Page No.# 1/3 GAHC010036322026 2026:GAU-AS:8947 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Crl.Rev.P./101/2026 JITEN BARUAH S/O LATE KANTI RAM BARUAH, R/O VILL.- MOHORIPARA, P.S.- SIPAJHAR, DIST.- DARRANG, ASSAM - 784145. VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REP. BY THE P.P., ASSAM. Advocate for the Petitioner : ANUBHAB ATREYA, MR. J KONWAR,MS. C KALITA Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, BEFORE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SUSMITA PHUKAN KHAUND ORDER Date : 22.06.2026 Heard Mr. A. Atreya, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. K.K. Parasar, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State of Assam. 2. Mr. A. Atreya, learned counsel is present for the petitioner, Jiten Baruah, who has filed this petition under Section 442 read with Section 438 of the Page No.# 2/3 Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 challenging the Judgment and Order dated 06.02.2023 passed by the learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Udalguri , Assam in Sessions Case No. 72/2022 convicting the petitioner under Section 447 IPC and sentencing him to undergo simple imprisonment for 6 (six) months and fine of Rs.500/- (Rupees five hundred) only, under Section 498-A of IPC to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 3 (three) years and a fine of Rs.3000/- (Rupees three thousand) only, under Section 307 of IPC to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 7 (seven) years and a fine of Rs.5000/- (Rupees five thousand) only, and under Section 323 of IPC to undergo simple imprisonment for 15 (fifteen) days with respective default stipulations. The sentences are to run concurrently. 3. The petitioner has prayed for withdrawal of this petition as there is a provision for appeal and the petitioner has approached this Court with a revision petition instead of preferring an appeal. 4. Mr. K.K. Parasar, learned Addl. P.P appearing for the State of Assam has submitted that the petition is not maintainable. 5. Vide order dated 06.02.2023, the petitioner was sentenced to a maximum period of imprisonment for 7 (seven) years and the other sentences were to run concurrently. As the maximum period of imprisonment was 7 (seven) years, the petitioner has to file an appeal as per the provisions of law. 6. I have considered the submissions at the bar. It is also submitted on behalf of the petitioner that there are no provisions in the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS, in short) under Section 415 to prefer an appeal against any decision of an Assistant Sessions Judge, in any case, where order is Page No.# 3/3 passed for a total period of imprisonment of 7 (seven) years. I have also considered the submissions that in any case an appeal has to be preferred from the order impugned by the petitioner and not a revision petition. 7. In view of the foregoing discussions it has thereby held that this revision petition under Section 442 read with Section 438 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 is not maintainable. An appeal lies against the Judgment and order of conviction dated 06.02.2023 passed by the learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Udalguri, Assam in Sessions Case No. 72/2022. 8. In view of the above discussions, this revision petition is dismissed. JUDGE Comparing Assistant