JUDGMENT & ORDER : In both the Criminal Revision Petitions under Section 397 read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the challenge is with regard to the common order dated 29-07-2016 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class (JMFC), Peren in Complaint Case Nos. 04/2015 and 01/2016 dismissing those complaints being barred by limitation. 2. The petitioners of both the Criminal petitions are represented by Mr. K.N. Balgopal, learned Senior Counsel, assisted by Mr. Wabang and the sole respondent is represented by Mr. A. Zhimomi along with Mr. I. Longjem and Ms. Esther. 3. As the issues involved in the Criminal petitions in hand are same and as agreed by the counsels of both the parties, both the petitions are taken up together for its disposal at the admission stage itself. 4. The contention of the petitioners in both the complaint cases involved in the present petitions are that the sole accused/respondent Mr. T.R. Zelieng @ Mr. Taditui Zeliang, the present Chief Minister of Nagaland during the 2013 State Legislative Assembly General Elections, Nagaland at the time of filing his nomination papers from the 7-Peren (ST) Legislative Assembly Constituency in the district of Peren, Nagaland as a candidate being nominee of the Nagaland People Front (NPF), submitted a duly verified and sworn affidavit before the Notary Public, in accordance with law, before the concerned Returning Officer at Peren, wherein the said accused person stated that he passed High School Leaving Certificate Examination from the Don Bosco High School, Dibrugarh, Assam under the Assam Board of School Education in the year 1975 and Bachelor of Arts (B.A.) Examination from Kohima College, Kohima under the North Eastern Hill University (NEHU) and through RTI obtained from said Kohima College, it is found that the record of said college pertaining to the year 1979 reflects that the name of said accused person appeared at serial No. 78 and that though he appeared in his B.A. examination, but failed and further, from the records of the said college, pertaining to the list of B.A. Final Examination of the year 1980, it is revealed that the said accused/ respondent did not appear in B.A. Final Examination at all. According to the Complainants/ Petitioners, as the accused/respondent had given false information before the concerned Returning Officer at Peren by submitting a duly verified and sworn false affidavit, he is punishable under Section 125A of the Representation of People Act, 1951 and under Sections 181/193/199/200/417/468 of the Indian Penal Code IPC. 5. In Crl. Revn. Ptn. No. 6(K)/2016 the contention of the petitioner Mr. Maziezokho Nisa is that he was the Joint Secretary of Western Angami Students Union from 1997 to 2000, was the Executive Member of the Western Angami Sports Association from 2004 to 2008, Village Council Member and Vigilance Committee Member from 2010 to 2015 and presently serving as the Executive Member of Western Angami Public Organisation, 2014. He filed the Complaint Case No. 04/2015 before the JMFC, Kohima, against the sole accused/respondent Mr. Taditui Zelaing @ T.R. Zelaing, the present Chief Minister of Nagaland for filing such false affidavit before the Returning Officer Peren at the time of filing his nomination papers during February 2013 as a candidate of the 7-Peren (ST) Legislative Assembly Constituency. In the complaint it was stated by the said complainant, the present petitioner that from the reports in the Newspapers, namely, Nagaland Page and Nagaland Post, published on 25th and 27th of August 2015 respectively, he came to know that the accused failed in all the subjects of B.A. Examination in the year 1979 and further he did not appear for the B.A. examination in the following year i.e. 1980. On further enquiry he came to know from the website pertaining to the Chief Minister of the State, the accused has shown that he is a B.A. Graduate and further, in the Who’s Who book of the elected members of the 12th Nagaland Legislative Assembly the accused/ respondent has shown to have passed Graduation from Kohima College in 1979 and thereafter, the complainant on his personal enquiries through his friends in the NEHU, came to know that the accused never passed the B.A. Examination either in 1979 or 1980 as claimed by him. As the accused respondent committed offence of giving false information in his affidavit filed along with his nomination papers in the year 2013 State Assembly General Elections, knowing it only well that it is false and wrong information, the complainant petitioner therefore prayed before the Magistrate concerned to admit his said complaint and to process against the accused respondent for the offence punishable under Section 125A of the Representation of Peoples’ Act, 1951 (RP Act) and to punish him in accordance with law. 6. In Crl. Revn. Ptn. No. 7(K)/2016 the contention of the petitioner Mr. K.K. Kulimbe @ Kengim is that he is a social worker, Joint Secretary of Nagaland Tribes Council, was the President of NPF, Peren Division for two terms and a permanent resident of Jalukie Town, Peren, Nagaland and he filed the Complaint Case No. 01/2016 before the JMFC, Peren, against the said accused/respondent Mr. T.R. Zelaing, the present Chief Minister of Nagaland for the same offence as noted above as in the case of Complaint Case No. 04/2015, for submission of false information before the concerned Returning Officer at Peren, by way of a duly verified and sworn affidavit, at the time of filing his nomination papers as a candidate of the 7-Peren (ST) Legislative Assembly Constituency during the last State General Legislative Assembly Election held in February, 2013, stating that he passed the B.A. degree in the year 1980 from Kohima College, Kohima, affiliated to the NEHU. In his complaint petition, the complainant Mr. K.K. Kulimbe stated that he came to know few days before the election that the accused/respondent claimed to have passed his B.A. examination in the year 1980 and on 28-07-2015, through RTI from Kohima College, Kohima, he came to know that the accused/respondent failed in all the subjects in his B.A. examination in the year 1979 and did not appear for B.A. examination in the year 1980. 7. In Complaint Case No. 04/2015 (Mr. Maziezokho Nisa Vs. Mr. T.R. Zelaing) the learned JMFC, Kohima on 07-12-2015 took cognizance of the case and issued process directing the accused/respondent Mr. T.R. Zelaing to appear in person before him on 07-01-2016; against which, said accused respondent preferred Crl. Revn. Ptn No. 9(K) of 2016 (Mr. T.R. Zelaing -vs- Mr. Maziezokho Nisa). 8. In Complaint Case No. 01/2016 (Mr. K.K. Kulimbe -Vs- Mr. T.R. Zelaing to appear in person before him on 07-01-2016; against which, said accused respondent preferred Crl. Revn. Ptn No. 9(K) of 2016 (Mr. T.R. Zelaing -vs- Mr. Maziezokho Nisa). 8. In Complaint Case No. 01/2016 (Mr. K.K. Kulimbe -Vs- Mr. T.R. Zelaing) the learned JMFC, Peren on 18-01-2016 took cognizance of the case and issued process directing the accused/respondent Mr. T.R. Zelaing to appear before him on 23-02-2016; against which, said accused respondent preferred Crl. Revn. Ptn No. 1(K) of 2016 (Mr. T.R. Zelaing -Vs- Mr. K.K. Kulimbe). 9. In both the aforesaid Crl. Revn. Ptn. Nos. 1(K) & 9(K) of 2016, the contentions of the petitioner therein Mr. T.R. Zelaing was that learned Court below took cognizance of the case and issued process against him without considering the period of limitation as prescribed under Section 468 CrPC, so as to prosecute him under Section 125A of the RP Act and therefore, submitted for quashing of said proceedings against him. 10. The Court after hearing the parties came to the finding that the learned JMFC, Peren without considering the question of limitation issued process against the accused respondent hearing and accordingly, by Judgment and Order dated 25-04-2016 set aside and quashed the order dated 18-01-2016 passed in Complaint Case No. 01/2016, remanded the matter back to JMFC, Peren to take up the matter afresh by following the due process of law as laid down under the Code of Criminal Procedure, deciding and considering the issue of limitation, after giving an opportunity of hearing to the accused respondent and thereafter to pass appropriate orders and with said observation disposed of Crl. Revn. Ptn. No. 1(K) of 2016. 11. In the other Crl. Revn. Ptn. Revn. Ptn. No. 1(K) of 2016. 11. In the other Crl. Revn. Ptn. No. 9(K) of 2016, the Court after hearing the parties by an another Judgment and Order dated 25-04-2016 set aside and quashed the order dated 07-12-2015 passed by learned JMFC, Kohima in Complaint Case No. 04/2015, as the Magistrate did not consider the issue of limitation before issuing process against the accused/respondent and since, a similar matter being Complaint Case No. 01/2016 is pending before the JMFC, Peren; to avoid conflicting findings by two separate Courts, by the said Judgment and Order dated 25-04-2016 this Court transferred the said Complaint Case No. 04/2015 from the Court of JMFC, Kohima to JMFC, Peren; directing the JMFC, Peren to consider the said Complaint Case No. 04/2015 along with the Complaint Case No. 01/2016 and with said observation disposed of the said Criminal Revision Petition. 12. Being aggrieved with the said decision of the Court dated 25-04-2016 passed in Crl. Revn. Ptn No. 9(K) of 2016 the accused/respondent Mr. T.R. Zelaing preferred Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No. 4524/2016 (Mr. T.R. Zelaing -Vs- Mr. Maziezokho Nisa) with SLP (Crl) No. 4527/2016, the Hon’ble Supreme Court, after hearing the parties, by order dated 15-06-2016 disposed off the same as follows: ”Since by the impugned order, the matter has been left to be decided by the Trial Court, we do not consider it necessary to go into the merits and entertain this petition. However, we dispose of this petition with a direction that the Trial Court must, in the first instance, determine the question of limitation and for that purpose the petitioner need not appear in person and can appear through his counsel. It will be open to the petitioner to raise all contentions, as may be available in law. If the petitioner is aggrieved by the order which may be passed by the Trial Court, the petitioner is at liberty to take his remedies in accordance with law. The Special Leave Petitions are disposed of.” 13. After the aforesaid order of the Hon’ble Apex Court dated 15-06-2016, the accused/respondent filed his written objection in both the Complaint Case Nos. 04/2015 and 01/2016 before the JMFC, Peren raising his all contentions. 14. The Special Leave Petitions are disposed of.” 13. After the aforesaid order of the Hon’ble Apex Court dated 15-06-2016, the accused/respondent filed his written objection in both the Complaint Case Nos. 04/2015 and 01/2016 before the JMFC, Peren raising his all contentions. 14. Pursuant to the observation made by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in its said order dated 15-06-2016, the JMFC, Peren after hearing both the complainants and the sole accused/respondent first decided the issue of limitation in filing the aforementioned complaint petitions. The Trial Magistrate on scrutiny of the matter found that the Complaint Case No. 04/2015 was filed by the complainant on 09-11-2015 and the other complainant filed the Complaint Case No. 01/2016 on 18-01-2016, whereas the accused/respondent sworn the alleged false affidavit with regard to his educational qualification i.e. the ‘Form 26’ of the Conduct of Election Rules, 1961 under the R.P. Act, 1951, as required, on 05-02-2013 and submitted the same before the concerned Returning Officer along with his nomination papers at Peren on 07-02-2013, which was made public in February, 2013 itself, which were also uploaded in the website of Chief Election Officer, Nagaland. 15. Considering the provisions of Section 125A of the R.P. Act, 1951 that the period of limitation for institution of such complaint Case is one year and whereas both the Complaint Case Nos. 4/2015 and 1/2016 were filed on 09-11-2015 and 18-01-2016 respectively and further finding that the nomination papers of the sole accused respondent, were made public by the Returning Officer concerned on 07-02-2013, the Trial Magistrate, in the circumstances above, did not accept the contention of the complainants that the period of limitation would commence from the date of knowledge of the offence committed by the accused/respondent, i.e. July 2015 and August, 2015 and observed that if the said contentions of the complainants are accepted, than the very purpose of the provision of limitation would be defeated and in that case the provisions of limitation would become redundant which would give rise to multiplicity of cases at the whims of the litigant. The Trial Magistrate also observed that in the surrounding facts and circumstances of those two complaint cases, if the contention of the complainants that the period of limitation would commence from the date of knowledge, if accepted, it would be like arming the opponents of the accused/respondent with a deadly weapon, wherein the respondent would not have any respite even after a lapse of 20-25 years. 16. The Trial Magistrate came to the conclusion that if the alleged document of swearing false affidavit by the accused/respondent had not been made public, one may had find substance in the contention of the complainants that the period of limitation would commence from the date of knowledge, but as in the two complaint cases the documents were made public in February 2013 it would not be safe to accept the contention of the complainant, since those two complaint cases should have been filed by February, 2014 and accordingly, by the impugned order dated 29-07-2016 learned Trial Magistrate, i.e. learned JMFC, Peren, Nagaland came to the view that both the Complaint Case Nos. 4/2015 and 1/2016 that were filed by the complainants are barred by limitation. 17. Moreover, with regard to the power conferred on the Court under the provisions of Section 473 CrPC in taking cognizance after the expiry of the period of limitation, if it is satisfied on the facts and in the circumstances of the case that the delay has been properly explained and that is necessary to do so in the interest of justice and considering that it will be expedient in the interest of justice also to determine with regard to the issue of delay in fling the those two complaints and following the observation made by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of State of H.P. -Vs- Tara Dutt and Another reported in (2000) 1 SCC 230 : AIR 2000 SC 297 , the Trial Magistrate also found that both the complainants did not pray for any condonation of delay in preferring the said two Complaints Case Nos. 4/2015 and 1/2016. As such, taking into accounts of the undisputed facts and going through the statements in the complaints as well as in the written objections filed by the accused/respondent, the Trial Magistrate by the impugned order dated 29-07-2016 also came to his opinion that the complaints being Complaints Case Nos. 4/2015 and 1/2016. As such, taking into accounts of the undisputed facts and going through the statements in the complaints as well as in the written objections filed by the accused/respondent, the Trial Magistrate by the impugned order dated 29-07-2016 also came to his opinion that the complaints being Complaints Case Nos. 4/2015 and 1/2016 are not fit cases where the Court should exercise its discretion to condone the delay since those Complaint Cases are in the shape of political vendetta. Therefore, finding both the Complaint Cases being time barred and there being no satisfactory ground to condone the delay, the learned JMFC, Peren, Nagaland by the said common order dated 29-07-2016 dismissed both the Complaints Case Nos. 4/2015 and 1/2016 filed by the petitioners. 18. Hence these two Criminal Revision Petitions under Sections 397 read with 482 CrPC by the petitioners for setting aside the said impugned order dated 29-07-2016 passed by the learned JMFC, Peren, Nagaland in those two complaint cases and to restore the those Complaints Case Nos. 4/2015 and 1/2016 and further to initiate appropriate proceeding against the accused/respondent. 19. Mr. Balgopal, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners/ complainants submitted that provision of Section 469 CrPC provides the modes for commencement of the period of limitation and that Section 469(b) CrPC provides that where the commission of the offence was not known to the person aggrieved by the offence or to any police officer, than the period of limitation for such offence will commence from the date of knowledge of such person and that the complainants of both the complaint cases came to know about the said offence committed by the respondent/accused only in the month of July and August, 2015 respectively and therefore, both the complaint petitions were filed well within the period of limitation. 20. It is submitted by Mr. Balgopal, learned Sr. Counsel that initially on the basis of summons issued by the JMFC, Kohima the officials of Kohima College and NEHU appeared before the said Magistrate, who recorded their statements, which conclusively showed that the respondent had appeared in the B.A. Degree examination in the year 1979 and had failed in all the subjects and thereafter, he did not appear in the year 1980 or otherwise and that the officials of said Kohima College and NEHU made those statements on the basis of original records of the college and university concerned. 21. Mr. Balgopal also stated that Section 125A of the RP Act provides that if a candidate who himself or through his proposer, with intent to be elected in an election, – (i) fails to furnish information relating to sub-section (1) of section 33A of the said 1951 Act; or (ii) gives false information which he knows or has reason to believe to be false; or (iii) conceals any information, in his nomination paper to be delivered to the concerned Returning Officer under Sub-Section (1) of Section 33 of said 1951 Act or in the affidavit sworn by the candidate in the prescribed Form (Form 26) required to be delivered to the concerned Returning Officer under Sub-Section (2) of Section 33A of said 1951 Act, as the case may be, shall, notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force, shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to six months, or with fine, or with both. He further stated that as per Sub-Section (2) of Section 33A and as provided under Section 169 (1), 169(2)(a) of said 1951 Act, the Form of the required affidavit to be filed by the intending candidate has been duly prescribed and to give effect to said provisions Rule 4A of the Conduct of Election Rules, 1961 was amended providing that at the time of delivering nomination paper to the concerned Returning Officer, under Sub-Section (1) of Section 33 of the 1951 Act, the candidate or his proposer as the case may be shall also deliver to him an affidavit sworn by the candidate before a Magistrate of the First Class or a Notary in ‘Form 26’ and in para-10 as per the Format of said Form 26, the intending candidate has to provide his/her educational qualification. It is contended on behalf of the petitioners that the validity of the Act and Rules noted above are not under challenge and such affidavit sworn by the candidate himself/herself is necessary to provide information and therefore, in the present cases, the respondent had the statutory obligation to file a correct affidavit. 22. It is contended on behalf of the petitioners that the validity of the Act and Rules noted above are not under challenge and such affidavit sworn by the candidate himself/herself is necessary to provide information and therefore, in the present cases, the respondent had the statutory obligation to file a correct affidavit. 22. About the fact that the respondent/accused has filed a false affidavit at the time of filing his nomination papers before the Returning Officer at Peren in February, 2013, it is stated that the petitioner of Crl Revn Pet No. 6 (K)/2016 pertaining to the Complaint Case No. 4/2015 acquired the said knowledge from the newspapers dated 25-08-2015 and 27-08-2015; whereas the petitioner of Crl. Revn. Pet. No. 7(K)/2016 pertaining to the Complaint Case No. 1/2016 acquired the said information regarding the false affidavit of the respondent/accused from the response dated 28-07-2015 that he received from the Kohima College, Kohima, on the basis of his RTI application. Moreover, the petitioners contended that the contents of the respondent/accused, published in the website, did not disclose his marks card or records of the University concerned. 23. Mr. Balgopal, learned Sr. Counsel submits that the petitioner of Crl. Revn. Pet. No. 7(K)/2016, i.e. the complainant of Complaint Case No. 1/2016 is an elector from Peren and it has been pointed out before the Court that the respondent/accused did not deny the facts alleged by the petitioners that he failed in his B.A. Examination and also did not dispute the records of Kohima College and NEHU, which were produced before the Court including the mark sheets of the said respondent and that the officials of said Kohima College being a Government College of Nagaland and the officials of NEHU cannot have any political vendetta against the respondent/accused specially when they are speaking the truth nor the petitioners can be termed or accused of such political vendetta, as because they have set the law in motion. The petitioners contended that their complaint petitions in question are within the period of limitation and they solely rely on the provisions of Sections 468 and 469 CrPC alone and as such the question of condoning the delay in filing their complaint cases by the Court, therefore, never arose and as such the finding of the learned JMFC, Peren by the impugned order dated 29-07-2016 is against the statute and also the decision of the Apex Court. 24. Mr. Balgopal further submits that though the learned JMFC Peren by the impugned order termed the complaints of the petitioners as out of political vendetta without any fact of record which conflicts with the finding of the Hon’ble Court considering locus standi of the petitioner. He also submitted that judicial discipline requires to follow the judgments of the higher Courts as otherwise it would create chaos in the administration of justice and will lower the Majesty of the Hon’ble Supreme Court and this Court and to prevent such occurrence it is necessary to pass appropriate order. 25. Mr. Balgopal learned Sr. Counsel placed reliance of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of (i) S.P. Chengalvaraya Naidu (Dead) By L.R.S. Vs. Jagannath (Dead) By L.R.S. & Others reported in (1994) 1 SCC 1 , (ii) State of Rajasthan -Vs- Sanjay Kumar, reported in (1998) 5 SCC 82 , (iii) Krishnamoorthy -Vs- Sivakumar, reported in (2015) 3 SCC 467 and judgment of the Hon’ble High Court of Bombay in the case of (iv) State of Maharastra -Vs- P.D. Pujary reported in 1997 Crl.L.J. 1152. Mr. Balgopal relying the aforesaid judgments submitted that when something is within the special knowledge of the respondent/accused, particularly to his educational qualification that he did not disclose in the affidavit sworn by him and submitted it with his nomination papers, it tantamount to fraud and thereby misguided and kept the people at dark and that the Hon’ble Apex Court have settled that there cannot be any distinguish between the fundamental right mentioned in Chapter-III of the Constitution and declaration of such rights on the basis of the judgments rendered by the said Court and that an element of sanctity and solemnity is attached to the declaration by the very fact that it is required in the form of an affidavit sworn and attested in a particular matter. 26. Mr. Balgopal on behalf of the petitioners reiterated that limitation to file complaints under Section 468 of CrPC would run from the first day on which the offence comes to the knowledge and in the present case petitioner of Crl. Revn. Pet. No. 6 (K)/2016 came to know about the filing of false affidavit by the respondent/accused on August 2015 whereas petitioner of Crl. Revn. Pet. Revn. Pet. No. 6 (K)/2016 came to know about the filing of false affidavit by the respondent/accused on August 2015 whereas petitioner of Crl. Revn. Pet. No. 7 (K)/2016 came to know about it in July 2015 and as such both the Complaint Cases were filed within the period of limitation as prescribed by Section 468 CrPC. 27. On behalf of the respondent/accused, Mr. A. Zhimomi, learned counsel submits that on 05-02-2013 the respondent executed the required affidavit to be filed along with his nomination paper for the No. 7 (ST) Peren Assembly Constituency and on proper scrutiny of his nomination papers on 07-02-2013 and being satisfied the Returning Officer, Peren accepted his nomination papers as required and prescribed by Section 33A of the R.P. Act, 1951 recognising the right of the electors to information regarding the antecedents of the candidates for the constituency concerned. Mr. Zhimomi, also submitted that the nomination papers of the respondent was pasted in the office premises of the Returning Officer at Peren and was also uploaded in the website of the Chief Election Officer, Nagaland and during said period, the information with regard to the antecedent of the respondent including his education qualification were in the public domain. Subsequently, on being elected from the No. 7(ST) Peren Assembly Constituency in the State General Assembly Election, held in February, 2013 he became a Minister in the D.A.N. Coalition headed by Mr. Neiphiu Rio as Chief Minister and when said Mr. Rio demitted the office of the Chief Minister of Nagaland, upon his election to the Lok Sabha in the year 2014; on the basis of collective decision of the coalition, the respondent became the Chief Minister of the State with effect from 25-04-2014 and it is then, when he became the Chief Minister of the State, vested interest began their mechanism to oust him from the office of the Chief Minister and went to the extent of filing FIR alleging criminality conducted by him and his wife. Mr. Mr. Zhimomi, further stated that the efforts to oust the respondent as Chief Minister of Nagaland resulted in a Vote of Confidence held on 05-02-2015 and all the 59 MLAs barring the Speaker voted in favour of the vote of confidence in favour of the respondent and having being failed in their attempt to oust him, vested interest then adopted another strategy alleging that the respondent had filed a false affidavit in relation to his educational qualification. It is submitted that in this way FIRs and complaints have been lodged against the respondent by people, with vested interest. 28. Mr. Zhimomi, learned counsel on behalf of the respondent stated that the alleged false affidavit was sworn on 05-02-2013 along with other documents filed at the time of filing nomination papers that were made available in the public domain since the month of February, 2013 by uploading the same in the website of the Chief Electoral Officer, Nagaland and therefore, in terms of Section 468 CrPC the complainant ought to have filed their complaint petitions against the respondent on or about the 1st week of February, 2014 since as provided by Section 469(a) CrPC, the period of limitation would commence from the date of the offence and the complainant filed the complaint petitions only 09-11-2015 and 18-01-2016 respectively and therefore, both are barred by the limitation prescribed. 29. It is contended by Mr. Zhimomi that the Trial Magistrate after hearing the learned counsels for the parties came to the conclusion that alleged false affidavit sworn by the respondent with regard to his education qualification was made public in the month of February, 2013 itself and the same was also uploaded in the website of Chief Electoral Officer, Nagaland. It is further stated on behalf of the respondent that the complainants/petitioners are not person aggrieved in the cases in hand. 30. Mr. Zhimomi, learned counsel for the respondent placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court reported in AIR 1976 SC 2602 (Maharaj Singh -Vs- State of U.P.); AIR 1981 SC 116 (Thammanna -Vs- K. Veera Reddy); (1981) 3 SCC 34 (State of Punjab -Vs- Sarwan Singh); (2000) 7 SCC 702 (Dilboo -Vs- Dhanraji); (2005) 1 SCC 122 (Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. -Vs- Mohd. Sharaful Haque); (2006) 6 SCC 736 (Indian Oil Corpn. -Vs-. Sharaful Haque); (2006) 6 SCC 736 (Indian Oil Corpn. -Vs-. NEPC India Ltd); (2010) 5 SCC 600 (S. Khushboo -Vs- Kanniammal); (2014) 2 SCC 62 (Sarah Mathew -Vs- Institute of Cardio Vascular Diseases); decisions of the High Court of Kerala decided on 30.06.2014 in the case of P.K. Jayalakshmi -Vs- State of Kerala (MANU/KE/1537/2014) and decision dated 25.09.1985 of the High Court of Bombay (Panaji Bench) Navinchandra Gandhi -Vs- Dr. Pushpasen Kapadia and another (MANU/MH/0028/1985). 31. Heard the arguments placed by the counsels for both the parties and also considered the judgments cited by them. 32. Also considered the recent Judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court passed in Civil Appeal No. 2649 of 2016 in the case of Sri Mairembam Prithviraj @ Prithviraj Singh -Vs- Shri Pukhrem Sharatchandra Singh. 33. In the case of Union of India -Vs- Assn. for Democratic Reforms, reported in (2002) 5 SCC 294 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court have observed that – “In a democratic form of government, voters are of utmost importance. They have right to elect or re-elect on the basis of the antecedents and past performance of the candidate. The voter has the choice of deciding whether holding of educational qualification or holding of property is relevant for electing or re-electing a person to be his representative. Voter has to decide whether he should cast vote in favour of a candidate who is involved in a criminal case. For maintaining purity of elections and a healthy democracy, voters are required to be educated and well informed about the contesting candidates. Such information would include assets held by the candidate, his qualification including educational qualification and antecedents of his life including whether he was involved in a criminal case and if the case is decided - its result, if pending - whether charge is framed or cognizance is taken by the court. There is no necessity of suppressing the relevant facts from the voters.” 34. There is no necessity of suppressing the relevant facts from the voters.” 34. In the said judgment itself, the Hon’ble Supreme Court directed the Election Commission of India as follows: “The Election Commission is directed to call for information on affidavit by issuing necessary order in exercise of its power under Article 324 of the Constitution of India from each candidate seeking election to Parliament or a State Legislature as a necessary part of his nomination paper, furnishing therein, information on the following aspects in relation to his/her candidature: (1) Whether the candidate is convicted/acquitted/discharged of any criminal offence in the past - if any, whether he is punished with imprisonment or fine. (2) Prior to six months of filing of nomination, whether the candidate is accused in any pending case, of any offence punishable with imprisonment for two years or more, and in which charge is framed or cognizance is taken by the court of law. If so, the details thereof. (3) The assets (immovable, movable, bank balance, etc.) of a candidate and of his/her spouse and that of dependants. (4) Liabilities, if any, particularly whether there are any over dues of any public financial institution or government dues. (5) The educational qualifications of the candidate.” 35. Pursuant to the said Judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court passed in the case of Assn. for Democratic Reforms (supra), by way of third amendment of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 with effect from 24-08-2002 (Act 72 of 2002), Section 33A of said 1951 Act was inserted which provides for Right to Information and read as follows: Section 33A. Right to information. (1) A candidate shall, apart from any information which he is required to furnish, under this Act or the rules made thereunder, in his nomination paper delivered under sub-section (1) of section 33, also furnish the information as to whether— (i) he is accused of any offence punishable with imprisonment for two years or more in a pending case in which a charge has been framed by the court of competent jurisdiction; (ii) he has been convicted of an offence [other than any offence referred to in sub-section (1) or sub-section (2), or covered in sub-section (3), of section 8] and sentenced to imprisonment for one year or more. (2) The candidate or his proposer, as the case may be, shall, at the time of delivering to the returning officer the nomination paper under sub-section (1) of section 33, also deliver to him an affidavit sworn by the candidate in a prescribed form verifying the information specified in sub-section (1). (3) The returning officer shall, as soon as may be after the furnishing of information to him under sub-section (1), display the aforesaid information by affixing a copy of the affidavit, delivered under sub-section (2), at a conspicuous place at his office for the information of the electors relating to a constituency for which the nomination paper is delivered. 36. Further, on the basis of said Judgment Assn. for Democratic Reforms (supra) in the said 1951 Act, by way of amendment in vide Act of 72 of 2002 w.e.f.24-08-2002 Section 125A has been brought in to force which provides for penalty for filing false affidavit, etc. and it reads as follows: 125A. Penalty for filing false affidavit, etc. - A candidate who himself or through his proposer, with intent to be elected in an election,- (i) fails to furnish information relating to sub-section (1) of section 33A; or (ii) gives false information which he knows or has reason to believe to be false; or (iii) conceals any information, in his nomination paper delivered under sub-section (1) of section 33 or in his affidavit which is required to be delivered under sub-section (2) of section 33A, as the case may be, shall, notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force, be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to six months, or with fine, or with both. 37. After such amendment of 2002 of said 1951 Act and bringing in a new Section 33A in the said Act, as per the observation made by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Assn. for Democratic Reforms, (supra), with effect from 03-09-2002, Rule 4A was inserted in the Conduct of Elections Rules, 1961, which provides for Form of the affidavit to be filed at the time of delivering nomination paper and it reads as follows: 4A. Form of affidavit to be filed at the time of delivering nomination paper. for Democratic Reforms, (supra), with effect from 03-09-2002, Rule 4A was inserted in the Conduct of Elections Rules, 1961, which provides for Form of the affidavit to be filed at the time of delivering nomination paper and it reads as follows: 4A. Form of affidavit to be filed at the time of delivering nomination paper. The candidate or his proposer, as the case may be, shall, at the time of delivering to the returning officer the nomination paper under sub-section (1) of section 33 of the Act, also deliver to him an affidavit sworn by the candidate before a Magistrate of the first class or a Notary in Form 26. 38. In Para 10 of the said Form 26, the concerned candidate is required to give the details of highest School/University education mentioning the full form of the certificate/ diploma/degree course, name of the School/College University and the year in which the course was completed. 39. From the reading of said Rule 4A of 1961 Rules, Sub-Section 2 & 3 of Section 33A and Section 125A of 1951 Act it is clear that after receipt of such affidavit in Form 26 along with the nomination papers from the concerned candidate, the Returning Officer concerned is required to affixing a copy of the said affidavit, at a conspicuous place at his office, for the information of the electors relating to a constituency for which the nomination paper is delivered. Moreover, if the candidate concerned in his affidavit which is required to be delivered under sub-section (2) of said section 33A gives false information which he knows or has reason to believe to be false or conceals any information therein, the said candidate shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to six months, or with fine, or with both. 40. It is also to be considered that as provided under Section 35 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, while giving notice of nominations and the time and place for their scrutiny, amongst others, the Returning Officer is required to affix in some conspicuous place in his office a notice of the nomination containing descriptions similar to those contained in the nomination paper, both of the candidate and or the proposer. 41. 41. Further, as per the provisions of Section 36 of the R.P. Act , 1951, which relates to scrutiny of nomination, on the date so fixed for such scrutiny of nominations papers under section 30 of said 1951 Act, the candidates, their election agents, one proposer of each candidate, and one other person duly authorised in writing by each candidate but no other person, are allowed to attend at such time and place as the returning officer may appoint; and the returning officer gives all of them reasonable facilities for examining the nomination papers of all candidates which have been delivered within the time and in the manner laid down in section 33 of 1951 Act. Thereafter as provided by said Section 36, the returning officer examines the nomination papers of the candidates, decides all objections that may be made to any nomination and may, either on such objection or on his own motion, after such summary inquiry, if any, as he thinks necessary, reject any nomination on the grounds prescribed therein. 42. Chapter XXXVI containing Sections 467 to 473 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, relates to limitation for taking cognizance of certain offences. Section 468 CrPC provides for bar to take cognizance after lapse of the period of limitation and Sub-Section 2(b) of said Section 468 CrPC prescribes that if the offence is punishable with imprisonment for a term not exceeding one year, the period limitation shall be one year. 43. Section 469 of the CrPC provides for commencement of the period of limitations and it reads as follows: Section 469. Commencement of the period of limitations. (1) The period of limitation, in relation to an offence, shall commence, - (a) On the date of the offence; or (b) Where the commission of the offence was not known to the person aggrieved by the offence or to any police officer, the first day on which such offence comes to the knowledge of such person or to any police officer, whichever is earlier; or (c) Where it is not known by whom the offence was committed, the first day on which the identity of the offender is known to the person aggrieved by the offence or to the police officer making investigation into the offence, whichever is earlier. (2) In computing the said period, the day from which such period is to be computed shall be excluded. 44. (2) In computing the said period, the day from which such period is to be computed shall be excluded. 44. A Full Bench, consisting of five Judges of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, in the case of Sarah Mathew -Vs- Institute of Cardio Vascular Diseases, reported in (2014) 2 SCC 62 , while deciding an issue with regard to limitation and taking cognizance of an offence as provided by Chapter XXXVI of the Code of Criminal Procedure, have observed that – “The object of the criminal law is to punish perpetrators of crime. This is in tune with the well-known legal maxim nullum tempus aut locus occurrit regi, which means that a crime never dies. At the same time, it is also the policy of law to assist the vigilant and not the sleepy. This is expressed in the Latin maxim vigilantibus et non dormientibus, jura subveniunt. Chapter XXXVI CrPC which provides limitation period for certain types of offences for which lesser sentence is provided draws support from this maxim.” 45. While inserting chapter XXXVI (Sections 467 to 473) in the CrPC, 1973 from the Statement of Objects and Reasons as well as from the decision of the Joint Committee of Parliament the following grounds have been considered for prescribing the period of limitation and they are: “(1) As time passes the testimony of witnesses becomes weaker and weaker because of lapse of memory and evidence becomes more and more uncertain with the result that the danger of error becomes greater. (2) For the purpose of peace and repose, it is necessary that an offender should not be kept under continuous apprehension that he may be prosecuted at any time particularly because with multifarious laws creating new offences many persons at sometime or the other commit some crime or the other. People will have no peace of mind if there is no period of limitation even for petty offences. (3) The deterrent effect of punishment is impaired if prosecution is not launched and punishment is not inflicted before the offence has been wiped off the memory of persons concerned. (4) The sense of social retribution which is one of the purposes of criminal law loses its edge after the expiry of long period. (3) The deterrent effect of punishment is impaired if prosecution is not launched and punishment is not inflicted before the offence has been wiped off the memory of persons concerned. (4) The sense of social retribution which is one of the purposes of criminal law loses its edge after the expiry of long period. (5) The period of limitation would put pressure on the organs of criminal prosecution to make every effort to ensure the detection and punishment of the crime quickly.” 46. In the case of Japani Sahoo -Vs- Chandra Sekhar Mohanty, reported in (2007) 7 SCC 394 , the Hon’ble Apex Court observed that – “it is thus clear that provisions as to limitation have been inserted by Parliament in the larger interest of administration of criminal justice keeping in view two conflicting considerations: (i) the interest of persons sought to be prosecuted (prospective accused); (ii) and organs of State (prosecuting agencies).” 47. With regard to misinformation or suppression of material information in nomination and scrutiny of such nomination by the returning officer, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Kisan Shankar Kathore Vs. Arun Dattatray Sawant, reported in (2014) 14 SCC 162 have observed that – “A conjoint and combined reading of the Judgments of the Court passed in Union of India -Vs- Assn. for Democratic Reforms, reported in (2002) 5 SCC 294 and People’s Union for Civil Liberties -Vs- Union of India, reported in (2003) 4 SCC 399 clearly establishes that the main reason for issuing directions by this Court and the guidelines by the Election Commission pursuant thereto is that the citizens have fundamental right under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution of India to know about the candidates contesting the elections and this is the primary reason that casts a solemn obligation on these candidates to furnish information regarding the criminal antecedents, educational qualifications and assets held by the candidate, his spouse and dependent children. It is on that basis that not only the Election Commission has issued guidelines, but also prepared formats in which the affidavits are to be filed. It is on that basis that not only the Election Commission has issued guidelines, but also prepared formats in which the affidavits are to be filed. As a fortiori, it follows that if the required information as per the said format is not given, it would amount to suppression/non-disclosure.” “When the information is given by a candidate in the affidavit filed along with the nomination paper and objections are raised thereto questioning the correctness of the information or alleging that there is non-disclosure of certain important information, it may not be possible for the Returning Officer at that time to conduct a detailed examination. Summary enquiry may not suffice. The present case is itself an example which loudly demonstrates this. At the same time, it would not be possible for the Returning Officer to reject the nomination for want of verification about the allegations made by the objector. In such a case, when ultimately it is proved that it was a case of non-disclosure and either the affidavit was false or it did not contain complete information leading to suppression, it can be held at that stage that the nomination was improperly accepted. Ms Meenakshi Arora, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Election Commission, rightly argued that such an enquiry can be only at a later stage and the appropriate stage would be in an election petition as in the instant case, when the election is challenged. The grounds stated in Section 36(2) are those which can be examined there and then and on that basis the Returning Officer would be in a position to reject the nomination. Likewise, where the blanks are left in an affidavit, nomination can be rejected there and then. In other cases where detailed enquiry is needed, it would depend upon the outcome thereof, in an election petition, as to whether the nomination was properly accepted or it was a case of improper acceptance. Once it is found that it was a case of improper acceptance, as there was misinformation or suppression of material information, one can state that question of rejection in such a case was only deferred to a later date. When the Court gives such a finding, which would have resulted in rejection, the effect would be same, namely, such a candidate was not entitled to contest and the election is void. When the Court gives such a finding, which would have resulted in rejection, the effect would be same, namely, such a candidate was not entitled to contest and the election is void. Otherwise, it would be an anomalous situation that even when criminal proceedings under Section 125-A of the Act can be initiated and the selected candidate is criminally prosecuted and convicted, but the result of his election cannot be questioned. This cannot be countenanced.” 48. From the provision of Sub-Section (3) of Section 33A of the R.P. Act, 1951, it is seen that by affixing a copy of the affidavit, delivered by the candidate under sub-section (2) of said Section 33A, at a conspicuous place at his office, the concerned returning officer informs the electors relating to the constituency for which the nomination paper is delivered, by which electors are made aware of the contents of the affidavit filed by the candidate concerned. As per the policy of law to assist the vigilant and not the sleepy, which is expressed in the Latin maxim “vigilantibus et non dormientibus, jura subveniunt”, a diligent voter or a person aggrieved or a complainant, while being interested to know the educational qualification and other antecedent of the candidate, after going through such affidavit of a candidate, displayed by the returning officer before scrutiny of nomination, can raise objection against any such false statement made by a candidate in his affidavit before the concerned returning officer, and such objection can be considered by the said returning officer at the stage of scrutiny of nomination papers of the said candidate. 49. In the present case it is not the case of the petitioners/complainants that the affidavit (Form26) of the respondent was not displayed by affixing the same at a conspicuous place at his office by the concerned returning officer, Peren in February 2013; before scrutiny of respondent’s nomination papers for the necessary information of the electors of the constituency concerned. 50. Though the petitioners relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sanjay Kumar (supra), with regard to starting point of limitation, but this Court is of the view that the ratio of the said case is not applicable in the present case. 50. Though the petitioners relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sanjay Kumar (supra), with regard to starting point of limitation, but this Court is of the view that the ratio of the said case is not applicable in the present case. In the said case initially the quality of the drug was not known to the Drugs Inspector, which came to light only when the report of the Government Analyst was received. But in the cases in hand the affidavit of the respondent was displayed by the returning officer immediately upon receipt of the same for the information of the electors of the constituency, prior to the scrutiny of his nomination papers. However, the petitioners/complainants were not diligent enough to know the correctness of the educational qualification of the respondent given in his said affidavit with the nomination in February 2013 and but only after coming to know about his actual educational qualification in July and August 2015, they filed the Complaint Petitions involved in the case on 09-11-2015 and 18-01-2016 respectively. Moreover, the petitioner of Crl. Revn. Ptn. No. 7(k)/2016 in his Complaint Case No. 1/2016, stated that few days before the election he came to know the fact that the respondent has passed B.A. in the year 1980 from Kohima College, which means that before swearing the alleged false affidavit by the respondent on 05-02-2013, the said petitioner/complainant was aware that respondent is an Arts Graduate. 51. For the reasons above, the Court is of the view that the petitioners have filed their complaint petitions beyond the period of limitation prescribed by Section 468 Code of Criminal Procedure. Further, in the present case the commencement of the period of limitation to the offender respondent shall start from the date of the offence under Section 469(1)(a) of Code of Criminal Procedure, since the returning officer displayed the said affidavit in the conspicuous place of his office for the electors of the constituency, after filing of the same by the respondent with his nomination, before its scrutiny. 52. As such, the Court does not find any valid reason to interfere with the impugned common order dated 29-07-2016 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Peren in the Complaint Case Nos. 04/2015 and 01/2016. 53. Accordingly, both the Criminal Revision Petitions being devoid of merit stand dismissed.