HORANGSE SANGTAM Vs. STATE OF NAGALAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This case is unique in the sense that the accused has challenged his conviction and sentence citing lack of inherent jurisdiction of the learned trial Court as the only ground for challenge without saying a word against the findings of the said court on merit. Horangse Sangtam, the petitioner in this case, was accused in Dimapur (West) P.S. Case No. 138/2000 corresponding to G.R. Case No. 606/2000(A) under section 467/468/471/34 IPC for fraudulent withdrawal of a sum of Rs. 1,65,472/- in connivance with other accused persons. The said case arose out of an FIR dated 17.12.2000 lodged by Shri. J. Singh SDPO, Nuiland as a member of the SIT constituted by Police HQ Nagaland. The crux of the allegation was that the petitioner gave a letter of authorization to one Mr. Revo Anar, shown to have been issued by one Thekrusielhou Angami, S.K., SOS, Kiphire, Nagaland claiming medical reimbursement for treatment of his son Master Sibu to be drawn from the Directorate of Food and Civil Supplies, Dimapur, Nagaland for an amount of Rs. 1,65,472/- and said Mr. Revo drew said amount vide Bill No. 249 dated 30.3.2000 from the treasury/Bank Dimapur on 31.3.2000. But on investigation it was established that said Mr. Thekrusielhou Angami had never such submitted such bill for medical reimbursement nor did he took his said son to any where for any medical treatment as stated in the bill. Investigation revealed that the whole episode of fraudulent withdrawal of the amount was done by the petitioner, one Mohan Das and aforesaid Mr. Revo and the petitioner in course of investigation himself made confession and corroborated the prosecution story. The petitioner faced trial and participated in trial in full earnest. According to the learned Trial Court, offence of the petitioner was established beyond reasonable doubt on the basis of evidence led by the prosecution which included opinion of Handwriting expert. Consequently, by the impugned judgment and order dated 18.8.2011 in G.R. Case No. 606/2000(A) the learned Court found him guilty under Section 467/468/471 IPC and accordingly convicted him. He was ordered to suffer sentence of simple imprisonment for one year on each of the aforesaid counts.

(2.) The aforesaid judgment and order of conviction is an appealable one under Section 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. But the petitioner did not prefer any appeal and has approached this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India read with Rule 32 of the Rules for Administration of Justice and Police in Nagaland and also under Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The grounds stated in this application do not include any challenge on merit at all. It is not the case of the petitioner that the prosecution case has not been proved beyond reasonable doubt or that the judgment and order of conviction is not based on materials on record but only on the ground that the impugned judgment has been passed by the Tribunal for Disciplinary Proceeding, Vigilance Commission which is not a Criminal Court as defined under the Cr.P.C. and as such this judgment and order dated 18.8.2011 is liable to be set aside.

(3.) This revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India appears to have been listed for admission on 10.6.2013 on which date this court was pleased to permit the learned Addl. Advocate General to file an affidavit with regard to delegation of powers by the State Government to the member of the Tribunal for Disciplinary Proceeding, Vigilance Commission with regard to jurisdiction of the said Tribunal to try criminal cases and to impose punishment by it. The State accordingly submitted an affidavit and annexed a notification dated 28.6.2011 issued by the Government whereby Smt. Khesheli Chisi, the incumbent in the office of the respondent No. 2 herein was appointed by the Governor, Nagaland as District and sessions Judge, Tribunal for Disciplinary proceeding, Vigilance Commission, Nagaland for administering Criminal and civil Justice with respect to cases transferred to the Court of Deputy Commissioner (J) in the Vigilance Commission. The same Officer was also conferred jurisdiction in respect of criminal cases already transferred and tried in the Court of her predecessor, the then Tribunal for Disciplinary Proceeding, Vigilance Commission vide notification dated 22.5.2006. The said notification dated 22.5.2006 has also been placed on record to show that the predecessors in office of the respondent No. 2 herein, namely, Tribunal for Disciplinary Proceeding Vigilance Commission was conferred jurisdiction under Section 15 of the Rules for Administration of Justice and Police in Nagaland 1937 thereby empowering exercise of jurisdiction in respect of criminal case already transferred to it. The notification dated 22.5.2006 is quoted below:-