Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class (JMFC), Peren, which had on June 28, 2016 reserved its order on the “issue of limitation” pertaining to Nagaland chief minister, T.R. Zeliang’s educational issue, on Friday passed the judgement dismissing the complaint cases on the grounds that they were barred by time limitation.
According to Media Cell, CMO, the magistrate, while passing the judgement, remarked that the “instant case is in the shape of a political vendetta.”
Media cell said that the Supreme Court in an order dated June15, 2016, had directed the lower court (JMFC, Peren) to first determine the question of limitation on the two cases filed in November 2015 and this month.
Earlier, in November 2015, a complaint case was filed in the court of JMFC Kohima by one Maziezokho Nisa, and similar case was filed by KK. Kulimbe alias Kengim in the court of JMFC Peren in July 2016.
All the cases were against T.R. Zeliang for filing false information of his educational qualification in a sworn affidavit in his election nominations papers in 2013.
Since the facts and the question of law to be adjudicated were identical, both the cases were taken up together and disposed off by the common order issued today, media cell said.
According to the release, at the hearing the magistrate observed that “the punishment for infringement of the offence under Section 125-A of the Representation of People Act is punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to six months, or with fine, or with both. As such, by virtue of clause (b) of the sub section (2) of section 468 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the period of limitation for institution of the two instant complaint cases is one year.” The court observed that the complaints should have been filed by February, 2014.
Further, the magistrate court observed that to accept the contention of the learned counsel of the complainant that the period of limitation would commence from the date of knowledge in the surrounding facts and circumstances of the instant case would be like “arming the opponents of the respondents with a deadly weapon wherein the respondent would not have respite even after a lapse of 20-25 years”.
Therefore, the court ruled that both the complaint cases were time barred, and also found no satisfactory ground to condone the delay in filing the complaints and dismissed the cases, media cell said.