DIMAPUR, July 31 - The Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class (JMFC) Peren on Friday dismissed the complaint cases on Nagaland Chief Minister TR Zeliang�s educational issue on the grounds that they are barred by time limitation. The Court had on June 28, 2016 reserved its order on the �issue of limitation�.
A statement from Media Cell of CMO furnished the copy of the order which stated that the case was heard on July 28 and the order was issued on Friday in which the Magistrate opined that the �instant case is in the shape of a political vendetta.�
The Supreme Court had, by an order dated June 15, 2016 directed the Lower Court (JMFC, Peren) to first determine the question of limitation.
In November 2015, one Maziezokho Nisa had filed a complaint against an alleged offence punishable under Section 125 A of the Representation of People�s Act, 1951, purported to have been committed by the Chief Minister.
A similar case was filed against the Chief Minister by one KK Kulimbe alias Kengim in July 2016. All the cases were against Zeliang for filing false information of his educational qualification in a sworn affidavit in his election nomination papers in 2013. Both the cases were taken up together and disposed off by the common order, the Media Cell said.
According to the release, the Magistrate observed that �the punishment for infringement of the offence under Section 125-A of the Representation of People�s 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 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, the Media Cell said.
