Page No.# 1/4 GAHC010108962026 2026:GAU-AS:10301 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Crl.Rev.P./291/2026 AKTAR HOSSEN S/O CHAN MIAR/O SUKANTA PALLI, KRISNAPUR, TELIAMURA, P.O. TELIAMURA, DISTRIC-TKHOWAI, TRIPURA. VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REP BY THE PP, ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. J LASKAR, Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ROBIN PHUKAN ORDER 27.07.2026 Heard Mr. J. Laskar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. K. Baishya, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State respondent. 2. This petition, under Section 442 read with Section 438 of the BNSS, is preferred by the petitioner against the order dated 25.05.2026, passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Bongaigaon. 3. It is to be noted here that vide impugned order, dated 25.05.2026, the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Bongaigaon, had rejected the petition Page No.# 2/4 filed by the petitioner seeking zimma of 135 bags of betel nut, seized in connection with Bongaigaon GRPS Case No. 47/2026, under Section 61(2)/305(b)/317(2)/336(3) of the BNS. 4. Mr. Laskar, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that 135 bags of betel nut were seized in connection with Bongaigaon GRPS Case No. 47/2026 and thereafter, the petitioner had preferred one application before the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Bongaigaon. But, vide impugned order, dated 25.05.2026, the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Bongaigaon, on the basis of a report submitted by the IO, had dismissed the petition and that the impugned order is illegal and it suffers from manifest irregularity. 4.1. Mr. Laskar further submits that the petitioner had purchased the same from a local market and in the event of refusing zimma, the same will get perished and under such circumstances, he has contended to allow the same by setting aside the impugned order dated 25.05.2026. 5. On the other hand, Mr. Baishya, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, has vehemently opposed the petition and he submits that the investigation is still going on and the IO has submitted a detail report as to why the zimma cannot be given to the petitioner and under such circumstances, he has contended to dismiss the petition. 6. Having heard the submissions of learned counsel for both the parties, this Court has carefully gone through the petition as well as the documents placed on record and also perused the impugned order dated 25.05.2026. 7. It appears from the impugned order that the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Bongaigaon, at paragraph No. 5 has held that ‘At this stage, this court is of the considered view that release of the seized Page No.# 3/4 goods on zimaa may adversely affect the ongoing investigation and proper verification of the seized articles’. 7.1. Further, from the objection petition filed by the IO, it appears that the investigation is yet to be completed and during verification, several discrepancies and incomplete aspect were noticed in the documents submitted by the parties and there was only one manifest had been officially issued in respect of the said consignment. 7.2. Said report also indicates that there is one standard operating procedure governing the disposal of the seized betel nuts and the same are to be considered under the following points:- (i) Public health concern and nature of the seized betel nuts; (ii) Applicability of standard operating procedure for handling and disposal of seized betel nuts; (iii) Discrepancy regarding source, description and identity of the seized goods; (iv) Absence of essential supporting documents regarding procurement of areca nuts; (v) Quantity discrepancy requiring further investigation; (vi) Possibility of destruction, diversion or misuse of evidence; (vii) Pending expert opinions and verification reports; (viii) Interest of justice and protection of public interest; and (ix) Necessity of preservation of seized articles for judicial proceedings. 7.3. It also appears that if the seized articles are released on zimma, there Page No.# 4/4 exists a possibility of altercation, disposal, diversion or misuse of the seized goods, which may adversely affect the evidentiary value and that final conclusion regarding the origin, quality, legality and market status of the seized betel nuts can only be arrived at after receipt and examination of all pending reports. 7.4. Further, it appears from the objection petition that oral cancer may have multiple causative factors, like consumption of contaminated, adulterated and unfit areca nut products, which constitutes a serious public health concern and strict preventive regulatory measures are necessary to safeguard public health and prevent circulation of such hazardous products in the market. 7.5. Under such circumstances, it is unsafe to release the seized betel nuts while pending reports are yet to be received from the concerned authorities. 8. Thus, considering the submissions of learned counsel for both the parties and also considering the facts and circumstances on the record and examining the impugned order dated 25.05.2026, this Court is of the view that the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Bongaigaon, did not commit any illegality or irregularity in rejecting the petition, since interrogation is still going on and the public health issue is also involved in the matter. 9. In the result, this Court finds no merit in this petition and accordingly, the same stands dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their own costs. JUDGE Comparing Assistant