Page No.# 1/7 GAHC010019112023 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Crl.Rev.P./46/2023 LOKMAN ALI S/O- MOYEZ ALI @ MAJEJ ALI, VILL- NICHUKA, P.O. KALABHANGA, P.S. BARPETA ROAD, DIST. BARPETA, ASSAM VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ANR REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, ASSAM 2:KUNIL DAS S/O- SRI HARMOHAN DAS VILL.- LABDANGURI P.O. CHUKRUNGBARI P.S. GOBARDHANA DIST. BAKSA BTR ASSAM PIN- 781315 Advocate for the Petitioner : MR M AHMED, MR. A HUSSAIN Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, Page No.# 2/7 BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MRIDUL KUMAR KALITA ORDER Date : 24.02.2025 1. Heard Mr. M. Ahmed, the learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. B. Sarma, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State respondent. 2. This application under Sections 397/401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973, read with Article 227 of the Constitution of India, has been filed by the petitioner, namely, Lokman Ali, impugning the order dated 31.10.2022 passed by learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, (Sadar) Barpeta, whereby the Petition No.4043/2022, filed by the petitioner, praying for conduct of further investigation in connection with Barpeta Road P.S. Case No. 297/2019 corresponding to PRC Case No. 168/2021, was rejected. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that, though the instant application has been filed under Sections 397/401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973, however, it appears that the petition ought to have been filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. 4. He further submits that for considering the facts of this case, for the purpose of doing substantive justice, this Court has the power to convert a petition under Section 397 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 to a petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. 5. In support of his submissions, the learned counsel for the petitioner has Page No.# 3/7 cited a ruling of the Apex Court in the case of “Akanksha Arora Vs. Tanay Maben” reported in 2024 SCC Online SC 3688. 6. Considering the facts involved in this case, which is discussed in later part of this order, this Court is of the considered opinion that the instant revision petition may also be converted into a criminal petition and for the same, the said petition may be deemed to be a petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. 7. On the above premises, let us now go through the facts of this case. 8. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the son of the petitioner, namely, Mujam Ali, who was about 10 years old when he met with a vehicular accident on 14.05.2019 and on the same day, he died on the spot due to vehicular accident at 6 pm. 9. The offending vehicle was a Bajaj Pulsar bearing Registration number AS15N7075. 10. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the son of the petitioner was referred to Fakhruddin Ali Ahmed Medical College and Hospital, Barpeta, where he was declared as dead. 11. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted has submitted that in this regard, one GD entry, i.e., GD Entry No. 225 dated 14.05.2019 was made in the patrol post of Fakhruddin Ali Ahmed Medical College and Hospital, Barpeta, prior to post-mortem examination of the son of the present petitioner which was conducted on 15.05.2019. 12. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner being an illiterate person took help of one person, namely Gulzar Hussain of Barpeta Road for drafting the Ejahar. Page No.# 4/7 13. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that due to inadvertent mistake, said Gulzar Hussain mentioned the date of accident in the FIR as 15.05.2019 instead of 14.05.2019. 14. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that on the basis of the said FIR, Barpeta Road P.S. Case No. 297/2019 was registered under section 279/304A of the Indian Penal Code and investigation was initiated. 15. He further submits that after completion of the investigation, charge sheet was laid, bearing charge-sheet No. 272 dated 17.09.2019, however, in the charge sheet also, the date of accident was shown as 15.05.2019 as stated in the FIR. 16. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that though, the wrong date was mentioned due to inadvertence as well as ignorance of the petitioner in the FIR, the real facts could have been revealed had proper investigation been done in that case, however, the same was not done. 17. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner has also filed a motor accident claims case, claiming compensation for the death of his son in the vehicular accident. 18. He further submits that if true facts are not revealed after proper investigation, he would suffer substantial loss. He further submits that the facts involved in this case justifies further investigation so as to find out the true date of accident, in which the son of the petitioner had expired. However, the Trial Court had rejected the prayer, merely on the ground that by mistake, in the prayer portion, the counsel for the petitioner had prayed for rectifying the date of accident mentioned in the FIR. 19. The learned counsel for the petitioner fairly submits that though, any Page No.# 5/7 rectification in the date of accident in the FIR is not permissible, however, there is no bar in finding out the truth, by conducting further investigation. Hence, he has prayed for interference of this Court for the ends of substantial justice. 20. On the other hand, Mr. B. Sharma, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor has submitted that some error appears to be there in the records as the GD entry made in the patrol post of Fakhruddin Ali Ahmed Medical College and Hospital, Barpeta mentions about the date of accident as 14.05.2019 and in the FIR the date has been mentioned as 15.05.2019. 21. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties as well as various materials available on record including the scanned copy of the case record of PRC Case No. 168/2021. 22. It appears on perusal of the impugned order that learned SDJM Barpeta had rejected the prayer for further investigation mainly on the ground that there is no provision to rectify an error in the FIR. 23. It also appears on perusal of the Petition No.4043/2022 filed by the present petitioner before the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Barpeta that in the prayer portion also it was mentioned that further investigation is necessary for rectification of the date mentioned in the FIR. Though rightly observed by the Trial Court, there is no provision for the rectification of the FIR, however, there is no bar in directing further investigation to reveal the true facts, when new facts are brought to the notice of Court, which were not taken into consideration by the Investigating Officer while conducting the investigation. 24. In the instant case also, the fact that a GD entry, i.e. GD Entry No. 225 dated 14.05.2019, appears to have been made on 14.05.2019 itself, it also Page No.# 6/7 appears that the certificate of completion of the postmortem examination issued by the concerned authorities of the Department of Forensic Science of the Fakhruddin Ali Ahmed Medical College and Hospital, Barpeta, also mentions about the said GD entry. 25. It also appears that said aspect was not considered by the Investigating Officer while filing the charge sheet in the PRC Case No. 168/2021. 26. This Court is of considered opinion that this is a fit case where further investigation showed have been directed by the Court of learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, (Sadar) Barpeta as there appears to be a possibility of revealing the correct date of death of the son of the present petitioner after such investigation. 27. In view of above, the impugned order dated 31.10.2022 passed by learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, (Sadar) Barpeta in PRC Case No. 168/2021 is interfered with and set aside. 28. The Officer-In-Charge of Barpeta Road Police Station is directed to entrust an Officer of rank not below the rank of SI of police to conduct further investigation in Barpeta Road P.S. Case No. 297/2019 corresponding to PRC Case No. 168/2021 and ascertain the exact date of accident in which late Majom Ali, who was the son of the present petitioner died. After completion of the further investigation, the Investigating Officer shall submit the further report before the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, (Sadar) Barpeta. 29. It appears that by order dated 03.02.2023, further proceeding of PRC Case No. 168/2021 pending in the Court of learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, (Sadar) Barpeta was stayed, the same shall be continued to remain stayed till filing of the further report by the Investigating Officer in pursuant to Page No.# 7/7 the directions passed in this order. 30. After submission of the further report by the Investigating Officer, the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, (Sadar) Barpeta shall proceed with the trial of the PRC Case No. 168/2021. 31. With above observations, this criminal petition is disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant