Page No.# 1/2 GAHC010001582026 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Crl.Pet./23/2026 SRI DIGANTA BARAH, IPS SON OF LATE JONARAM BORAH COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM, TOURISM HOME AND POLITICAL DEPARTMENT BUNGLOW NO.9, POLICE HOUSING COLONY, ZONE-2, BEHIND DGP OFFICE, ULUBARI, GUWAHATI, DIST KAMRUP(M, ASSAM. VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM TO BE REPRESENTED BY THE LEARNED PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, ASSAM. Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. A M BORA, MS. C CHOUDHURY,MR. M S HUSSAIN,MR. D K BAIDYA Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PARTHIVJYOTI SAIKIA ORDER 09.01.2026 Heard Mr. A M Bora, learned senior counsel, appearing for the petitioner, assisted by Mr. D. K. Baida, Advocate. Also heard Mr. K K Parasar, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, Assam. This is an application filed under Section 528 read with Section 442 of the BNSS, 2023 by the petitioner, namely, Sri Diganta Barah, challenging the order dated 27.10.2025 passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sribhumi, Assam in Complaint Case (C.R.) No. 783/2015. Page No.# 2/2 The petitioner has been facing trial under Sections 500/501 IPC. His personal attendance has already been dispensed with during the trial when the case was fixing for recording of the statement under Section 313 CrPC. The petitioner prayed for dispensing his personal attendance but the trial court did not do so. In support of his contention, Mr. Bora has relied upon the decision of the Supreme Court that was rendered in the case of TGN Kumar v. State of Kerala and Ors. reported in (2011) 2 SCC 772 . In The said judgment, it was held that when the personal appearance of the accused has been dispensed with under Section 205 of the Code, a discretion is vested in the Magistrate to dispense with the rigour of personal examination of the accused under Section 313 of the Code as well. Mr. Bora has submitted that the petitioner is a senior officer of the Government of Assam and it is difficult for him to go to Sribhumi to appear before the trial court. Further, Mr. Bora has submitted that the petitioner is already undergoing some medical treatment. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for both the sides. This court is of the opinion that personal examination of the accused under Section 313 of the Code can be done through his Lawyer. Therefore, the impugned order dated 27.10.2025 passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sribhumi, Assam in Complaint Case (C.R.) No. 783/2015 is set aside. The trial court is directed to examine the petitioner through his engaged Lawyer. With the above, the criminal petition is disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant