Agaim Langhi Vs The State of Ap — Gauhati HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

Agaim Langhi Vs The State of Ap — Gauhati HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Impugned order dated 13.11.2024 framing charges in Sessions Case No.54/2022 set aside; learned Sessions Judge, Yupia directed to hear the counsel for the petitioners and thereafter pass necessary order(s) as prescribed under the law; criminal revision petition stands disposed of with these directions.

Issue for consideration

Whether the order dated 13.11.2024 of the learned Sessions Judge, Yupia framing charges in Sessions Case No.54/2022 without hearing the petitioner's counsel — whose prayer for another opportunity was refused — was bad in law and liable to be set aside.

Court's answer

Providing an opportunity of being heard is a fundamental foundation of the judicial system.

Ratio / Principle

The learned Trial Court committed a mistake by not hearing the counsel for the petitioners before framing the charges; therefore, the impugned order is bad in law.

Key takeaways

The impugned order dated 13.11.2024, whereby the learned Trial Court framed charges against the petitioner in respect of Session Case No.54/2022, is hereby set aside.ratio¶21
The learned Sessions Judge, Yupia is directed to hear the counsel for the petitioners and thereafter pass necessary order(s) as prescribed under the law.ratio¶22

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Criminal Revision Petition — Framing of charges without affording opportunity of hearing — Application by petitioner under Section 438 of the BNSS, 2023 against order dated 13.11.2024 of learned Sessions Judge, Yupia in Sessions Case No.54/2022 framing charges under Sections 341, 323, 326 & 307 IPC read with Section 34 IPC and Sections 25 & 27 of the Arms Act, 1959 — On 13.11.2024 the petitioners' counsel was absent; prayer for another opportunity to have counsel heard refused; Court below proceeded to frame charges — Held: providing an opportunity of being heard is a fundamental foundation of the judicial system; Trial Court's failure to hear counsel before framing charges renders the impugned order bad in law — Impugned order dated 13.11.2024 set aside — Sessions Judge, Yupia directed to hear counsel and thereafter pass necessary order(s) as prescribed under law — Petition stands disposed of (Justice Parthivjyoti Saikia, Itanagar Bench, 19.03.2025).

Page No.# 1/2

GAHC040001792025

THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) (ITANAGAR BENCH)

Case No. : Crl.Rev.P./5/2025

Agaim Langhi

Son of Shri Tabyang Langhi, PO Seppa, PS Seppa, East Kameng District, presently residing at Naharlagun, Papum Pare District, Arunachal Pradesh.

VERSUS

The State of AP represented by the PP of AP

Advocate for the Petitioner : Geken Jini,

Advocate for the Respondent : P P of AP,

BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PARTHIVJYOTI SAIKIA

ORDER

Date : 19.03.2025

Heard Mr. G. Jini, learned counsel for the petitioner and Ms. L. Hage, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State of Arunachal Pradesh.

This application has been filed by the petitioner under Section 438 of the BNSS, 2023, challenging the order dated 13.11.2024, passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Yupia, in Sessions Case No.54/2022.

By the impugned order, the learned Court below framed the charges under

Page No.# 2/2

Sections 341, 323, 326 & 307 of the Indian Penal Code read with Section 34 of the said Code as well as under Sections 25 & 27 of the Arms Act. 1959.

The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that on 13.11.2024, the counsel for the petitioners was absent in the Court. Therefore, the petitioners prayed for another opportunity to have their counsel heard, however, the Court below did not allow their prayer and proceeded to frame the charges.

I have considered the submission made by the learned counsels for both the side.

Providing an opportunity of being heard is a fundamental foundation of the judicial system. The learned Trial Court has committed a mistake by not hearing the counsel for the petitioners before framing the charges, therefore, the impugned order is bad in law. The impugned order dated 13.11.2024, whereby the learned Trial Court framed charges against the petitioner in respect of the Session Case No.54/2022 is hereby set aside.

The learned Sessions Judge, Yupia, is directed to hear the counsel for the petitioners and thereafter, shall pass necessary order(s) as prescribed under the law.

With the aforesaid direction, the criminal revision petition stands disposed

of.

JUDGE

Comparing Assistant