Page No.# 1/2 GAHC010017482025 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Crl.Pet./79/2025 DHRUBAJYOTI NATH S/O LATE NANDESWAR NATH R/O VILL-BONMAJA P.O. PUB BURKA P.S. CHANGSARI DIST.KAMRUP, ASSAM VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REP BY THE PP, ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. M K SARMA, MS. S S SAIKIA,MR. R DE Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PARTHIVJYOTI SAIKIA ORDER Date : 01.04.2025 Heard Mr.R. De, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as Mr. K K Parasar, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State of Assam. 2. This is an application filed under Section 528 of the BNSS, 2023 challenging the orders dated 13.11.2024 & 10.12.2024 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (FTC), Kamrup, Page No.# 2/2 Rangia in Sessions Case No. 44(k)/2017. 3. On 30.11.2024, the case was posted for examination of the Investigating Officer. On that day, the petitioner filed an application being No. 1393/2024, whereby, it was informed that his engaged counsel would not be available on account of his illness. The trial court straightway rejected the application on the ground that the case is an old pending one. 4. Thereafter, on 10.12.2024, the petitioner again filed an application being No. 1357/2024 informing the court that the earlier counsel was not willing to appear in that case on the ground that an adjournment was prayed for. The trial court rejected the said application on the ground that the petitioner engaged another counsel before that day. On that day, the Investigating Officer was examined and the court held that the petitioner declined to cross-examine the Investigating Officer. 5. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel of both sides. 6. However, old a case may be, the primary duty of the court of law is to administer justice. The Investigating Officer of a case is an important witness. Therefore, in the circumstances if a party does not engage a lawyer, an amicus curiae should have been appointed by the court to cross-examine the Investigating Officer and this is the settled position of law. 7. This Court is of the opinion that while passing the impugned orders, the trial court did not apply judicial mind. Therefore, both the impugned dated 13.11.2024 & 10.12.2024 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kamrup, Rangia in Sessions Case No. 44/2017 are set aside. 8. The trial court is directed to appoint an amicus curiae to cross-examine the Investigating Officer. This shall be done if the petitioner fails to engage a counsel. After cross-examination of the Investigating Officer by the petitioner, the court shall proceed further towards disposal of the case. With the aforesaid direction, the criminal petition stands disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant