Page No.# 1/6 GAHC010022852026 2026:GAU-AS:1852 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Crl.Rev.P./50/2026 SRI MASOOM AHMED SON OF MD ROFIQUDDIN ALI AHMED RESIDENT OF AJANTA PATH HATIGAON CHARIALI PO AND PS HATIGAON GUWAHATI DISTRICT KAMRUP (METRO) ASSAM VERSUS THE UNION OF INDIA REPRESENTED BY THE DIRECTOR CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. K BHATTACHARJEE, MS. P BORDOLOI,MS. A BARMAN,ABBASH U AHMED Advocate for the Respondent : SC, CBI, BEFORE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SHAMIMA JAHAN ORDER 11.02.2026 Heard Mr. K. Bhattacharjee, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Ms. M. Kumari, learned Standing Counsel for CBI. Page No.# 2/6 2. By this application filed under Section 442 of the BNSS, 2023, read with Section 438 of the BNSS, 2023, the petitioner has challenged the Order dated 21.11.2025 passed in CR Case No. 1141/2009 under Section 420/471 of the IPC pending before the Court of Special Judicial Magistrate, Kamrup (M), Guwahati, by which the prayer for furnishing certain documents at the time of cross examination of the Investigating Officer was rejected. 3. Mr. K. Bhattacharya, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has filed an application before the learned Court of Special Judicial Magistrate First Class, Kamrup, Guwahati under Section 207 of the Cr.PC on 29.08.2025 praying inter alia that when the Investigating Officer was examined on 21.08.2025, it came into light that he has relied on certain documents mentioned in the seizure memos and as such, has prayed for supply of certain documents by the said application. The said documents were seizure memo vide Exhibit-7 which contained 10 numbers of seized documents, seizure memo vide Exhibit-37 which contained 21 numbers of seized documents, seizure memo vide Exhibit-46 which contained 11 numbers of seized documents, seizure memo vide Exhibit-23 which contained 20 numbers of seized documents and seizure memo vide Exhibit-24 which contained 3 numbers of seized documents. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the said documents were vital and material documents and were not supplied to him by the prosecution. The learned Court of Special Judicial Magistrate First Class, Kamrup heard the application and upon consideration of the rival submissions made by the parties, reached a finding that the documents claimed are not new nor had been introduced at any subsequent stage of the trial. It was also held that the documents form an integral part of the case record accompanying the Charge- sheet and have always been available to the accused since the very inception of Page No.# 3/6 the prosecution case. As such, it was concluded that asking for documents after a lapse of more than a decade from the date of compliance under Section 207 Cr.PC appears to be a deliberate attempt to delay the proceedings and that once the Court had completed supplying documents under Section 207 Cr.PC, the accused person cannot later be permitted to re-open the issue on vague, belated and opportunistic grounds and accordingly, the said application was rejected. 5. Mr. K. Bhattacharjee, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that those documents were never exhibited during the trial at the initial stage and that the Investigating Officer has relied on the documents for the first time during his deposition and as such, he submits that he should be given an opportunity to inspect the said documents and to confront the Investigating Officer with the same. He submits that although the said documents were mentioned in the seizure memo supplied to him under Section 207 of the Cr.PC, but the documents were never supplied to him. He as such submits that for fair trial, the accused has a right to be supplied with all the documents relied on by the prosecution and to substantiate his arguments, he has placed reliance on the Judgment of P. Ponnusamy Vs. State of Tamil Nadu, reported in (2023) 12 SCC 666, wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court has held that the accused has a right to fair trial and also has the right in fair disclosure requirement in a case. He also places reliance on the Judgment of the Gauhati High Court in Sh. Temjensuba Longkumer Vs. State of Nagaland, reported in 2024 (1) GLT 249, in which the learned High Court has held that furnishing of documents under Section 207 of the Cr.PC is the right of the accused person and he should not be denied of the same. As such, the learned counsel submits that the impugned Order dated 21.11.2025 should be interfered with and the Page No.# 4/6 necessary documents may be directed to be supplied to the accused person. 6. Ms. M. Kumari, learned Standing Counsel for CBI submits that the Order dated 21.11.2025 was on a proper consideration of the facts and the law in the instant case and the application for supply of documents at the fag end of the trial was not proper in the eyes of law. She submits that the instant case has been instituted in the year 2007 and the Charge-sheet has been laid in the year 2009 and the copies of the relevant documents were supplied to the accused person and were completed in the year 2010. The learned counsel also submits that the petitioner has participated in the proceedings before the Court for several years, raising no grievance about non-supply of documents and now, after 15 years, the petitioner has filed the application for the supply of documents when the Investigating Officer was being examined. She further submits that the petitioner knew about the said documents as the seizure memos were supplied to him long before, but had never asked for the said copies at any point of time and now asking for the same is only with the intention to delay the progress of the trial, which cannot be allowed. She also submits that the petitioner has filed an application before this Hon’ble Court and withdrew the same for non-annexing of seizure memos in the said application, which according to the learned counsel was supplied to the petitioner long back. She submits that the said application was withdrawn with a liberty to file afresh on 29.01.2026 and it is not even a month that the instant petition has been filed. 7. I have heard the learned counsels for the parties and have gone through the records. 8. It is noticed that the instant case has been instituted by lodging of an FIR on 11.06.2007 and was registered and the Charge-sheet in connection with the Page No.# 5/6 said case was submitted on 14.01.2009 arraying the petitioner and others as accused persons. Thereafter, charges were framed on the basis of the documents submitted under Section 173 of the Cr.PC and the trial started. During the trial, witnesses were examined and the Investigating Officer was being examined as the last prosecution witnesses. At this juncture, the petitioner has filed the application under Section 207 of the Cr.PC raising the ground that various documents mentioned in the seizure memos, which were however supplied to him but the documents mentioned in the seizure memos were not given to him. It is an admitted position that seizure memos were given to him which mentions about the said documents, which the petitioner alleges that the same were not given to him. The petitioner had cross examined various witnesses examined by the prosecution and at no point of time, he felt the necessity to see the documents seized in connection with the said case by the Investigating Officer and to question the witnesses about the said documents. It was only when the Investigating Officer was examined and when he was referring to certain documents mentioned in the seizure memos, he felt the necessity to go through the said documents. 9. It is also noticed that in the seizure memo, the said documents were not mentioned in a bald form, but details regarding the same were given as could be seen from the said seizure memos, which the petitioner himself has annexed in the petition. It cannot be said that those documents were not at all required to be looked into or to be questioned about to the various witnesses that were examined by the prosecution. Those documents were in relation to the examination held and in relation to the students who appeared in the said examination. It cannot concern only the Investigating Officer, rather, it will not. The petitioner knew about the contents of the documents mentioned in the Page No.# 6/6 seizure memos, but had never asked for supply of the same at any point of time before 2025. As such, this Court does not deem it fit to interfere with the Order dated 21.11.2025. 10. As such, the petition is dismissed and disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant