant