Crl.Pet./527/2026 of YOMGAM NGUBA @ YONGAMN NGUBA Vs THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 2 ORS. on 16 August 2026

ORDER

17.08.2026

Heard Mr. P.K. Munir, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. P. Borthakur, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State respondent.

2. This petition, under Section 528 of the BNSS, is preferred by the petitioner for:

(i) quashing of the criminal proceeding initiated pursuant to order of cognizance dated 06.03.2025, in PR Case No. 39/2025, arising out of Gogamukh PS Case No. 63/2023, under Section 147/148/302/326/307 of the IPC, read with Section 25(1)(A)/27(3) of the Arms Act;

(ii) quashing of the Charge-Sheet No. 12/2025, dated 31.01.2025, submitted in Gogamukh PS Case No. 63/2023;

(iii) setting aside the order dated 06.03.2025, passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dhemaji (CJM hereinafter), in GR Case No. 284/2023, taking cognizance of offence under Section 147/148/302/326/307 of the IPC, read with Section 25(1)(A)/27(3) of the Arms Act, without any previous sanction from the District Magistrate as mandated by Section 39 of the Arms Act; and

(iv) setting aside the order dated 03.11.2025, passed by the learned CJM, in PR Case No. 39/2025, whereby Non-Bailable Warrant of Arrest (NBWA hereinafter) was issued against him.

3. It is to be noted here that Gogamukh PS Case No. 63/2023, under

Section 147/148/302/326/307 of the IPC, read with Section 25(1)(A)/27(3) of the Arms Act, was registered on the basis of one FIR lodged by one Jogeswar Gogoi and Durga Bora, on 05.06.2023, against Tagam Murah; Mikjom; Engli Taso; Tamin Buchi; Eyampa Tasu; Jurd Buchi; Jhania Tasu; Majum Muba; Elok Buchi; and Taling Buchi.

3.1. The essence of allegation made in the FIR is that on 05.06.2023, at about 11:00 am, the informants went to the house of Krishna Tamang of Panbari village and there they saw one Puspa Gogoi of Milanpur, being assaulted by the aforementioned accused persons. At that time, one Bolero Pickup van had arrived there with 20/25 persons with guns in their hands and when the informants went to the spot to save Puspa Gogoi, the accused persons started firing with guns and as a result, one Boga Chutia died on the spot and another person, namely Monito Gogoi was attacked with a sharp object and wounded him severely and they left Puspa Gogoi in unconscious state.

3.2. Thereafter, investigation was carried out and charge-sheet was submitted against one Bomper Tasso; Mikjom Tasso; Yongamn Nguba; Bagam Taso; and Ijip Taso, as absconder, to stand trial in the court under Section 147/148/302/326/307 of the IPC, read with Section 25(1)(A)/27(3) of the Arms Act.

3.3. Upon the said charge-sheet, the learned CJM, vide order dated 06.03.2025, had taken cognizance and issued summon to the aforementioned accused persons and thereafter, vide order dated 03.11.2025, had issued NBWA against them.

4. Mr. Munir, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the petitioner is mainly aggrieved by the taking of cognizance of the offences by the learned CJM, under Section 147/148/302/326/307 of the IPC, read with Section 25(1) (A)/27(3) of the Arms Act. Mr. Munir further submits that as per Section 39 of the Arms Act, for taking cognizance of an offence prior sanction of the District Magistrate is necessary and in the instant case, learned CJM had taken cognizance of the offence without prior sanction of the District Magistrate and as such, the entire proceeding is liable to be quashed.

5. Per-contra, Mr. Borthakur, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, has opposed the petition on the ground that not obtaining of sanction is a curable defect and that the sanction can be obtained at any point of time. Mr. Borthakur further submits that there is no bar in proceeding with the offence under the IPC where sanction is not required.

6. Having heard the submissions of learned counsel for both the parties, this Court has carefully gone through the petition as well as the documents placed on record.

7. It is well settled in a catena of decisions of Hon’ble Supreme Court that if an accused is charge sheeted for commission of offences under two different Acts for prosecution, and if under one Act for taking cognizance of offences prior sanction is required and in respect of offences under the other Act no sanction is required, and if sanction is not obtained under one Act then the court can proceed with the offences where sanction is not required. Reference in this context can be made to decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State of MP vs. Chunnilal @ Chunni Singh, reported in (2009) 12 SCC 649. Same proposition is laid down in the case of Sreenivasa Reddy vs. Rakesh Shurma and Another, in Criminal

Appeal No. 2339/2023.

8. That being so, this Court is of the view that though prior sanction is not obtained, under Section 39 of the Arms Act, for prosecution of the present petitioner, under Section25(1)(A)/27(3) of the Arms Act, yet there is no bar in proceeding against the accused under Section 147/148/302/326/307 of the IPC.

9. In that view of the matter, this Court afraid the prayer Nos. (i), (ii) and

(iii) in this petition cannot be considered and accordingly the same stands rejected.

10. However, in respect of the prayer No. (iv) this Court finds that due to non appearance of the accused before the learned CJM Dhemaji had issued NBWA against the petitioner, vide impugned order dated 03.11.2025. It is, however, the categorical contention of Mr. Munir that the petitioner is ready to face trial and appear before the Court of learned CJM, in PR Case No. 39/2025, and he may be allowed to appear before the said Court and till then the NBWA, issued against him vide impugned order and also by all subsequent orders, if any may be set aside and quashed.

10.1. Mr. Borthakur, learned Addl. P.P. also submits that the petitioner may be directed to appear before the learned Court.

11. Under the given facts and circumstances, and also considering the willingness of the petitioner to face trial, this Court is of the view that he may be allowed to appear before the learned Court below and to face trial. Accordingly, the petitioner is directed to appear before the Court of learned CJM, Dhemaji on or before 10th of September, 2026 and to apply for regular bail. And in the event of filing such an application the learned CJM, Dhemaji shall consider the same in accordance with law. And in order to facilitate him to appear before the Court of learned CJM, Dhemaji, it is provided that the NBWA, issued against the petitioner, vide impugned order dated 03.11.2025, and by all subsequent orders, if any, shall be kept in abeyance.

12. In the result, this petition is allowed to the extent indicated above, leaving the parties to bear their own costs.

JUDGE Comparing Assistant