Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 698 (GAU)

Kim Gangte v. State of Manipur

2006-08-01

MAIBAM B.K.SINGH

body2006
JUDGMENT M.B.K. Singh, J. 1. This Criminal Revision Case has been filed Under Section 397 Code of Criminal Procedure read with Section 401 Code of Criminal Procedure challenging the legality and propriety of the judgment and order dated 31.12.2004 passed in Criminal Appeal Case No. 2 of 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 Under Section 136(2)(b) 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 Under Section 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 to another simple imprisonment for one week for commission of the offence Under Section 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 behalf 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 o 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 Under Section 136 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 and Under Section 427 IPC by the accused, Kim Gangte (the present revisionist) was sent up for trial. 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 Under Section 136 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 and Under Section 427 IPC by the accused, Kim Gangte (the present revisionist) was sent up for trial. The learned CJM, Thoubal, after complying with the necessary formalities under the law, tried the said Kim Gangte for the commission of the offences Under Sections 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 Under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 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 Under Section 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 Under Section 136(2)(b) of the Representation of the People Act, but on finding that the prosecution failed in proving the charge for the offence Under Section 427 IPC, 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. 4. Being aggrieved by the said judgment and order dated 25.2.04 of the learned CJM, the present revisionist Kim Gangte filed an appeal being Criminal Appeal No. 2 of 2004 in the Court of the Sessions Judge, Manipur West, Imphal. Accordingly, the learned CJM, Thoubal sentenced the convict, Kim Gangte (the present revisionist) to simple imprisonment of six months. 4. Being aggrieved by the said judgment and order dated 25.2.04 of the learned CJM, the present revisionist Kim Gangte filed an appeal being Criminal Appeal No. 2 of 2004 in the Court of the Sessions Judge, Manipur West, Imphal. The criminal appeal was transferred to the Court of the Addl. Sessions Judge, Manipur West, who disposed of the same vide the impugned judgment and order dated 31.12.04. The learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Manipur West, Imphal after due consideration of the materials before the Court, upheld the conviction of the Appellant (the present revisionist) for the commission of the offence Under Section 136(2)(b) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951. In the opinion of the learned Addl. sessions Judge, Manipur West, special reasons were given by the learned CJM, Thoubal for not extending the benefit of Section 316 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and for the same reason, the benefit of Section 3/4 of the Probation of Offenders Act was not to be given to the convict Appellant. The appellate court did not find any infirmity in the impugned judgment and order of the learned CJM, Thoubal dated 25.2.04 and as such the appeal was dismissed. However, the appellate Court, after taking into consideration of the facts of convict Appellant (the present revisionist) being a woman, a Member of Parliament in the 12th Lok Sabha and a person having status in the society and having regards to the factual position, reduced the sentence of imprisonment to one week and imposed a fine of Rs. 5,000/- with a direction to undergo simple imprisonment for 20 days in default of payment of fine for the commission of the offence Under Section 136(2)(b) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951. At the same time, in the opinion of the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Manipur West, there were materials in the record to show that the convict Appellant had obstructed the Presiding Officer of the said Polling Station in discharging his public functions and as such for the commission of the offence punishable Under Section 186 of the IPC. At the same time, in the opinion of the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Manipur West, there were materials in the record to show that the convict Appellant had obstructed the Presiding Officer of the said Polling Station in discharging his public functions and as such for the commission of the offence punishable Under Section 186 of the IPC. according to the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Manipur West, despite the fact of the offence Under Section 186 IPC being a non cognizable one, by referring to Section 155(4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure and decision of the Supreme Court in State of Orissa v. Sarat Chandra Sahu and Anr. 1996 (8) SC 806 cognizance of the said offence Under Section 186 of the IPC could be taken. Thereafter, the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Manipur West sentenced the said convict-Appellant to simple imprisonment for a period of one week in respect of the offence Under Section 186 of the IPC. 5. Challenging the legality and propriety of the impugned judgment and order dated 31.12.04, Mr. Mani, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the revisionist submits the following grounds; firstly that there is no sufficient evidence in the record for passing the impugned judgment and order convicting the accused-Appellant for the commission of the offence Under Section 136(2)(b) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, secondly that the learned Addl. Sessions Judge was not having jurisdiction to convict and sentence the Appellant (the present revisionist) for the commission of the offence Under Section 186 of the IPC in respect of which no charge was framed and no trial was proceeded; thirdly that even assuming that convictions of the accused-Appellant for the commission of the offences Under Section 136(2)(b) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 and Section 186 of the IPC were valid and proper, the punishments given in that connection were unreasonably severe and that in the absence of special reason for not extending the benefit of Section 360 Code of Criminal Procedure, the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, ought to have passed an order for providing the benefits of Section 360 Code of Criminal Procedure or the provision of Probation of Offenders Act. 6. In respect of the first ground submitted by the learned Counsel of the Appellant, I have perused the relevant records before the Court. 18 PWs were examined. Sessions Judge, ought to have passed an order for providing the benefits of Section 360 Code of Criminal Procedure or the provision of Probation of Offenders Act. 6. In respect of the first ground submitted by the learned Counsel of the Appellant, I have perused the relevant records before the Court. 18 PWs were examined. All the PWs were cross-examined by the defence counsel at length. The trial court duly considered the materials before it and passed the order convicting the present revisionist for the commission of the offence Under Section 136(2)(b)of the for the commission of the offence Under Section 136(2)(b) of the Representation of the People Act. The learned Addl. Session range, also duly considers, are materials and upheld the order of the trial court convicting the present revisionist for the commission of the offence Under Section 136(2)(b) of the Representation of the People Act by giving cogent reasons, i do not find any perversity or illegality in the impugned conviction for the commissioned the offence Under Section136(2)(b) of the Representation of the People Act. Concurrent findings arrived by two courts as regards the guilt of the revisionist in respect of the charge for the commission of the offence Under Section 136(2)(b) of the Representation of the People Act is not to be interfered with by this Court in exercise by its reversional jurisdiction in the absence of any illegality or irregularity in the proceedings before the said Courts. The first ground submitted by the learned Counsel for the revisionist is not acceptable. With reference to the second ground submitted by the learned Counsel of the revisionist, I have perused the material before the court. No. doubt, no charge was framed in respect of the said offence Under Section 186 IPC and as such no trial was also proceeded in respect of the said offence. However, in view of the Section 464 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, it is possible for the appellate or revisional court to convict the accused for an offence for which no charge was framed unless the Court is of the opinion that a failure of justice would, in fact, occasion. However, in view of the Section 464 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, it is possible for the appellate or revisional court to convict the accused for an offence for which no charge was framed unless the Court is of the opinion that a failure of justice would, in fact, occasion. In Dalbir Singh v. State 2004(5) SCC 334 at Para 17 the Apex Court held, "in order to judge whether a failure of justice has been occasioned, it will be relevant to examine whether the accused was aware of the basic ingredients of the offence for which he is being convicted and whether the main facts sought to be established against him were explained to him clearly and whether he got a fair chance to defend himself." 7. In the present case, the case was registered on the basis of the report filed by the Presiding Officer of 41/26 Sugnu Tribal Polling Station on 28.10.99. The allegations were to the effect that on 28.10.98 at 11.10 A.M., while polling was going on, Miss Kim Gangte, a candidate of JD(U) of the Outer Manipur Parliamentary Constituency, captured 210 ballot papers and that she torn the said ballot papers. The basic ingredients of the offence Under Section 186 IPC were present in the report because by alleging that the said Miss Gangte captured the ballot papers while polling was going on at the polling station, the said report from the Presiding Officer of the Polling Station, who was a public servant, was having the effect of allegation that the said Miss Gangte obstructed the public servant in discharge of his public function. Thus, though the commission of the offence us 186 IPC was not alleged in specific terms, basic ingredients of the office Under Section 186 IPC were present in the said report alleged by the Presiding Officer of the Polling Station. Further, though no formal charge for the offence Under Section 186 IPC was framed all the ingredients of the offence Under Section 186IPC were established by 18 PWs produced by the prosecution during the trial. It is already ascertained that the accused-revisionist had been given due opportunity in the trial. Further, though no formal charge for the offence Under Section 186 IPC was framed all the ingredients of the offence Under Section 186IPC were established by 18 PWs produced by the prosecution during the trial. It is already ascertained that the accused-revisionist had been given due opportunity in the trial. As per examination of the accused (present revisionist) Under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, she was specifically asked to the effect that as per evidence, on the day of polling, she entered into the said polling station No. 41/26 and that she snatched 210 ballot papers from the custody of the Presiding Officer of the Polling Station and that she destroyed these ballot papers by tearing them. The accused-revisionist simply replied, "No" to those questions. There is no aspects of the prosecution which was not put to her with reference to the commission of the offence Under Section 186 IPC. 8. In my considered opinion, the accused-revisionist was aware of the basic ingredients of the offence Under Section 186 IPC during the trial in respect of the offence Under Section 136(2)(b) of the Representation of the People Act, 1958 and as such no failure of justice was occasioned when she was in fact convicted for the commission of the offence Under Section 186 IPC at the appellate stage. 9. The learned Counsel of the revisionist submits that the said conviction of the accused for the commission of the offence Under Section 186 IPC was barred by Section 195 and Section 468 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. No doubt, the offence punishable Under Section 186 IPC is one of the offences specified in Section 195(1)(a)(i) of the Code of Criminal Procedure in respect of which no Court is to take cognizance except on the complaint in writing of the public servant concerned or of some other public servant to whom he is administratively subordinate. No doubt, the offence punishable Under Section 186 IPC is one of the offences specified in Section 195(1)(a)(i) of the Code of Criminal Procedure in respect of which no Court is to take cognizance except on the complaint in writing of the public servant concerned or of some other public servant to whom he is administratively subordinate. In the present case, it has already seen that the report containing the basic ingredients of the said report containing the basic ingredients of the said offence Under Section 186 IPC was submitted by the Presiding Officer of the Polling Station and as such the learned CJM, Thoubal could have, in fact, taken cognizance of the offence Under Section 186 IPC when the police submitted charge sheet along with the said report of the Presiding Officer of the Polling Station, i.e., the public servant concerned. Apart from the said consideration, as per provisions of Section 155(4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, where a case relates to two or more offences of which at least one is cognizable, the case shall be deemed to be a cognizable case, notwithstanding that the other offences are non cognizable. Accordingly, even though there was no formal complaint directly to the said CJM, Thoubal in respect of the offence Under Section 186 IPC, the learned CJM could have taken a cognizance of the said offence Under Section 186 IPC on receiving the charge sheet in respect of the offence Under Section 136(2)(b) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, which is a cognizable offence, and in view of Section155(4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, Section 195 Code of Criminal Procedure would not have stood on the way of the said taking cognizance of the offence Under Section 186 IPC. Further, even though no formal order was passed by the learned CJM, Thoubal about taking cognizance of the offence Under Section 186 IPC, when the learned CJM took cognizance of the offence Under Section136(2)(b) on the basis of the charge sheet wherein all the basic ingredients of the offence Under Section 186 IPC were also present, one may reasonably conclude that the learned CJM, Thoubal failed to take cognizance specifically which he ought to have done. 10. In the facts and circumstances, I do not think that there was anything wrong on the part of the Addl. 10. In the facts and circumstances, I do not think that there was anything wrong on the part of the Addl. Sessions Judge, Manipur West in taking cognizance of the offence Under Section 186 IPC by applying his mind for the purpose of convicting the accused-Appellant on the basis of evidence already established and in respect of which no prejudice is found to have caused to the said accused-Appellant (the present revisionist). By proceeding in the manner done by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Manipur West, Section 468 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was not violated. It is well settled that limitation prescribed under Chapter XXXVI (Section 467 to 473) of the Code of Criminal Procedure Code is only for filing of the complaint or initiation of the prosecution and not for taking cognizance. 11. In Bharat Damodar Kale v. State of A.P. (2003) 8 SCC 559 , the Apex Court held at Para 10: 10. On facts of this case and based on the arguments advanced before us, we consider it appropriate to decide the question whether the provisions of Chapter XXXVI of the Code apply to the delay in instituting the prosecution or to the delay in taking cognizance. As noted above, according to the learned Counsel for the Appellants, the limitation prescribed under the Chapter applies to taking of cognizance is not taken within the period of limitation the same gets barred by limitation. This argument seems to be inspired by the chapter heading of Chapter XXXVI of the Code which reads thus : "Limitation for taking cognizance of certain offences". It is primarily based on the above language of the heading of the Chapter the argument is addressed on behalf of the Appellants that the limitation prescribed by the said Chapter applies to taking of cognizance and not filing of complaint or initiation of the prosecution. We cannot accept such argument because a cumulative reading of various provisions of the said Chapter clearly indicates that the limitation prescribed therein is only for the filing of the complaint or initiation of the prosecution and not for taking cognizance. It of course prohibits the court from taking cognizance of an offence where the complaint is filed before the Court after the expiry of the period mentioned in the said Chapter. It of course prohibits the court from taking cognizance of an offence where the complaint is filed before the Court after the expiry of the period mentioned in the said Chapter. This is clear from Section 469 of the Code found in the said Chapter which specifically says that the period of limitation in relation to an offence shall commence either from the date of the offence or from the date when the offence is detected. Section470 indicates that while computing the period of limitation, time taken during which the case was being diligently prosecuted in another court or in appeal or in revision against the offender should be excluded. The said section also provides in the Explanation that in computing the time required for obtaining the consent or sanction of the Govt. or any authority should be excluded. Similarly, the period during which the court was closed will have to be excluded. All these provisions indicate that the court taking cognizance can take cognizance of an offence the complaint of which is filed before it within the period of limitation prescribed and if need be after excluding such time which is legally excludable. This in our opinion clearly indicates that the limitation prescribed is not for taking cognizance within the period of limitation, but for taking cognizance of an offence in regard to which a complaint is filed or prosecution is initiated beyond the period of limitation prescribed under the Code. Apart from the statutory indication of this view of ours, we find support for this view from the fact that taking of cognizance is an act of the court over which prosecuting agency of the complainant has no control. Therefore, a complaint filed within the period of limitation under the Code cannot be made infructuous by an act of Court. The legal phrase, "actus curiae neminem gravabit" which means an act of the court shall prejudice no man, or by a delay on the part of the court neither party should suffer, also supports the view that the legislature could not have intended to put a period of limitation on the act of the court of taking cognizance of an offence so as to defeat the case of the complainant. This view of ours is also in conformity with the earlier decision of this Court in the case of Rashmi Kumar. This view of ours is also in conformity with the earlier decision of this Court in the case of Rashmi Kumar. In the present case, as per records, the concerned public servant reported about the occurrence on the very day of the occurrence, i.e. on 28.10.99 within some minutes of the occurrence and the charge sheet containing allegations of the basic ingredients of the offence Under Section 186 IPC was put up before the Court of the CJM, Thoubal on 4.2.2000, i.e. within a period of less than 4 months of the occurrence. In these circumstances, having regards to the principles of law laid down in the case of Bharat Damodar Kale (supra), the submission of the learned Counsel of the revisionist about violation of Section 468 Code of Criminal Procedure is not acceptable and it is, therefore, rejected. 12. In respect of the third ground submitted by the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the revisionist, I have considered the question, in the facts and circumstances of the case, if it was legal and proper on the part of the learned Addl. Sessions Judge to sentence the accused-Appellant (the present revisionist) to imprisonment and fine for commission of the offences Under Section 136(2)(b) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 and Section 186 of the IPC. Instead of dealing her Under Section 360 Code of Criminal Procedure or under the provisions of Probation of Offenders Act, 1958. The punishment provided for the offence Under Section 136(2)(b) of the Representation of the People Act is imprisonment for a term which may extend to six months or fine or with both and the punishment provided for the offence Under Section 186 IPC is imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three months or fine which may extend to 500 rupees or with both. No previous conviction is found to have been proved as against the revisionist. There is nothing to show that the revisionist is one having previous conviction record. On the basis of the evidence recorded by the trial court, one can ascertain that the said offences were committed by her under great emotional stress. In that stressful situation, the failure on the part of the accused-Appellant (the present revisionist), who was a candidate in the said election to manage her stress is quite understandable. On the basis of the evidence recorded by the trial court, one can ascertain that the said offences were committed by her under great emotional stress. In that stressful situation, the failure on the part of the accused-Appellant (the present revisionist), who was a candidate in the said election to manage her stress is quite understandable. She (the present revisionist) asked the Presiding Officer of the Polling Station as to why she was being looked down on the ground of being a woman before snatching the ballot papers as evident from the testimony of PW5. One of the PWs, (PW 1) is found to have testified to the effect that the candidate Gangte appealed to all inside the Polling Station for conducting the election in a free and fair manner before the said tearing of ballot papers. Further, as per evidence before the Court, because of the said snatching and tearing of ballot papers, the polling was held up only for some time and it was continued on the same day by arranging the required number of ballot papers. At the same time, I have also taken into consideration of the number of years for which the accused-Appellant (the present revisionist) has been suffering mentally or otherwise due to Pendency of the investigation of the case, the trial, the appeal and this Revision. There is nothing substantial in the record to show that it is not expedient to deal with the present revisionist either under Section 360Code of Criminal Procedure or under the provisions of Probation of Offenders Act, 1951. 13. The opinion of the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Manipur West, is to the effect that the offences committed were serious in nature affecting the social set up and as such no leniency was called for. In the opinion of the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Manipur West, seriousness of the said offences affecting the social set up was the special reason for not giving benefit either under Section 360 Code of Criminal Procedure or under the provisions of Probation of Offenders Act, 1958. The learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Manipur West, did not disclose any basis for treating the said offence as serious offences affecting the social set up. Such a view of the learned Addl. Sessions Judge is not acceptable. The learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Manipur West, did not disclose any basis for treating the said offence as serious offences affecting the social set up. Such a view of the learned Addl. Sessions Judge is not acceptable. It is well settled that Section 361 of the Code of Criminal Procedure makes it mandatory for the Court to record, "special reasons" for not applying the provisions of Section 360 Code of Criminal Procedure. Section 361 Code of Criminal Procedure cast a duty upon the Court to apply the provision of Section 360 wherever it is possible to do so and to state, "special reasons" if it does not do so. In Sushil Murmu v. State of Jharkhand, (2004) 2 SCC 338 the Apex Court held that in the context of Section 360 Code of Criminal Procedure, "special reasons" contemplated by Section 361 Code of Criminal Procedure must be such as to compel the Court to hold that it was impossible to reform and rehabilitate the offender after examining the matter with due regard to the age, character and antecedent of the offender and the circumstances in which the offence had been committed. In the opinion of the Apex Court, there is some indication by the legislature that reformation and rehabilitation of offenders and not mere deterrence are now amongst the foremost objects of the administration of criminal justice in our country. 14. Keeping in view the above said position of law and having regards to all the relevant considerations already made including the fact of the convict (the present revisionist) being a scheduled tribe woman, in my opinion, she should not have been sentenced to any term of imprisonment for the commission of the said two offences. The reason given by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Manipur West for not dealing the convict (present revisionist) either under Section 360 Code of Criminal Procedure or under the provisions of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 is not acceptable as "special reasons" required to be given under Section 361 Code of Criminal Procedure and as such the sentences of imprisonments ordered by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Manipur West without due compliance of the provisions of Section 361 Code of Criminal Procedure are hereby set aside. 15. Sessions Judge, Manipur West without due compliance of the provisions of Section 361 Code of Criminal Procedure are hereby set aside. 15. Instead of remanding back the case for consideration of the matter again, having regards to all the relevant considerations, it will be proper and just to pass an appropriate order by this revisional Court itself. In the light of the above discussions, I am of the opinion that having regards to all the relevant considerations, the interest of justice will be served if the convict (the present revisionist) is dealt with under Section 3 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 instead of imposing any term of imprisonment or releasing her on probation of good conduct Under Section 4 of the Act and if she is made to pay a reasonable compensation in connection of the loss or injury caused to the State as a result of the commission of the said offences. 16. Accordingly, the convict (the present revisionist) is to be released after admonition for the commission of the two offences Under Section 136(2)(b) of Representation of the People Act, 1951 and Section 186 of the IPC. In that connection, the convict, Kim Gangte is to appear on 09.08.2006 before the learned CJM, Thoubal, who is to execute the order. Further, the convict is to pay Rs. 5000/- as compensation to the State for the loss of 210 ballot papers and holding up of the polling on that day for some time due to her acts. The convict revisionist is to pay the amount of compensation either wholly or in installment basis in accordance with order or direction to be made by the learned CJM, Thoubal. The period fixed for payment of compensation should not be extended beyond three months. In case, the convict revisionist fails to pay the said amount of compensation within three months, the learned CJM, Thoubal may take necessary steps for recovery of the amount of compensation as a fine in accordance with the provisions of Section 386 and 387 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. A copy of this order be sent to the learned CJM, Thoubal along with the trial court's records so as to reach them on or before 09.08.2006. A copy of this order be sent to the learned CJM, Thoubal along with the trial court's records so as to reach them on or before 09.08.2006. It is, further, clarified that the convict-revisionist shall not suffer disqualification, if any, attaching to a commission of an offence under any law in view of the provisions of Section 12 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958. 17. This revision is allowed to the extent mentioned above and this revision stands disposed of. Petition allowed