(1.) This Criminal Revision Case has been filed u/s 397 Cr. P.C read with Section 401 Cr. P.C. challenging the legality and propriety off the judgment and order dated 31.12.2004 passed in Criminal Appeal Case No. 2 off 2004 of the Court of Addl. Sessions Judge, Manipur West, Imphal. The learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Manipur West, vide the impugned judgment and order, Upheld the conviction of the present revisionist, namely Miss Kim Gangte who was the appellant in the said Criminal Appeal Case No. 2 of 2004 for the commission of the offence u/s 136 (2Xb) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951. The learned Addl. sessions Judge Manipur West, vide the impugned judgment and order, sentenced the present revisionist to simple imprisonment for one week with a fine of Rs. 5,000/- in default of which simple imprisonment for 20 days for the commission of the offence u/s 136 (2)(b) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951. Furthermore, as per the impugned judgment and order, though the present revisionist was sentenced tb another simple imprisonment for one week for commission of the offence u/s 186 of the Indian Penal Code, both the substantive imprisonments were to run concurrently.
(2.) I have heard Mr. Kh. Mani, learned counsel appearing on behatf of the appellant and Md. Jalalluddin, learned P.P. appearing on behalf of the State.
(3.) The present revisionist, namely Miss Kim Gangte, contested for the seat of the second Outer Manipur Parliamentary Constituency in the 13th Lok Sabha Election. 1999 as a candidate of JD (U). On 28.10.99 at about 11.35 A.M., Yumnam Brajabihari Singh, Sub Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Chandel, who was the Presiding Officer of Polling Station No. 41/26, Sugnu Tribal, lodged a written report to the O.C. Sugnu P.S. alleging that the said Miss Kim Gangte captured 210 ballot papers while polling was going on at about 11.30 A.M. on 28.10.99 and that she torn the ballot papers in violation of the rules of election. A Case being FIR No. 28( 10)99 Sugnu P.S. was registered and after investigation of the case, a charge sheet alleging finding of sufficient evidence showing the commission of offences u/s 136 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 and u/s 427IPC by the accused, Kim Gangte (the present revisionist) was sent up for trial. The learned C JM, Thoubal, after complying with the necessary formalities under the law, tried the said Kim Gangte for the commission of the offences u/ss 136(2)(b) of the Representation of the People Act and 427 of the IPC in respect of which formal charges were framed and she pleaded not guilty. 18 PWs were examined on the side of the prosecution. All the PWs were cross-examined by the defence counsel at length. After closure of the prosecution evidence, the accused Kim Gangte was examined about each material circumstances in the evidence u/s 313 of the Cr.PC No DW was produced from the side of the defence. After hearing arguments of both sides, on the basis of the materials before the Court, the learned CJM, Thoubal, vide the impugned judgment dated 25.2.04, apparently on being satisfied that the prosecution succeeded in proving the charge for the offence u/s 136(2)(b) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, convicted the accused, Kim Gangte, (the present revisionist) in respect of the said charge u/s 136(2Xb) of the Representation of the People Act, but on finding that the prosecution failed in proving the charge for the offence u/s 427IPC, in effect, acquitted her of the said second charge. After hearing the prosecution and the defence counsel on the question of sentence, the learned CJM, Thoubal held on 25.2.04 to the effect that since the accused Kim Gangte (the present revisionist), committed the offence knowingly and intentionally and that the offence was serious one affecting the social set up, she did not deserve the benefit of the provisions of the Probation of Offenders Act. Accordingly, the learned CJM, Thoubal sentenced the convict, Kim Gangte (the present revisionist) to simple imprisonment of six months.