LALROPUIA Vs. STATE OF MIZORAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Mr. C. Lalramzauva, learned amicus curiae for the appellant as well as Mrs. Helen Dawngliani learned Asstt. P. P for the respondent.

(2.) IN challenge is the judgment and order of conviction dated 26-8-2008 passed by additional District Magistrate (J), Kolasib district, Kolasib in Criminal Trial No. 37 of 2008 whereby and whereunder the appellant was convicted and sentenced to undergo three years S. I and to pay fine of Rs. 5000/-in default S. I. for five months under Section 380 IPC.

(3.) KOLASIB P. S Case No. 19 of 2008 was returned in final form by laying a charge-sheet against the present appellant under section 454/380 IPC. The said case was taken over by the Additional District Magistrate (J) on 26-8-2008 on account of leave of the trial Magistrate. Before taking over the case on 29-7-2008 provision of Section 207 cr. P. C. was complied with and during that period the appellant was in judicial custody. On 26-8-2008 When the accused appellant was produced before the Additional district Magistrate (J), Kolasib he was convicted under Section 380 IPC alone though initially he pleaded not guilty basing on his statement (oral) sentenced him to undergo three years S. I and to pay fine of Rs. 5000/-in default S. I for five months. A direction was given to return the seized articles to the rightful owner. The accused appellant in view of the judgment and order so passed, by this instant appeal has challenged the legality and correctness of the judgment. Mr. C. Lalramzauva, learned Amicus Curiae at the very outset of his argument submits that the Additional District magistrate (J) committed illegality by not following the provisions of Chapter-XIX of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 before awarding the punishment as stated hereinbefore. An accused, overriding provision as incorporated in Chapter-XIX in a warrant cannot be convicted in an offence that too under Section 380 IPC. Further it is argued by Mr. C. Lalramzauva that the learned Additional District Magistrate (J)ought to have proceeded the trial of the case against the accused appellant on his plea of not guilty under the charges levelled against him but conviction without recording statement of the witnesses on his such plea is illegal and erroneous. Further it is argued by him that Additional District Magistrate (J), Kolasib District, usurped his jurisdiction in entertaining the criminal trial and, therefore, the punishment so awarded is vitiated since on 26-8-2008 (date of judgment and order) no court of Additional District Magistrate (J) was in existence in view of the Notification No. A. 12011/32/06-LJE dated 2nd June, 2008. By this notification in Kolasib District, the Government of Mizoram in consultation with the Gauhati high Court established a Court of Chief judicial Magistrate and 3 (three) Courts of judicial Magistrate, 1st Class. Establishment of such courts in Kolasib District is shown in Schedule-I and Schedule-II of the notification dated 2nd June, 2008. Thus, this notification makes it abundantly clear that on 26-8-2008, the date on which the judgment and order was passed, the court of Additional District Magistrate (J) was not in existence. The learned Additional District magistrate according to Mr. C. Lalramzauva, learned amicus curiae usurped his jurisdiction in dealing with the Criminal Trial No. 37 of 2008.