Gauhati High Court
Crl.Rev.P./305/2026 of RAJU KUMAR GUPTA Vs SRI BIRENDRA SINGH on 24 August 2026
GAHC010112212026 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Crl.Rev.P./305/2026 RAJU KUMAR GUPTA S/O RAM DAWAN GUPTA R/O SARUPATHAR GAON, P.O P.S DULIAJAN, DISTRICT DIBRUGARH, PIN786602 VERSUS SRI BIRENDRA SINGH S/O LATE RAMBAHADUR SINGH R/O
GAHC010112212026
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : Crl.Rev.P./305/2026
RAJU KUMAR GUPTA
S/O RAM DAWAN GUPTA R/O SARUPATHAR GAON, P.O P.S DULIAJAN, DISTRICT DIBRUGARH, PIN786602
VERSUS
SRI BIRENDRA SINGH
S/O LATE RAMBAHADUR SINGH R/O BAMHUKUTA NEAR WELL NO 48, P.O. P.S DULIAJAN, DISTRICT DIBRUGARH
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. A K SAHU, MS A ROY
Advocate for the Respondent : MR. S BORTHAKUR, MR. DEVABRATA SAIKIA,MR. D GOGOI
BEFORE
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH MAZUMDAR
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
ORDER
Date : 25.08.2026 Heard Mr. A.K. Sahu, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. S. Borthakur, learned senior counsel, assisted by Mr. D. Saikia, learned counsel for the sole respondent.
2. This petition has been preferred by the petitioner by invoking the provisions of Sections 397/ 401 Cr.P.C for setting aside the impugned order dated 07.05.2026 passed by the Court of the learned Additional Chief Judicial
Magistrate, Dibrugarh, in NI Case No. 135/2015 whereby the witness of the defence/petitioner herein had been dispensed with on the ground that the defence would not procure the attendance of any of the witnesses namely, Md. Anowar Ali, Md. Mokbul Ali, Md. Asif Jahan Sarif, Income Tax Officer, Dibrugarh and Smti Julie Das, Notary Public.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that despite efforts being made, the aforesaid witnesses could not adduce their evidence on 07.05.2026 since two of them were out of station and the two others where one was Income Tax Officer and other was a Notary Public.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that allowing the witnesses to give the evidence in the trial proceedings would not prejudice the Trial in any manner.
5. The learned Senior counsel appearing or respondent have submitted that there has been inordinate delay in disposing of the connected case since the same had been instituted in the year 2015 and till the year 2026 the defence could not produce the attendance of the defence/witness. He, however, objects to the proposal of the learned counsel for the petitioner that one opportunity would be granted to the petitioner to call his defence/witness in the trial process.
6. I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and I have also gone through the order dated 07.05.2026.
7. Although in my considered opinion, the order dated 07.05.2026 does not suffer from legal infirmity, for the ends of justice and to bring a quietus to the matter, I deem it fit to direct the learned Trial Court to allow the petitioner herein/ the accused in NI Case No. 135/2015 to produce his defence witness to proceed with the trial. The petitioner herein, i.e. the accused in NI Case No. 135/2015 shall produce the certified copy of this order before the learned Trial Court on 29.08.2026 i.e. is the next date fixed for trial and file an application for being allowed to call the defence witness in the trial.
8. On filing such application, the learned Trial Court would be at liberty to fix the appropriate date for allowing the such defence/witness to adduce their evidence. The complainant in the case would also be at liberty to proceed in trial in accordance with law to cross-examination the defence/witness. Both the parties shall ensure that no unnecessary delay is caused in the Trial proceeding. Thereafter, the case shall be proceeded in accordance with law.
9. This Criminal Revision Petition is accordingly closed. JUDGE Comparing Assistant