Page No.# 1/3 GAHC010078672026 2026:GAU-AS:7331 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Crl.A./147/2026 BAHAJUDDIN AHMED SO LT JALILUDDIN AHMED, RO VILL DAMDAMA PATHAR, PO RAMPUR, PS MUKALMUA, DIST NALBARI, ASSAM, PIN 781138 VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ANR. TO BE REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, ASSAM 2:SRI GAUTAM DAS SO SRI BIPIN CH DAS RO VILL KALAYAHATI SUNDARIDIA PO SUNDARIDIA PS BARPETA DIST BARPETA ASSA Advocate for the Petitioner : R AMIN, Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, BEFORE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SUSMITA PHUKAN KHAUND ORDER Date : 26-05-2026 Heard learned counsel Mr. R. Amin for the appellant, who has prayed for withdrawal of this appeal. Page No.# 2/3 2. Heard learned Additional Public Prosecutor Mr. D.P. Goswami for the State of Assam. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor has submitted that an appeal cannot be withdrawn. This appeal has to be decided on merits. The prayer for withdrawal and dismissal of appeal on withdrawal cannot be considered. 3. This appeal is filed under Section 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC for short) corresponding to Section 415 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS for short) along with an application under Section 389 of the CrPC, corresponding to Section 430 of the BNSS. 4. The appellant is aggrieved by the impugned judgment and order dated 10.03.2026 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Barpeta in Criminal Appeal No. 71/2025. However, in the cause title, the Criminal Appeal No. 71/2025 has been referred to as Sessions Case No. 71/2025 and in the appeal memo, at paragraph 2, Criminal Appeal No. 71/2025 has been referred to as Sessions Case No. 71/2025. In paragraph 2 of the appeal memo as well as in the cause title, it is averred that the learned Sessions Judged has convicted the accused- appellant under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (NI Act for short) in connection with Sessions Case No. 71/2025 and sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for 9 (Nine) months and to pay a fine of Rs.6,50,000/- (Rupees Six Lacs and Fifty Thousand) to the respondent No. 2 i.e. Sri Gautam Das, with default stipulation. However, in the prayer portion, it has been prayed to admit the appeal, call for the records of N.I. Case No. 09/2023 registered under Section 138 of the NI Act from the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Barpeta and to set aside the judgment and order dated 10.03.2026 passed in Sessions Case No. 71/2025. Page No.# 3/3 5. Now, this appeal under Section 374 of the CrPC is not maintainable against an order of the Sessions Judge in connection with Criminal Appeal No. 71/2025 which has been referred in a haphazard manner as Sessions Case No. 71/2025. Moreover, the judgment and the order dated 10.03.2026 is not an order of conviction as referred to by the appellant in the appeal memo. 6. The learned Sessions Judge vide order dated 10.03.2026 in Criminal Appeal No. 71/2025 has upheld the judgment and order dated 15.11.2025 in connection with N.I. Case No. 09/2023. 7. It would be pertinent to mention that no appeal lies against the appeal which has already been conclusively decided by the Appellate Court of first instance i.e. the learned Sessions Judge, Barpeta. The Crl. Appeal No. 71/2025 was already decided by the learned Sessions Judge, Barpeta, after assessing the evidence of N.I. Case No. 09/2023. Another Criminal Appeal under Section 374 of the CrPC or Section 415 of the BNSS, 2023, is not maintainable against an appeal decided under the same provisions of law. 8. This appeal is hereby stands dismissed as this appeal is not maintainable. JUDGE Comparing Assistant