This court dismissed the revision petition as not maintainable. The challenged order regarding account freeze was interim and interlocutory, with the matter not finally decided below.
Petition dismissed as not maintainable; petitioner directed to approach the court below.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Page No.# 1/2
GAHC010108152020
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : Crl.Rev.P. 159/2020
1:ABDUL KADER S/O. MD AFAZ UDDIN, R/O. VILL. NALIGAON, P.O. NALIGAON, P.S. BARPETA, DIST. BARPETA, ASSAM, PIN-781352.
VERSUS
1:THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ANR REP. BY PP, ASSAM.
2:SAILEN KR KALITA SUB INSPECTOR AND INVERTIGATING OFFICER BARPETA POLICE STATION BARPETA ASSAM PIN-781301
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. D BARUAH
Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM
BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HITESH KUMAR SARMA
ORDER
Date : 01-10-2020
The Court proceedings have been conducted through video-conference. Mr. D. Barua, learned counsel represents the petitioner.
Mr. Bidyut Sarma, learned Additional Public Prosecutor represents the State respondent No.1.
Page No.# 2/2
The order subjected to challenge in this revision petition is an interlocutory order. While pointing out the same to Mr. Barua, learned counsel for the petitioner, he has also agreed to the said position.
This Court finds that the order challenged in this revision petition is an interlocutory order in nature in the sense that on the basis of materials available in the case diary as on that day and on the request of the Investigating Police Officer, the account freezed was not defreezed. At that point of time, some co-accused were even not arrested. The entire order makes it appear that at that stage of investigation, in fact, the prayer for defreezing the account was not allowed. However, on perusal of the order, it appears to this Court that there is still an option for the petitioner to approach the learned Court below with similar request as the matter has not been finally decided yet.
In view of above, as agreed to by the learned counsel for the parties, this Court is of the view that the revision is not maintainable the order challenged herein being an interlocutory order. Therefore, the petition is dismissed being not maintainable with the direction to the petitioner that, if so advised, he may approach the learned Court below in the matter, which the learned Court below shall consider on its own merit.
JUDGE
Comparing Assistant
Abdul Kader
The State of Assam
Sailen Kr Kalita
Hitesh Kumar Sarma
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
