Remanded

State of Mizoram r/b Secretary, Home Department, Gom v. John Lalthangfala

Gauhati HC1 Oct 2018I.A.(Crl.)/8/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This High Court held that an appellate order upholding an acquittal without reasons is a non-speaking order vitiated by violation of natural justice. The order against the District Judge was set aside, and the matter remanded for a decision on merits with cogent reasons, noting Section 401 Cr.P.C. does not authorize converting an acquittal into conviction.

What did the court decide?

Case remanded to District and Sessions Court for decision afresh by assigning cogent reasons for the decision.

State of Mizoram r/b Secretary, Home Department… — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Gauhati HC (2018)

¶1

Page No.# 1/7

¶2

GAHC030000842018

¶3

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

¶4

Case No. : Crl.Rev.P./3/2018

¶5

State of Mizoram r/b Home Department, GOM Aizawl, Mizoram

¶6

VERSUS

¶7

John Lalthangfala Maubawk, Aizawl

¶8

Advocate for the Petitioner : Ms Linda L Fambawl (PP/Addl.PP, Mizoram)

¶9

Advocate for the Respondent : Mr Aldrin Lallawmzuala (Amicus Curiae)

¶10

Linked Case : I.A.(Crl.)/8/2018

¶11

State of Mizoram r/b Secretary Home Department GOM Aizawl Mizoram

¶12

VERSUS

¶13

John Lalthangfala Maubawk Aizawl

¶14

Advocate for the Petitioner : Ms Linda L Fambawl

¶15

Page No.# 2/7

¶16

Advocate for the Respondent :

¶17

BEFORE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE MARLI VANKUNG

¶18

J U D G E M E N T

¶19

Date : 07-12-2021

¶20

Heard Mrs. Linda L. Fambawl, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor for the petitioner and Mr. Aldrin Lallawmzuala, learned Amicus Curiae for the

¶21

respondent.

¶22

2] The present petition has been filed under Section 482 r/w Section 397 and 401 Cr.P.C against the impugned order dated 15.12.2017 passed by the Learned District & Sessions Judge, Aizawl in Criminal Appeal No. 4/2015 arising out of the order of the Judicial Magistrate First Class dated 05.10.2015 in Aizawl P.S.

¶23

Case No. 348/2012 where the Learned District & Sessions Judge, Aizawl upheld the acquittal of the accused charged under sections 420/465/468 Indian Penal Code.

¶24

3] The learned Additional Public Prosecutor being aggrieved by the impugned order dated 15.12.2017 passed by the Ld. Sessions Court has submitted this Revision Petition for setting aside and quashing the impugned Judgment and Order for the following reasons.

¶25

Page No.# 3/7

¶26

4] That the respondent/accused had fabricated the said document ‘Inhmun Inleina’ and altered the contents so as to retain some portion of the land. The FSL Report confirms that the signatures of the Informant and the witness in the fake ‘Inhmun Inleina’ seized from the possession of the Respondent/ accused were not their genuine signature which proves the fact that their signatures were forged by someone else. The benefit of doubt should not have been given to the Respondent who was then acquitted of the charge under sections 420/465/468 Indian Penal Code. As such the impugned Judgment & Order dated 15.12.2017 is liable to be set aside and quashed.

¶27

5] The learned Counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the Ld. Sessions Court at paragraph No. 6 of the impugned Judgment dated 15.12.2017 had simply stated that “the court is more convinced by the submissions of the Respondent counsel” and upheld the Judgment and order of the JMFC dated 05.10.2015. That, in this regard the law is well settled that every order must be a speaking order which shall contain the points for determination, the decisions and the reasons for the decision. However, in the present case the Ld. Sessions court simply relying on the submissions made by the Respondents counsel has dismissed the appeal without giving any reasons for dismissing the same.

¶28

Page No.# 4/7

¶29

Hence, the impugned Judgment & Order dated 15.12.2017 is a non-speaking order and bad in law and is liable to be set aside and quashed.

¶30

6] Mr. Aldrin Lallawmzuala, learned Amicus Curiae has submitted that section 401(3) of the Criminal Procedure Code provides that” Nothing in this section shall be deemed to authorize a High Court to convert a finding of acquittal into one of conviction.” Thus since the respondent has been acquitted of the charge under section 420/465/468 IPC vide Judgment order dated 05.10.2015 passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class in Aizawl P.S. Case No. 348/2012 which was upheld by the Addl. District &Sessions Judge there are no grounds for the respondent accused to approach this court.

¶31

7] Heard both the parties and perused the LCR. The Learned Addl. Public Prosecutor has approached this Court under Section 482 r/w Section 397 and 401 Cr.P.C by invoking the power of revision against the impugned order dated 15.12.2017 passed by the Learned District and Sessions Judge.

¶32

8] Brief facts of the case is that the respondent/accused has been accused of preparing false document ‘INHMUN INLEINA’ and thereby forged the signature of the complainant. The forged document was seized from the possession of the

¶33

Page No.# 5/7

¶34

respondent/accused and the signatures sent to FSL where it was reported that the signatures were false. The respondent accused was charged under sections 420/465/468 IPC in Criminal trial no.1801/2012. During trial the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class found that the charge under section 420/465/468 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) was not found beyond reasonable doubt and acquitted the respondent/accused vide its Judgment & Order dated 05.10.2015. Being aggrieved the Petitioner had filed a Criminal Appeal no.4/2015 before the District and Sessions Court against the acquittal of the respondent/accused. The District Judge and Sessions Judge rejected the Appeal Petition by its order dated 15.12.2017 and hence this revision petition under section 482 r/w section 397 and 401 Cr.P.C.

¶35

9] This matter being a review petition against the order of the District & Sessions Judge dated 15.12.2017, this court, while exercising its revisional jurisdiction find it fit to only consider the impugned order dated 15.12.2017 passed by the Learned District and Sessions Judge, Aizawl in Criminal Appeal No. 4/2015 against which this revision petition has been filed .

¶36

10] On perusal of the case record of Criminal Appeal No. 4/2015, the Learned

¶37

Page No.# 6/7

¶38

District & Sessions Judge decided the matter in favour of the petitioner by passing the order-operative portion is in Para 6 of the Judgment & Order which is reproduced “After hearing both parties and on perusal of the materials available on record I am more convinced by the submissions of Ld. Counsel for the respondent and I find no point for interference and I uphold the judgment and order of the Ld. Lower Court dt. 5.10.2015.”

¶39

In Union Of India & Ors vs E.G. Nambudiri on 23 April, 1991 AIR 1216, 1991 SCR (2) 451 the Supreme Court has observed “that Ordinarily, Courts and Tribunals, adjudicating rights of parties, are required to act judicially and to record reasons though the principles of natural justice do not require reasons for decision, there is necessity for giving reasons in view of the expanding law of judicial review to enable the citizens to discover the reasoning behind the decision. Right to reasons is an indispensable part of a sound justice delivery system” . No reasons have be made out to elucidate why the learned District and Sessions Judge was “convinced by the submissions of Learned Counsel for the respondent.” This Court thus find it fit to hold that the order dated 15.12.2017 is a non speaking order

¶40

11] Also in view of the provision under section 401(3) of the Criminal

¶41

Page No.# 7/7

¶42

Procedure Code that” Nothing in this section shall be deemed to authorize a High Court to convert a finding of acquittal into one of conviction”, and in view of the fact that this is a revision petition against the order of the learned District & sessions Judge dated 15.12.2017 in Crl. Appeal No. 4/2015, this court will not revise or go into the merits of the order of the Judicial Magistrate First Class dated 05.10.2015 in Aizawl P.S. Case No. 348/2012.

¶43

12] In view of the above, the judgment dated 15.12.2017 passed by the Learned District & Sessions Judge, Aizawl in Criminal Appeal No. 4/2015 being a non speaking order is thus vitiated due to non-compliance with principles of natural justice, therefore, the case is remanded back to the Learned District and Sessions Court with the direction that it should decide the matter afresh by assigning cogent reasons for the decision it arrives at.

¶44

13] Accordingly, this Criminal appeal No. 03 of 2018 stands disposed.

¶45

14] In appreciation of the assistance provided by Mr. Aldrin Lalawmzuala, the learned Amicus Curiae his fee is fixed at Rs.9,000/- (Rupees nine thousand) only to be paid by the Mizoram State Legal Services Authority on production of the copy of this Order.

¶46

JUDGE

¶47

Comparing Assistant

State of Mizoram r/b Secretary, Home Department, Gom v. John Lalthangfala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State of Mizoram r/b Secretary, Home Department, Gom v. John Lalthangfala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mrs M Thangi Vs State of Mizoram and Anr.

Md. Matin Uddin Laskar Vs the State of Assam and 4 Ors.

Begum Afruja Ahmed Vs the State of Assam and 5 Ors.

Nagendra Deka Vs the State of Assam and 2 Ors.

Ashim Das Vs the State of Assam and 4 Ors.

Chabitra Kr. Brahma Vs the State of Assam and 7 Ors.