Manipur High Court
Irungbam Santosh Singh vs State Of Manipur Represented By ... on 30 October, 2023
SHAMURAILATPAM Digitally signed by SHAMURAILATPAM
SUSHIL SHARMA
SUSHIL SHARMA Date: 2023.10.30 16:49:30 +05'30' Page |1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MANIPUR
AT IMPHAL
MC(Cril.Appeal) No. 26 of 2023
Ref:- Cril. Appeal No. 10 of 2023
Irungbam Santosh Singh, Advocate, aged about 35 years,
S/o I. Mohendro Singh, a resident of Malom Tulihal
Maning Leikai, P.O. Tulihal, P.S. Nambol, Imphal West,
Manipur.
... APPLICANT
-VERSUS-
1. State of Manipur represented by the Chief Secretary,
(Home) Govt. of Manipur, Babupara, Imphal West,
Manipur.
2. The O.C. Imphal Police Station, Imphal West,
Manipur.
3. The O.C. Women Police Station, Lamphelpat, Imphal
West, Manipur.
4. Meitan Keishangbam Manikanta Singh, aged about 48
years, S/o (L) M. Gulamjat Singh of Meitei Langol I/W.
5. Salam Iboyaima Meitei, aged about 48 years, S/o
Tharo Meitei of Kwakeithel, Leikai I/W.
6. Saikhom Mandakini Chanu, aged about 40 years, W/o
Salam Iboyaima Meitei of Kwakeithel Laishram Leikai.
7. Nameirakpam Inaomacha @ Wareppa @ Epa, aged
about 49 years, S/o N. Amuba Meitei of Singjamei
Maisnam Leikai, I/W.
MC(Cril.Appeal) No. 26 of 2023(Ref:- Cril. Appeal No. 10 of 2023)
Page |2
... RESPONDENTS
BEFORE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.V. MURALIDARAN
For the Applicant :: Mr. S. Rajeetchandra, Adv.
For the Respondents :: Mr. H. Samarjit, Addl. PP
Mr. Dayali Elangbam, Adv.
.
Date of Hearing and
reserving Judgment & Order :: 19.10.2023
Date of Judgment & Order :: 30.10.2023
JUDGMENT AND ORDER
(CAV)
Heard Mr. S. Rajeetchandra, learned counsel for the
petitioner; Mr. H. Samarjit, the learned Additional Public
Prosecutor for respondent State and Mr. Dayali Elangbam, the
learned counsel for the private respondents.
2. This application has been filed by the learned
counsel for the appellant under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking
permission to amend memo of appeal and allow it to be taken up
as revision petition under Section 401 Cr.P.C.
3. Mr. S. Rajeetchandra, the learned counsel for the
appellant submitted that, due to bona fide mistake, he has
presented the petition as an appeal under Section 372 Cr.P.C.,
whereas the same should have been presented as revision
MC(Cril.Appeal) No. 26 of 2023(Ref:- Cril. Appeal No. 10 of 2023)
Page |3
petition under Section 401 Cr.P.C. Thus, the learned counsel
prayed for following amendments in the memo of appeal and
allowing the criminal appeal to be taken up as a criminal revision
petition:
(1) At page no.1 of the main petition, in
the heading IN THE MATTERS OF
in the first line after the word
"Section 372" be replaced by
"Section 401".
(2) In the First paragraph of the petition
at page no.3, in the first line after the
word "present" the word "appellant"
be replaced by petitioner.
(3) In the Second paragraph of the
petition at page No.3 in the first line
after the word "this" the word
"appeal" be replaced by "revision".
(4) At page no.9, under the Heading the
"Grounds of appeal", after the word
"for" the word "Appeal" be replaced
by "Revision".
(5) At page no.9 of the main petition
under para no.14 in the second line
the word "appeal" after the "/" sign
be deleted.
(6) At page no.9 of the main petition
under para no.14 sub para no.1
MC(Cril.Appeal) No. 26 of 2023(Ref:- Cril. Appeal No. 10 of 2023)
Page |4
after the word "Criminal" the word
"Appeal" be replaced by "Revision".
(7) At page no.9 of the main petition
under para no.14 sub para no.3
after the word "Criminal", the word
"Appeal" be replaced by "Revision".
4. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner,
the proposed amendments shall not alter the pleadings of the
appellant in any way. Thus, a prayer has been made to permit
him to amend the appeal as detailed above.
5. Opposing the prayer, Mr. Dayali Elangbam, the
learned counsel for the private respondents submitted that the
application for amendment of the memo of appeal is not
maintainable in the present form and there is no such provision for
amendment of the criminal appeal. The learned counsel
submitted that the appeal under Section 372 Cr.P.C cannot be
converted under Section 401 Cr.P.C. for revision. The petitioner
can very well withdraw the appeal with leave of the Court to file
revision, if he found there is mistake. The pending memo of
appeal cannot be amended as revision by changing some words.
If the said amendments are allowed, then the whole nature of the
case will change as the amendment portion contented in the
MC(Cril.Appeal) No. 26 of 2023(Ref:- Cril. Appeal No. 10 of 2023)
Page |5
petition is neither clerical nor arithmetical mistake, but would lead
to alteration of the entire petition and the jurisdiction differs.
6. The learned counsel would submit that the appellant
has presented the appeal as appeal against acquittal under Code
No.10251. Now the appellant is seeking amendment of the memo
of appeal as criminal revision which is separate entity with
different Code No. and category of case etc. Only to delay the
case and to harass the private respondents, the present
application has been filed. Since the scope and object of the
appeal and revision are quite different, the present application is
not maintainable and the same is liable to be dismissed.
7. Heard Mr. H. Samarjit, the learned Additional Public
Prosecutor for the respondent State on the submissions made by
the learned counsel for the petitioner.
8. This Court considered the rival submissions and also
perused the materials available on record.
9. The present application has been filed by the learned
conducting counsel for the appellant stating that due to bona fide
mistake he has presented the petition as an appeal under Section
372 Cr.P.C. whereas the same should be presented as revision
under Section 401 Cr.P.C.
MC(Cril.Appeal) No. 26 of 2023(Ref:- Cril. Appeal No. 10 of 2023)
Page |6
10. The said prayer of the applicant has been
vehemently opposed by the private respondents contending that
there is no such provision for amendment of the criminal appeal
and that the application for amendment of the memo of appeal is
not maintainable. Further, the appeal under Section 372 Cr.P.C.
cannot be converted under Section 401 Cr.P.C. for revision. If the
present application is allowed, the nature of the case will change.
At best, the present appeal can be withdrawn with liberty to file a
revision.
11. The proposed amendments sought by the applicant
have been extracted supra. On a perusal of the proposed
amendments sought by the learned counsel, the same do not alter
the nature of the case as contended by the learned counsel for the
private respondents. At the cost of repetition, the proposed
amendments are quoted hereunder:
(1) At page no.1 of the main petition, in the
heading IN THE MATTERS OF in the
first line after the word "Section 372" be
replaced by "Section 401".
(2) In the First paragraph of the petition at
page no.3, in the first line after the word
"present" the word "appellant" be
replaced by petitioner.
(3) In the Second paragraph of the petition
at page No.3 in the first line after the
word "this" the word "appeal" be
replaced by "revision".
MC(Cril.Appeal) No. 26 of 2023(Ref:- Cril. Appeal No. 10 of 2023)
Page |7
(4) At page no.9, under the Heading the
"Grounds of appeal", after the word "for"
the word "Appeal" be replaced by
"Revision".
(5) At page no.9 of the main petition under
para no.14 in the second line the word
"appeal" after the "/" sign be deleted.
(6) At page no.9 of the main petition under
para no.14 sub para no.1 after the word
"Criminal" the word "Appeal" be replaced
by "Revision".
(7) At page no.9 of the main petition under
para no.14 sub para no.3 after the word
"Criminal", the word "Appeal" be
replaced by "Revision".
12. Admittedly, the proposed amendments sought by the
applicant are to change the words, namely "appellant" as
"petitioner"; "Section 372" as "Section 401" and "appeal" as
"revision". The said proposed amendments would in no way affect
the nature of case. Though the change of nomenclature of the
criminal appeal as criminal revision is not sought for by the
applicant, if the proposed amendments are allowed and carried
out, automatically, the Registry will change the nomenclature of
the case appropriately and the present case still cannot be treated
as criminal appeal as stated by the private respondents.
13. There is nothing in the Code of Criminal Procedure to
bar a criminal appeal being treated as criminal revision or vice-
versa. The purpose of all rules of procedure obviously is to enable
MC(Cril.Appeal) No. 26 of 2023(Ref:- Cril. Appeal No. 10 of 2023)
Page |8
justice to be done. As such, every procedure which advances the
dispensation of justice should be considered permissible, unless it
is prohibited. Even assuming that the Sessions Court does not
have the power to treat the revision as an appeal, the High Court
has power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to direct to do so in order to
secure the ends of justice.
14. Therefore, finding bona fide in the prayer made in the
present application, this Court is of the view that the proposed
amendment can be allowed. If the proposed amendments are
allowed, no prejudice would be caused to the private respondents,
who are accused in Special Trial (POCSO) Case No.12 of 2022
on the file of the Fast Track Special Court No.I, Manipur and who
were discharged from the charges under Sections 366/354/34 IPC
and Section 10 of POCSO Act, 2012, as there was no prima facie
material for presuming that they have committed the offences
levelled against them.
15. In the result, MC (Cril. Appeal) No.26 of 2023 in
Criminal Appeal No.10 of 2023 is allowed.
JUDGE
FR/NFR
Sushil
MC(Cril.Appeal) No. 26 of 2023(Ref:- Cril. Appeal No. 10 of 2023)
