Page No.# 1/6 GAHC010120002026 2026:GAU-AS:12449 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Crl.Rev.P./407/2026 SIDDHARTH SHARMA S/O LATE SH. OM PRAKASH SHARMA, R/O H. NO. 6, PNGB ROAD, HILL- SIDE, SHANTIPUR, KAMRUP (M), ASSAM, PIN- 781009. VERSUS STATE (THROUGH CID, ASSAM) GOVT. OF ASSAM,CRIME INVESTIGATION DEPARTMENT, ASSAM, GUWAHATI-65, BARTHAKUR MILL ROAD, ULUBARI, GUWAHATI, ASSAM, PIN- 781007. Advocate for the Petitioner : A R PAL, Advocate for the Respondent : SPECIAL PP ASSAM, BEFORE HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE SHAMIMA JAHAN ORDER 28.08.2026 Heard Mr Ankit Dhawan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr Z Kamar, learned Senior Counsel, appearing as Special Public Prosecutor for the CID, assisted by Mr P Dutta, learned counsel for the respondent. Page No.# 2/6 2. By this application filed under Section 438/440 of the BNSS, 2023, the petitioner has prayed for quashing of the order dated 02.03.2026, passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Kamruup (Metro), Guwahati, in Sessions Case No. 256/2025. 3. The case of the petitioner is that the victim died in Singapore and the case was registered in the said country and some of the documents were collected by the Investigating Officer during the investigation from the country of Singapore after following the due process of law and by following the Mutual Legal Assistance Treaty that was entered into between our country and Singapore. However, the petitioner submits that few documents like inquest report, death investigation findings, medical examiner, complete coroner’s report and other related materials prepared and collected by Singapore Police authorities were not furnished to the prosecution. The petitioner, as such, submitted the application, vide Petition No. 363/2026, before the Sessions Judge, Kamrup (M), Guwahati, for a direction against the prosecution to place on record the said documents as has been stated above. The prosecution in reply to the said application, had filed a written objection before the learned Sessions Judge, Kamrup (M), Guwahati, and the learned Sessions Judge, vide order dated 02.03.2026, had dismissed the petition on the ground that as per the provision Page No.# 3/6 of Mutual Legal Assistance Treaty, the Investigating Agency visited Singapore and collected evidences and the same are furnished to the accused person, which are relied on by the prosecution. It was also stated by the Trial Court that the Indian nationals, who were present on the day of incident were summoned to Assam (India), and their statements were also recorded and the same were also furnished to the accused persons. It was also held that the investigation done by the foreign investigating agency in a foreign country as per their own law will have no bearing upon the Indian Court in relation to the investigation done under the BNSS. 4. Mr Dhawan, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the prosecution had neither placed and had nor obtained the documents which are in favour of the accused persons and that those documents which are in favour of the accused persons should also be brought on record. He further submits that the accused person will have the opportunity to place the documents in their favour only after examination of the accused persons is completed under Section 313 CrPC and as such, he submits that non-placement of such documents would cause prejudice to the petitioner. 5. However, on the other hand, Mr Z Kamar, learned Senior Counsel has placed the provisions enshrined under the BNSS, 2023, more so Section Page No.# 4/6 208/209 of the BNSS, 2023, read with Section 1(4) of the BNS, 2023. He submits, by way of placing Section 1 (4) of BNS, that a person tried for an offence committed outside India, should be dealt in accordance with the provisions of the said Act, in the same manner, as if the act has been committed within the country. By placing Section 208 of the BNSS, 2023, he submits that when an offence is committed outside India by a citizen of India, whether on high seas or else where, he will be dealt in respect of such offence as if the same has been committed within the country, where he is found or where the offence is registered. It is further provided in the proviso appended therein that no offence shall be enquired into or tried in the country, except with the previous sanction of the Central Government. Mr Kamar submits that the sanction of the Central Government has also been taken and the offence is tried before the Sessions Judge, Kamrup. He also submits that all the documents, such as Post-Mortem Examination Report, Toxicology Report, Final Medical Opinion regarding the cause of death and Post Marine Circular, received from the authority of Singapore, as per the requirement under the law were acquired and provided to the petitioner or the accused persons. He also submits with regard to Section 209 of the BNSS, 2023, which provides that if any offence is committed outside India and the same is enquired into or tried under the provision of Section 208 of the BNSS, 2023, the Central Government, if it thinks Page No.# 5/6 fit, may direct that copies of deposition or any other evidence, whether in physical form or electronic form, before the concerned officer of the other country, be received as evidence by the Court, wherein the trial takes place. He submits that in compliance of the said provision and in compliance of the agreement entered into between the two countries, the documents were received and were made the evidence in the trial before the Sessions Judge, Kamrup (M), in Assam (India). 6. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsels and have gone through the records. 7. It is a clear position of law as provided under Section 209 of the BNSS, that if any offence is committed outside India and the same is tried within the country, it is for the Central Government to direct that copies of depositions or any other evidence collected in the country, where the offence had taken place, either in physical form or in electronic form, be received as evidence by the Court, where the trial takes place. 8. The Hon’ble Orissa High Court at Cuttack, while dealing with a bail application filed by one Soumya Ranjan Panda, delivered the order in Soumya Ranjan Panda vs. State of Orissa; reported in MANU/OR/1590/2025, had deliberated with regard to the provision enshrined under Section 209 of the Page No.# 6/6 BNSS, in a case where the petitioner had committed an offence in the country of Zambia and the trial was held in India, and it can be seen in the said decision that it is for the Central Government to direct the copies of depositions or exhibits produced before the concerned officer of the other country, be received in evidence by the Court, where the enquiry is held. There is admittedly, no provision under the law that the Courts will call for the evidence collected in respect of the offence committed outside the country. As such, this Court, therefore, holds that the petitioner can take recourse under Section 209 of the BNSS, 2023, by making an application before the Central Government, if so advised and necessary for the proper adjudication of the case. 9. The instant petition is as such, dismissed and disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant