Page No.# 1/4 GAHC030002412025 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Crl.Rev.P./4/2025 Sh, H. Lalrammawia S/o Vanlalenga Add.- Dinthar, Aizawl VERSUS The State of Mizoram r/b the Secretary to Govt. of Mizoram, Home Dept. and Anr. Aizawl2:Mizoram rural Bank r/b Manager Khawzawl Branc Advocate for the Petitioner : Mrs. H Lalmalsawmi Advocate for the Respondent : P.P./Addl.PP, Mizoram for R1 BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH MAZUMDAR ORDER Date : 17-09-2026 Heard Ms. H. Lalmalsawmi, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. C. Zoramchhana, learned Senior counsel for the respondent No. 2 assisted by Mr. Isaac Lalremruata, learned counsel and Ms. Linda L. Fambawl, learned Public Prosecutor for the State respondent. 2. This application had been filed under Section 438 & 442 of the BNSS, Page No.# 2/4 being aggrieved by the Order dated 29.02.2024 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Champhai by which the learned Magistrate had directed that the seized money be made absolute, while it was still in the custody of the respondent No. 2, while acquitting the petitioner of the charges leveled against him. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the seized articles were part of the alleged misappropriated money and during the trial proceedings, the seized articles had been given in custody to the respondent No. 2, the Bank Authorities at whose instance the criminal proceedings had been initiated. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that since the petitioners had been acquitted of the charges leveled against them, the seized articles were required in law to be returned to the petitioner and there could have been no occasion for the learned Magistrate to have allowed the seized articles, which were in interim custody of the complainant/bank, to be made absolute. She has accordingly prayed that the impugned Order dated 29.02.2024 passed in Crl. Trl. No. 83/2009 by the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Champhai Judicial District to be interfered with to the extent that the seized articles be now returned to the petitioner from whom it was seized. 4. Mr. C. Zoramchhana, learned Senior counsel has submitted that this Court, on an earlier occasion on 30.04.2026 had observed that in the event there lies an appeal against any order, in light of the provisions of Section 442(4), a revision shall not be entertained at that instance of the party who could have preferred an appeal. He submits that in view of the provisions of Section 500, an appeal lies from orders made under Section 498 or Section 499 of the BNSS and therefore, the present revision may not be entertained. Page No.# 3/4 5. Ms. Linda L. Fambawl, learned Public Prosecutor has also submitted on similar lines. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner had referred to the provisions of Section 498 of the BNSS, wherein a reference has been made to both appeal and revision. However, after some arguments, the learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner would not be averse to filing an appeal regarding the portion of the order which has caused grievance to the petitioner, however, she has expressed apprehension that the appeal may be treated as a time barred appeal. 7. Having regard to the provisions of Section 442(4) and Section 500 of the BNSS, I do not find this to be a fit case to entertain a revision petition. Accordingly, this revision petition is closed, however with a liberty to the petitioner to approach the appropriate Court by way of filing of an appeal against the portion of the order which has caused grievance to him. It is made clear that in the event an appeal is filed, the learned Trial Court would keep in view the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case, wherein the petitioner had approached this High Court by filing a Criminal Revision Petition and that the Limitation Act has provided for condonation of delay of the period spent in litigation before the wrong forum. 8. Criminal Revision Petition is accordingly closed with the liberty as aforesaid. The Trial Court Records be returned forthwith. Page No.# 4/4 JUDGE Comparing Assistant