In this proceeding, the judgment and order dated 20.9.95, passed by the learned Deputy Commissioner, Upper Subansiri District, Daporijo, in Sessions Case No. 4/93, convicting the petitioner, Tania Dabu, is under challenge by way of this revision petition. 2. Though the present application is purportedly made under section 50 of the Assam Frontier (Administration of Justice) Regulation, 1945, in fact the application is made under section 28 of the Regulation, 1945. Section 50 of the Regulation, 1945 confers revisional jurisdiction on the High Court only in the matter of civil proceedings and in the area of criminal proceedings, a revision lies only e under section 28 of the Regulation, 1945; that apart; the High Court by itself may entertain an appeal by special leave under section 26 of the Regulation, 1945. Though section 26 provides for appeal only against sentences of imprisonment for three years and upward and also against sentences of death or transportation, a discretion is conferred on the High Court to entertain an appeal against sentences other than those as mentioned under section 26 of the Regulation, 1945 by way of special leave. Since in this proceeding, the judgment and order including the finding of the Deputy Commissioner, Upper Subansiri, is challenged wherein the learned Deputy Commissioner exercised the powers of a Sessions Judge, for fitness of things, it would be open to High Court in such matters to hear such application as an appeal. The revisional power as set put in the rules are not hedged with any restriction and, therefore, the exercise of jurisdiction by the High Court in such revision shall not be constructed by any of the provisions laid down in the Civil Procedure Code as well as the Criminal Procedure Code. Rules are to be interpreted on the setting of the situation of the area. In exercise of the revisional powers, the High Court may embark upon the appraisal of facts like that of an appellate Court and decide whether the order of the Court, from which the appeal is brought was right on the materials which "that Court had before it. The expression 'revision' as set in the rules is not to be understood in the narrower sense [relied: Ka Idis Mari Karkongar vs. Ka Theirit Lyngdoh, ALR 1969 (FB), Assam & Nagaland (Short Notes)]. The expression 'revision' as set in the rules is not to be understood in the narrower sense [relied: Ka Idis Mari Karkongar vs. Ka Theirit Lyngdoh, ALR 1969 (FB), Assam & Nagaland (Short Notes)]. Needless to say that in a these areas, separation of judiciary is yet to be made and trial of cases including Sessions, are by the Executive authority who are not endowed with the proper legal training and the ends of justice as well as the spirit of the Rules provide the power on the High Court to appreciate the facts as appellate authority. 3. The petitioner, Tania Dabu, was tried for an offence under section 307 IPC read with section 27 of the Arms Act in the following circumstances. According to the prosecution, on 1.1.93, at around 8.45 PM (forty five minutes past eight PM), the accused fired upon Constable Nabam Tajang, in the Guard Room of the District Police Office, Daporijo. A formal FIR was lodged with the Office In-charge, Daporijo Police Station, by Constable Nabam Tajang on 2.1.93. The case was registered under section 307 IPC by the police. On completion of the investigation, the petitioner was charge-sheeted under section 307 IPC. The Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Daporijo, in due course committed the case to the Court of the Deputy Commissioner, Upper Subansiri, and the learned Deputy Commissioner on receipt of the case on committal, framed charges under section 307 IPC and section 27 of the Arms Act. The accused pleaded not guilty to the charges and claimed to be tried. The prosecution examined as many as ten witnesses. Constable, Ananda Noroh, was the first witness examined by the prosecution, who deposed that he also worked as Constable and was posted at SP's office, Daporijo on Sentry duty. That his duty hours was from 10 PM to midnight (12 PM). That on the date of occurrence. Constable, Nabam Tajang, was on duty from 6 PM to 8 PM. After performing his Sentry duty, Nabam Tajang came to the Guard Room and lied down on the bed. That at about 8.30 PM, Constable, Tania Dabu, went to the Guard Room and a altercation took place between Tania Dabu and Nabam Tajang. That on the date of occurrence. Constable, Nabam Tajang, was on duty from 6 PM to 8 PM. After performing his Sentry duty, Nabam Tajang came to the Guard Room and lied down on the bed. That at about 8.30 PM, Constable, Tania Dabu, went to the Guard Room and a altercation took place between Tania Dabu and Nabam Tajang. Then the witness got down from the bed and tried to pacify both of them, but they did not listen to him and, therefore, the witness left the Guard Room and went inside the WT Room. After about five minutes, Nabam Tajang also went inside the WT Room and he was in good physical condition. That after Nabam Tajang entered the WT Room, there was a sound of firing and thereafter, Tania Dabu also entered into the WT Room. The witness was declared hostile, who was cross-examined by the prosecution. 4. PW 2, Prem Bahadur Sonar, said that he was on duty in the WT Station from 8 PM of 1.1.93 till 7 AM of 2.1.93. That at about 8 PM on 1.1.93, he went to the WT Station and relieved HC Duyu Sambio, Operator (PW 9). At about 8.30 PM, PW 1 (Noroh) knocked on the door of the WT Room and told the witness that he had to telephone the CI as a quarrel was going on inside the Guard Room. Before the CI could come, PW 9 with one Battalion personnel came to the WT Station. Constable Noroh and Nabam Tajang were also there. After some time, the witness heard sound of firing. That he never tried to know as to how and by whom the shot was fired. This witness was also declared hostile. 5. PW 3, Nabam Tajang, the complainant, deposed that on 1.1.93, he was posted at the SP's office on Sentry duty from 6 PM to 8 PM. The accused, Tania Dabu, came to relieve him at 8.45 PM instead of at 8 PM. The accused asked or the Guard Commander and the witness replied that he had gone to have his dinner. The accused asked the witness as to who were the persons that told that the accused remained absent from Guard duty. Then the witness told the accused that if he had any difficulty in performing his duty, the witness would do the duty for him. The accused asked the witness as to who were the persons that told that the accused remained absent from Guard duty. Then the witness told the accused that if he had any difficulty in performing his duty, the witness would do the duty for him. Then the accused picked up a quarrel with the witness and asked him as to who he was to tell that the accused was absent from duty. During the course of such activity, the accused fell down twice trying to give Karate strikes on the witness when the witness held the accused and told him not to behave that way. That Constable, Noroh, and the witness tried to pacify the accused, but, he did not listen to them and took away the Duty Rifle, charged it, cocked it and as the witness ran for cover, simultaneously, fired the Rifle, but he was not hit. The witness then ran to the WT Operator's room out of fear and concealed himself. Thereafter the witness asked the WT Operator (HC Sambio) to inform the CI soon. The CI and the OC of the Police Station came to the spot as the accused entered into the WT Operator's room and was Asking for the witness, Then the OC and the CI took both the accused and the witness to the hospital. The witness got injured by the butt of the gun while the accused got minor self-inflicted injury. Both of them were given medical aid. The witness stated that he lodged the FIR on 2.1.93. On cross-examination, the complaint witness stated that the complaint was written by him by hand and typed by HC. That he read the typed letter before signing it. That the .witness destroyed the: handwritten draft of the complaint. To a suggestion made, the witness stated that it was not a fact that he himself did not write out the complaint and only signed it without reading after the complaint was typed out. The witness in his cross-examination further submitted that he was continuing in his duty even after 8 PM as he was not relieved by the accused. That he did not hand over the Rifle to the accused, but the accused snatched it away. That as the accused was under the influence of liquor, the witness did not hand over the rifle to him. That he did not hand over the Rifle to the accused, but the accused snatched it away. That as the accused was under the influence of liquor, the witness did not hand over the rifle to him. The witness stated that he verbally reported to the Guard Commander that the accused was absent in his duty on 30.12.92 and was also late in duty on 31.12.92. He further stated that it was not a fact that after taking the gun, the accused went to the room to change his dress and the witness chased him and had a quarrel. That the rifle was fired in the room where the accused had gone to change his dress. Constable Noroh, was also present in the room in addition to the complainant and the accused. At the time of firing of the rifle, Ananda Noroh was hot present as he had sent Noroh to telephone the OC about the quarrel and that only the accused and the complainant were present. That the witness never drinks liquor. That at the time of performing duty at the Guard Room, they do not load the gun. That at the time of firing, the distance between the accused and himself was ten feet. That he did not try to snatch back the rifle from the accused. It was not a fact that on the date of occurrence, the complainant himself charged and loaded the rifle and fired and thereafter implicated the accused. It was also not a fact that the complainant assaulted the accused, rather the accused himself fell down and was hurt on the head. When the CI came, the witness was hiding behind an almirah and the h accused was caught in the Guard Room. The rifle was recovered from the possession of the accused by the OC and CI. 6. PWs 4 and 5 are only seizure witnesses. PW 6, a Constable, is the witness in whose presence the 303 rifle, was recovered and seized vide exhibit Paper Ext 3. PW 7, Dr. T. Taki, is the Medical Officer, who examined the complainant as well as the accused. He found lacerated wound on right little toe of about 1/2" x l/4” approx in size on Nabam Tajang. According to the Medical Officer, the injury was caused by blunt Weapon and was simple in nature. PW 7, Dr. T. Taki, is the Medical Officer, who examined the complainant as well as the accused. He found lacerated wound on right little toe of about 1/2" x l/4” approx in size on Nabam Tajang. According to the Medical Officer, the injury was caused by blunt Weapon and was simple in nature. Nabam Tajang was found to have taken alcohol but was under control. The Doctor found multiple abrasions on both the fire arms of accused, Tania Dabu, which, according to the Doctor, was caused by blunt weapon and was simple in nature. Tania Dabu was also found to have consumed alcohol, but was under control. In his cross examination, the Medical Officer stated that the persons were escorted to the hospital by one Sub Inspector and two Constables. That the police did not mention any case number in the Forwarding Memo. That the injuries on the bodies of both the persons occurred within six hours from the time of examination by him. That the intoxication in both the cases, was mild. Further the injuries sustained by the accused and complainant could be self inflicted. 7. PW 8, Tapi Kaka, and PW 9, Duyu Sambio, Constable and WT Operator, respectively, since did not speak anything about the occurrence, both of them were not cross-examined. 8. PW 10, B. Chetri, Sub Inspector of Police, is the Investigating Officer of the case. He stated about the steps taken in the investigation. He stated that he received the injury reports of both the accused and the complainant. That when he reached the place of occurrence, only the accused person was there and accordingly, he seized the rifle, one empty shell of 303 ammunition and one fired pellet in presence of witnesses. That he sent the accused and the complainant to the hospital for treatment. That the incident took place on 1.1.93 whereas he seized the lead pellet of bullet from the floor of the Guard Room on 2.1.93. He in his cross-examination, the IO stated that he did not find any eye witness who actually saw the accused firing the rifle. According to the witness, it was the accused who could have fired the gun and not the complainant even though both were inside the Guard Room. He denied the suggestion that the accused was assaulted by the complainant who also had consumed alcohol. According to the witness, it was the accused who could have fired the gun and not the complainant even though both were inside the Guard Room. He denied the suggestion that the accused was assaulted by the complainant who also had consumed alcohol. He further denied that the accused did not fire the rifle but it was the complainant who fired the rifle. He admitted that he sent the complainant for medical examination on 1.1.93. The witness denied the suggestion that the complainant who was on duty on the date of occurrence got annoyed at the, late arrival of the accused who was his reliever and fired the Rifle only with a view to implicate the accused in the case. 9. The learned trial Court after assessing the evidence on record, found that there was no conclusive proof that the accused committed the offence under section 307 IPC and that under section 27 of the Arms Act and accordingly, acquitted the accused of the charges. The learned Court, however, reached the following conclusions: “Then there is the seizure of the rifle from the accused with 19 (nineteen) 303 rifle ammunitions and also the recovery of the empty shell of the fired ammunition from him by the IO. The accused in his examination, has stated that the involved ifle and the cartridges were seized in his duty hour. In normal course if the firing was not done by the accused he should have brought the fact to the notice of his Guard Commander or Supdt of Police or Officer In-charge immediately. But the defence has not produced any evidence of this. Therefore though there is no eye witness of the incident other than the complainant, I hold that the circumstantial evidence cited above is strong enough to support a finding that the firing was done by the accused (Tania Dabu), and none else... .... The evidence brought forth before the Court by the prosecution does not establish presence of any deep rooted feeling of enmity between the accused and the complainant to warrant a conclusion that the accused wanted to murder the complainant. It has also not been conclusively established that the firing was aimed at the complainant and that it was not done just to scare him. I therefore hold that the offence fall short of the offence of attempt to murder. It has also not been conclusively established that the firing was aimed at the complainant and that it was not done just to scare him. I therefore hold that the offence fall short of the offence of attempt to murder. At the same time, circumstantial evidence has proved beyond reasonable doubt that the accused had fired from his rifle on 1.1.93 at about 8.45 PM which is a gross act of negligent conduct without regard to security and safety of life of other individuals. I therefore, hold that the accused is guilty of the offence of endangering life and personal safety of others, punishable under section 336 IPC ....” 10. The learned trial Court accordingly convicted the accused, Tania Dabu, under section 336 IPC and sentenced him to a fine of Rs.250/-, in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for one month. Hence this application/appeal.” 11. From the evidence on record as well as the findings arrived at by the learned trial Court, there is not an iota of evidence against the accused person under section 307 IPC or under section 27 of the Arms Act. The learned trial Court, however, held the accused/petitioner guilty under section 336 IPC. Whether the conviction and the sentence of the accused under section 336 IPC are e sustainable is the core issue/question before this Court. 12. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the trial Court ought not to have convicted and sentenced! the accused person under section 336 IPC, more so when no charge was framed against the accused. The learned counsel for the petitioner (appellant) further referring to the examination of the accused under section 313 CrPC, submitted that none of the circumstances sought / to be relied upon by the trial Court for convicting the accused/petitioner under section 336 IPC were put before the accused and, therefore, the accused was seriously prejudiced in the case. 13. The learned PP, Mr. U. Bhuyan, on the other hand, submitted that the Code of Criminal Procedure is not applicable in the area; however, the spirit of the Code is to be applied and in any case, the accused is to get a fair trial. Section 313 CrPC empowers the Courts to examine the accused after recording of evidence of the prosecution side. U. Bhuyan, on the other hand, submitted that the Code of Criminal Procedure is not applicable in the area; however, the spirit of the Code is to be applied and in any case, the accused is to get a fair trial. Section 313 CrPC empowers the Courts to examine the accused after recording of evidence of the prosecution side. The object of empowering the Courts to examine the accused is to provide him an opportunity of explaining any circumstance which may tend to incriminate him so as to enable him to place his defence and show his innocence. Section 313 CrPC mandates that the accused should be duly examined under the section and if any aspect of the evidence of considered important against the accused person(s) and conviction is intended to be based upon it/those, for fitness of things, the accused is to questioned on that/those aspects/matter and given an opportunity to explain the circumstances. Section 313 CrPC cast an obligation on the Courts to question the accused on the proper important points/aspects so as to enable the accused to meet the case fairly and to provide opportunity to the accused to explain his/their stand. It is to be pointed that in the case in hand, the learned Deputy Commissioner framed charges under section 307 IPC and section 27 of the Arms Act, but no charge under section 336 IPC was framed. Framing of charge is an essential part of fair trial which is one of the basic tenets of the rule of law an article of faith embodied in our Constitutional scheme. Charges are intended to give full notice of the offence charged against the accused. The object of framing charge is to inform the accused as accurately and succinctly as possible disclosing to the accused in no uncertain term what the prosecution intends to prove against him. So is the need of examina­tion of the accused under the provisions of section 313 CrPC. The object of enabling the Court to examine the accused under the said provision is to provide an opportunity to the accused in explaining any circumstances which may tend to incriminate him. So is the need of examina­tion of the accused under the provisions of section 313 CrPC. The object of enabling the Court to examine the accused under the said provision is to provide an opportunity to the accused in explaining any circumstances which may tend to incriminate him. To meet the test of fair trial and to conform to the norms of Article 21 of the Constitution, the Courts of law which are charged with the power to try an accused in a criminal offence is duty-bound to question the accused properly and fairly to enable the accused to meet the case of the prosecution in clear terms. These are the basic principles of justice and fair play which are to be adhered to by the Courts also in the area where the letters of the Criminal Procedure Code are not applicable. The rule of fair play in action shall not be rationed on the ground that the Criminal Procedure Code is not applicable to the tribal areas. The principle embedded in the Code as mentioned above, are part of principles of natural justice a principle of justice which is universally acknowledged. 14. Admittedly, in this case, no charge was framed against the accused under section 336 IPC, nor the accused was put any question on any of the circumstances those were relied upon by the learned trial Court in convicting and sentencing the accused/petitioner. In these circumstances, it cannot be said that the accused was not prejudiced in his trial. Evidence on record also do not disclose any rash or negligent act on the part of the accused. There was a scuffle between the parties and both, the complainant and the accused, were injured. The complainant did not receive any injury from any combustible and explosive material like fire arms. There is also no other evidence on record showing negligent conduct. The evidence on record do not show and establish any rash or negligent act on the part of the accused. The word 'rashly' obviously means something more than mere inadvertence or inattentiveness or want of ordinary care. The words 'rash and negligent' indicates something more to imply an indifferent attitude to obvious consequences and to the rights of others. On scanning through the evidence on record, I do not find sufficient evidence or rashness or negligence in support of the conviction under section 336 IPC. 15. The words 'rash and negligent' indicates something more to imply an indifferent attitude to obvious consequences and to the rights of others. On scanning through the evidence on record, I do not find sufficient evidence or rashness or negligence in support of the conviction under section 336 IPC. 15. For the foregoing reasons, the conviction and sentence of the accused petitioner under section 336 IPC are liable to be set aside and accordingly, the same is set aside. The accused/petitioner, Tania Dabu, is acquitted of the charge under section 336 IPC. 16. This revision petition is accordingly allowed. The fine, if realised, is to be refunded forthwith to the accused.