EMN
Dimapur, December 7
Following a complaint filed by complainant Maziezokho Nisa, the magistrate’s court has summoned Chief Minister TR Zeliang to appear in person for hearing on his educational qualification issue before the court on January 7, 2016.
The court had examined the records produced by the acting Registrar of NEHU and the Head Assistant of Arts College and came to the conclusion that it was a fit case to proceed further.
The order issued by Judicial Magistrate First Class Tucuno Vamuzo said, the court issued summons to the Registrar of Kohima College and to the Registrar, North Eastern Hill University on November 9 to produce the available records pertaining to the educational qualification of the respondent namely, T.R. Zeliang, and accordingly on November 30, the said records were produced and the witnesses were examined.
The court said, in order to ascertain the truth whether there is any truth in the petition, the allegations have to be corroborated by the official records and as such the instant criminal complaint has been filed before the Court to arrive at a truth.
“Preliminary objection was raised by Learned Counsel Joshua Sheqi as to the maintainability of the case as it is barred by limitation period and the complaint petition should be dismissed, In defense, learned Senior Counsel K.N. Balgopal for the petitioner countered that this court is yet to ascertain the truth or falsehood of the complaint and participation by accused in such preliminary inquiry in not permissible in law, otherwise, the accused may appear in person or through a pleader.”
The court said, ”As to the question of limitation period as laid down in section 468 of the code of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, Mr. K.N. Gopal Senior Advocate submits that the limitation in respect of the alleged offence would commence from the date of knowledge as provided in section 469 of the Cr. Pc. Relying on the decision of the Honorable Supreme Court, reported in AIR 1963 SC.1430, the senior counsel argued that until such time cognizance is taken and process issued against the respondent, the respondent has no role to play at the pre cognizance stage, Nevertheless, there is no issue of limitation will start only on the date of knowledge of offence, which in the present case is filed within the limitation period.”
“The learned Senior Counsel further submits that the election to the State Assembly was held in the month of March 2013, whereof, the record shows that the respondent affidavit submitted along with the nomination papers on 5.2.13. Section 125 A of the Representation of Peoples Act, 1951 prescribes punishment with imprisonment for term which may extend to 6 months or with fine or with both, and therefore, in terms of Section 468 Crpr. The limitation prescribed is a period of 1(one) year, and that the main consideration is that the Respondent has filed a false declaration in his affidavit while submitting his nomination form to the Returning Officer during 2013 Assembly Elections. The Respondent claimed to have passed the BA exams from Kohima College which shows that, he has failed the 1979 exams and did not appear I 1980.”
“While being a non-cognizable offence, issuing process is not nor conviction but to show cause to the accused and therefore, prayed before this Court that summon be issued U/S 204 f Crpc as per due process of law. Heard the learned senior Counsel for the complainant and the learned Counsel for the Respondent.
Perused the records produced by the acting Registrar of North Eastern Hill University, and the Principal Kohima College, who through his Head Assistant produced the available records pertaining to the educational qualification fo the respondent Shri. T.R. Zeliang. The records showed that Tadotui Zeliang appeared in BA exam in 1979, bearing Roll No. 598, but failed in all subjects. In 180, there is no record showing Shri. T.R. Zeliang having appeared BA exam under NEGU. Further, the records showed that Taditui Zeliang has been enrolled as student of NEHU in the year 1975-76, bearing registration No. A0004 and signed by him on the record register on 4.9.1975.”
“On the issue of the maintainability of the complaint petition having been barred by the limitation period which was raised by the Respondent, Sec. 469 and Sec. 473 of Cr.Pc provides as follows.
“469 Commencement of the period of limitation, - (1) The period of limitation, in relation to an offender, shall commence;
a) On the date of an offence; or
b) Where the commission of the office was not known to the person aggrieved by the offence or to any police office, the first day on which such offence comes to the knowledge of such person or to any police officer, whichever is earlier; or
c) Where it is not known by whom the offence was committed, the first day on which the identity of the offender is known to the person aggrieved by the offence or to any police officer, making investigation into the offence, whichever is earlier.
2) In computing the said period, the day from which such period is to be computed shall be excluded.
473. Extension of period of limitation in certain cases.- Notwithstanding anything contained in the foregoing of this Chapter, any Court may make cognizance of an offence after the expiry of the period of limitations, if it is satisfied on the facts and in the circumstances of the case that the delay has been properly explained or that it is necessary so too do I the interest of justice.
In the light of what has been discussed above, in my considered opinion summoning the records from the Registrar of NEHU and Kohima College is for the purpose of ascertaining whether there is truth or evidence in support of the complaint lodged so as to justify the issue of process against the alleged accused. As such, I am satisfied that as per the provisions of Sec. 469 (b) (2) and Sec. 473 of Cr.PC, this Court s inclined to take cognizance of the alleged offence and in the interest of justice, the question of limitation period does not arise.
Therefore, summon is hereby issued to the accused person to appear in person before this Court on 7th January 2016.”
