Gauhati High Court
Page No.# 1/3 vs The State Of Assam And Anr on 17 March, 2021
Author: Rumi Kumari Phukan
Bench: Rumi Kumari Phukan
Page No.# 1/3
GAHC010288462019
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : I.A.(Crl.)/999/2019
KACHU SEIKH and ANR.
S/O LATE GANDU SEIKH, R/O BALAJAN PART-I, P.S. GOLAKGANJ, DIST.
DHUBRI, ASSAM.
2: MANIK ALI
S/O KACHU SEIKH
R/O BALAJAN PART-I
P.S. GOLAKGANJ
DIST. DHUBRI
ASSAM
VERSUS
THE STATE OF ASSAM and ANR
REPRESENTED BY THE PP, ASSAM.
2:NAZRUL ISLAM
S/O LATE ASMAT ALI
VILL. 1 NO. DHORAGHAT PART-II
P.S. GOLOKGANJ
DIST. DHUBRI
ASSAM
PI
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR F K R AHMED
Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM
Linked Case : Crl.Rev.P./300/2011
Page No.# 2/3
KACHU SEIKH and ANR.
S/O LT. GANDU SEIKH R/O BALAJAN PART-I
P.S. GOLOKGANJ
DIST. DHUBRI
ASSAM.
2: MANIK ALI
S/O KACHU SEIKH R/O BALAJAN PART-I
P.S. GOLOKGANJ
DIST. DHUBRI
ASSAM.
VERSUS
THE STATE OF ASSAM
------------
Advocate for : MR.M HASHAN
Advocate for : PP
ASSAM appearing for THE STATE OF ASSAM
BEFORE
HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE RUMI KUMARI PHUKAN
ORDER
17-03-2021.
By way of this interlocutory application, filed under Section 360 of the CrPC, read with Section 3/4 of the Probation of the Offenders Act, the petitioners have sought for converting the punishment inflicted upon them by the learned trial Court, which has been affirmed by the appellate Court and also not interfered with by this Court in the Criminal Revision Petition No.300/2011.
Heard the submission of learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr. FKR Ahmed, who contends that as the accused/petitioner No.1 is a 75 years old person, suffering from several ailments and the accused/petitioner No.2 is a 35 years old man and there is no criminal antecedent whatsoever against them, they should be given the benefit as provided under the Probation of the Offenders Act and/or under Section 360 of the CrPC.
It is to be noted that against the concurrent findings of the Courts below, a revision was preferred Page No.# 3/3 before this Court vide Criminal Revision Petition No.300/2011 and the said petition kept pending for several years before this Court and the petitioners did not turn up since after filing of the same in the year 2011 and finally this Court, on 01.03.2019 (after eight years), disposed of the Criminal Petition for non-appearance of the petitioners, discussing the legal aspect and maintaining the conviction, without interfering the same.
The provision of Section 362 of the CrPC provides that the Court cannot alter or modify the judgment, once pronounced save and except the correction of clerical or arithmetical error.
In view of the above legal provision, this Court cannot entertain such plead made in such interlocutory application, once the judgment is pronounced.
The learned counsel for the State/respondent, Mr. H.K. Sarma and Ms. K. Devi, learned counsel appearing for the informant have also objected to such interlocutory application, as it would frustrate the very purpose of the statutory provision under Section 362 of the CrPC and not legally sustainable.
Considering all entirety, the prayer made in the present interlocutory application stands rejected.
The I.A. stands disposed of.
JUDGE Comparing Assistant