Page No.# 1/5 GAHC010197942026 2026:GAU-AS:14497 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Crl.Pet./1265/2026 SRI JADAB CHANDRA DAS SON OF DHRUBA NANDA DAS, RESIDENT OF BARGAON, P.O. SILIKHAGURI, P.S. PANBARI, CHIRANG, ASSAM, PIN 783390. VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REPRESENTED BY S.C. FOREST. ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. S N TAMULI, MS P DEKA,MS. P K ZANNAT Advocate for the Respondent : SC, FOREST, BEFORE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SHAMIMA JAHAN ORDER 29.09.2026 1. Heard Mr. S.N. Tamuli, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. D. Gogoi, learned Special Public Prosecutor for the Forest Department. 2. By this application filed under Section 528 of the BNSS, 2023 the petitioner has prayed for extending to him the benefit of Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 which was granted to co-convicts on the principle of parity. Page No.# 2/5 3. The case of the petitioner is that in connection with a forest offence the petitioner along with eight others were convicted by the learned SDJM, Bijni in C.R. Case No. 132/2007. By the said judgment, the petitioner and the other accused persons were convicted under Sections 24, 25, 35 and 41 of the Assam Forest Regulation, 1891 and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months along with fine and default stipulation under Section 24 of the said Act; simple imprisonment for one year under Section 25 of the said Act; simple imprisonment for one year under Section 35 of the said Act and simple imprisonment for one year along with fine and default stipulation under Section 41 of the said Act. All the sentences were directed to run concurrently. 4. Aggrieved by the judgment and order passed by the trial court, eight out of the nine convicted persons preferred two separate criminal appeals before the learned Additional Sessions Judge (FTC), Bongaigaon, Assam being Criminal Appeal No. 03(1)/2010 and Criminal Appeal No. 05(1)/2010. Upon hearing the parties, the learned appellate court by a common judgment and order dated 13.12.2010, dismissed both the appeals thereby upholding the judgment and order passed by the trial court. 5. Aggrieved by the judgment and order passed by the appellate court, the eight convicted persons preferred two criminal revision petitions being Criminal Revision Petition No.59/2011 and 130/2011 before this Court. This Court, by a common judgment and order dated 30.10.2025 while declining to interfere with the findings and conclusions recorded by both the trial court and the appellate court, extended the benefit of the provisions of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 to the revision petitioners, taking into consideration the length of time that had elapsed from the commission of the offence till the matter reached this Court. Page No.# 3/5 6. By the said order dated 30.10.2025, this Court directed the eight convicted persons to furnish two sureties of Rs. 20,000/- each along with a personal bond before the trial court, i.e., the Court of the learned SDJM, Bijni. They were also directed to give an undertaking to maintain peace and good behaviour for a period of one year. It was further directed that the bonds be furnished within a period of two months. However, the direction of the trial court dated 29.12.2009, imposing a fine was not interfered with and the convicted persons were required to deposit the fine amount as imposed by the trial court. 7. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner did not prefer any appeal before the appellate court and was also not a party to the criminal revision petition filed before this Court. He further submits that the petitioner was and is in custody. It is contended that the petitioner is similarly situated as the other convicted persons and that the facts and circumstances leading to his conviction are identical to those of the co-convicts. Accordingly, the learned counsel submits that on the principle of parity the relief granted by this Court in its revisional jurisdiction may also be extended to the petitioner. 8. In support of his submissions, the learned counsel has relied upon the following judgments: 1. Javed Shaukat Ali Qureshi v. State of Gujarat, reported in AIR 2023 SC 4444; 2. Susanta Kumar Dalei @ Susanta Kumar Dalai v. State of Odisha (Vigilance), reported in 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 518; 3. Akhil Ali Jehangir Ali Sayyed v. State of Maharashtra, reported in AIRONLINE 2002 SC 791; and 4. Sri Jadab Chandra Das v. State of Assam and Others, in Criminal Petition Page No.# 4/5 No. 1265 of 2026. 9. On the other hand, Mr. D. Gogoi, learned Special Public Prosecutor appearing for the Forest Department submits that although there is a thin line of distinction with regard to extending the benefit of parity to a convicted person who has not challenged the judgment before the appellate court but having regard to the age of the petitioner he does not oppose the prayer for extending similar benefits to the petitioner as have been granted to the other convicted persons. 10. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the records of the case. In Javed Shaukat Ali Qureshi (supra), the Hon'ble Apex Court held that where accused persons are acquitted on the basis of the same facts and circumstances, the benefit of such acquittal is required to be extended to an accused who has not challenged the judgment before the appellate court. Thus, the principle of parity is no longer res integra insofar as its applicability to co- accused who has not challenged the judgment before the higher court. 11. In the instant case, it is seen that this Court by not finding any infirmity in the findings and conclusions arrived at by the learned trial court and the learned appellate court, upheld the conviction of the accused persons in accordance with law. However, taking into consideration the time that had elapsed during the pendency of the proceedings and the absence of any antecedents with regard to the convicted persons, this Court extended the benefit of the provisions of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 to them. 12. It is further seen that the same evidence was adduced against the petitioner as well as the other convicted persons who were convicted under various provisions of the Assam Forest Regulation, 1891. As such, this Court Page No.# 5/5 finds no impediment in extending to the petitioner the same benefits as were granted to the other convicted persons by this Court vide revisional order dated 30.10.2025. Accordingly, the petitioner is permitted to furnish a bond of Rs. 20,000/- with two sureties of like amount along with a personal bond before the learned trial court, i.e., the Court of the learned SDJM, Bijni. The petitioner shall also furnish an undertaking to maintain peace and good behaviour for a period of one year from the date of furnishing the bond. The fine amounts imposed by the trial court vide judgment and order dated 29.12.2009 was not interfered with by this Court in the said revisional order. Accordingly, the petitioner is directed to deposit the fine amount as imposed by the trial court. It is further directed that the aforesaid bond shall be furnished by the petitioner within a period of two months from the date of this order. 13. With the above directions, the present petition stands disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant