HOW MUCH DID THE GOVERNMENT SPEND TO CONFIRM WHAT WAS OBVIOUS?

On Dec 11th, 2013, K.Chhawnthuama anonymously sent two crazy text messages to Chief Minister Lal Thanhawla who was not happy about it. Lal Thanhawla reported it to the police on Dec 13th and hoped for "an appropriate legal action." The Chief Minister later told his party men and women at the Congress Bhavan the reason why he filed a complaint - the text messages contained really dirty and extremely disgusting information about him and that he would appear to be a coward if he did not have the courage to take it to court.

The Officer in Charge of Aizawl Police Station registered the FIR the next day (Aizawl PS Case No.373/2013) under Sections 171G IPC and Sections 66A (a)&(b) of IT Act.

Section 171G of the Indian Penal Code is about false statement in connection with an election. This is what it says "Whoever with intent to affect the result of an election makes or publishes any statement purporting to be a statement of fact which is false and which he either knows or believes to be false or does not believe to be true, in relation to the personal character or conduct of any candidate shall be punished with fine."

When the police OC read the text messages, he pretty much came to the conclusion that the sender was wrong and that the receiver was right. Hence, the registration of complaint under Sec 171G. (The charge under IT Act has another interesting story which shall be discussed separately.)

The sender of the text messages was quickly identified by the police and it turned out to be K.Chhawnthuama, Principal of KV Multipurpose School in Durtlang, Aizawl. He was arrested on Dec 17th, 2013 and was charged under Sections 201/204/506/507 IPC along with Sections 66A (a)&(b) of IT Act.

The first charge IPC Sec 201 is about "causing disappearance of evidence of offence, or giving false information to screen offender." Sec 204 is about the "destruction of document or electronic record to prevent its production as evidence."

IPC Sec 506 attracts the "Punishment for criminal intimidation.—Whoever commits, the offence of criminal intimidation shall be punished with imprison­ment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both; If threat be to cause death or grievous hurt, etc."

IPC Sec 507 is about the "criminal intimidation by an anonymous communication."

As you will see in the disposition of the case by the Aizawl Bench of the Gauhati High Court that confirmed the first judgement by the 1st Class Magistrate, whoever exercised their legal judgement on what law K Chhawnthuama allegedly broke is clearly in need of a refresher course on the basic understanding of the law. The contents of the text messages pales in comparison to some of the messages circulated every day on social media today in terms of its shock value and criminal nature. The church elder was irresponsible and should never have sent those messages but to say he was criminally intimidating the Chief Minister is an argument too far a stretch.

A 1st Class Judicial Magistrate examined the charge but "came to an opinion that the chargesheet does not disclose any prima facie materials to frame the alleged charges of guilt of offences under Sections 201/506/507 of the IPC" and dismissed them on May 26th, 2014.

When this happened, the Government of Mizoram (guess who was the Government of Mizoram?) was not happy and "preferred a Criminal Revision Petition under Section 399 Cr.P.C" before a Sessions Judge. A "Criminal Revision No.27/2014" was registered. 

This petition by the State government attempted to override the Magistrate's judgement because under this clause of the Cr.P.C, the Sessions Judge has the power to make a decision which "shall be final and no further proceeding by Way of revision at the instance of such person shall be entertained by the High Court or any other Court." It was clear the government wanted to trump the lower court's decision.

However, in what could only be described as disappointing, an Additional Sessions Judge upheld the Magistrate's decision on Feb 23rd, 2015. 

According to the judgement of the High Court that decided on this case this year, Public Prosecutor AK Rokhum "contended that both the Trial Magistrate was well as the Revisional Court without applying their judicial mind, in a very casual manner dropped Sections 506 & 507 IPC" against K Chhawnthuama "without going through the materials & documents submitted by the prosecution." 

The Public Prosecutor, paid for by the government using public money, basically argued that the Magistrate did not go through the text message properly and did not read the law (IPC Sec 506/507) well.

After loads of legal arguments back and forth, the Aizawl Bench of the Gauhati High Court finally decided that the petition of the State of Mizoram against K.Chhawnthuama a.k.a. Phantom could not stand and ruled in favour of the accused criminal.

Here's what the Court says about the whole drama:

"From the perusal of the written complaint/FIR dated 13.12.2013 lodged by the complainant/informant, it can be seen that it does not contain any specific allegation against the sender of the anonymous SMS received from the mobile number '8575891878' that the sender threatened the complainant with injury to his person, reputation or property or it caused any alarm and since the said FIR dated 13.12.2013 of the informant, involved in this case, does not contain any ingredients of Sections 506 & 507 IPC, the learned Trial Magistrate rightly did not frame charge under Sections 506 & 507 of the IPC against the accused respondent...

this petition fails and it is accordingly dismissed..."

The Court also said the Trial Magistrate did consider “all the materials available before him carefully” when it dismissed the charges in the first place. Public Prosecutor AK Rokhum’s argument - that the Trial Magistrate and the Revisional Court did not apply its judicial mind – is thus clearly rejected by the High Court. The subordinate officers of the law did apply their judicial mind and not political minds.

The State Government of Mizoram took all that trouble and spent all that money for something that is easily discernable as negligible or a non-issue. But, guess how much the government spent to confirm what was obvious?

On June 21st, Vanglaini published the amount of money the State government spent in five years for the service rendered by the Advocate General Biswajit Deb and four other lawyers. Between 2011 an 2016, the government gladly spent Rs.1,48,52,110 for various legal arguments including the absurd argument Public Prosecutor A.K.Rokhum kept pushing at the expense of the state.

Mizoram sorkar chuan Gauhati High Court-a advocate general Biswajit Deb leh sorkar ukil palite rawih nan kum nga, 2011-2016 chhungin Rs. 1,48,52,110 a sêng. - See more at: http://www.vanglaini.org/tualchhung/56342#sthash.8xN9wwQu.dpuf

HOW MUCH DID THE GOVERNMENT SPEND TO CONFIRM WHAT WAS OBVIOUS?

On Dec 11th, 2013, K.Chhawnthuama anonymously sent two crazy text messages to Chief Minister Lal Thanhawla who was not happy about it. Lal Thanhawla reported it to the police on Dec 13th and hoped for "an appropriate legal action." The Chief Minister later told his party men and women at the Congress Bhavan the reason why he filed a complaint - the text messages contained really dirty and extremely disgusting information about him and that he would appear to be a coward if he did not have the courage to take it to court.

The Officer in Charge of Aizawl Police Station registered the FIR the next day (Aizawl PS Case No.373/2013) under Sections 171G IPC and Sections 66A (a)&(b) of IT Act.

Section 171G of the Indian Penal Code is about false statement in connection with an election. This is what it says "Whoever with intent to affect the result of an election makes or publishes any statement purporting to be a statement of fact which is false and which he either knows or believes to be false or does not believe to be true, in relation to the personal character or conduct of any candidate shall be punished with fine."

When the police OC read the text messages, he pretty much came to the conclusion that the sender was wrong and that the receiver was right. Hence, the registration of complaint under Sec 171G. (The charge under IT Act has another interesting story which shall be discussed separately.)

The sender of the text messages was quickly identified by the police and it turned out to be K.Chhawnthuama, Principal of KV Multipurpose School in Durtlang, Aizawl. He was arrested on Dec 17th, 2013 and was charged under Sections 201/204/506/507 IPC along with Sections 66A (a)&(b) of IT Act.

The first charge IPC Sec 201 is about "causing disappearance of evidence of offence, or giving false information to screen offender." Sec 204 is about the "destruction of document or electronic record to prevent its production as evidence."

IPC Sec 506 attracts the "Punishment for criminal intimidation.—Whoever commits, the offence of criminal intimidation shall be punished with imprison­ment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both; If threat be to cause death or grievous hurt, etc."

IPC Sec 507 is about the "criminal intimidation by an anonymous communication."

As you will see in the disposition of the case by the Aizawl Bench of the Gauhati High Court that confirmed the first judgement by the 1st Class Magistrate, whoever exercised their legal judgement on what law K Chhawnthuama allegedly broke is clearly in need of a refresher course on the basic understanding of the law. The contents of the text messages pales in comparison to some of the messages circulated every day on social media today in terms of its shock value and criminal nature. The church elder was irresponsible and should never have sent those messages but to say he was criminally intimidating the Chief Minister is an argument too far a stretch.

A 1st Class Judicial Magistrate examined the charge but "came to an opinion that the chargesheet does not disclose any prima facie materials to frame the alleged charges of guilt of offences under Sections 201/506/507 of the IPC" and dismissed them on May 26th, 2014.

When this happened, the Government of Mizoram (guess who was the Government of Mizoram?) was not happy and "preferred a Criminal Revision Petition under Section 399 Cr.P.C" before a Sessions Judge. A "Criminal Revision No.27/2014" was registered. 

This petition by the State government attempted to override the Magistrate's judgement because under this clause of the Cr.P.C, the Sessions Judge has the power to make a decision which "shall be final and no further proceeding by Way of revision at the instance of such person shall be entertained by the High Court or any other Court." It was clear the government wanted to trump the lower court's decision.

However, in what could only be described as disappointing, an Additional Sessions Judge upheld the Magistrate's decision on Feb 23rd, 2015. 

According to the judgement of the High Court that decided on this case this year, Public Prosecutor AK Rokhum "contended that both the Trial Magistrate was well as the Revisional Court without applying their judicial mind, in a very casual manner dropped Sections 506 & 507 IPC" against K Chhawnthuama "without going through the materials & documents submitted by the prosecution." 

The Public Prosecutor, paid for by the government using public money, basically argued that the Magistrate did not go through the text message properly and did not read the law (IPC Sec 506/507) well.

After loads of legal arguments back and forth, the Aizawl Bench of the Gauhati High Court finally decided that the petition of the State of Mizoram against K.Chhawnthuama a.k.a. Phantom could not stand and ruled in favour of the accused criminal.

Here's what the Court says about the whole drama:

"From the perusal of the written complaint/FIR dated 13.12.2013 lodged by the complainant/informant, it can be seen that it does not contain any specific allegation against the sender of the anonymous SMS received from the mobile number '8575891878' that the sender threatened the complainant with injury to his person, reputation or property or it caused any alarm and since the said FIR dated 13.12.2013 of the informant, involved in this case, does not contain any ingredients of Sections 506 & 507 IPC, the learned Trial Magistrate rightly did not frame charge under Sections 506 & 507 of the IPC against the accused respondent...

this petition fails and it is accordingly dismissed..."

The Court also said the Trial Magistrate did consider “all the materials available before him carefully” when it dismissed the charges in the first place. Public Prosecutor AK Rokhum’s argument - that the Trial Magistrate and the Revisional Court did not apply its judicial mind – is thus clearly rejected by the High Court. The subordinate officers of the law did apply their judicial mind and not political minds.

The State Government of Mizoram took all that trouble and spent all that money for something that is easily discernable as negligible or a non-issue. But, guess how much the government spent to confirm what was obvious?

On June 21st, Vanglaini published the amount of money the State government spent in five years for the service rendered by the Advocate General Biswajit Deb and four other lawyers. Between 2011 an 2016, the government gladly spent Rs.1,48,52,110 for various legal arguments including the absurd argument Public Prosecutor A.K.Rokhum kept pushing at the expense of the state.

Mizoram sorkar chuan Gauhati High Court-a advocate general Biswajit Deb leh sorkar ukil palite rawih nan kum nga, 2011-2016 chhungin Rs. 1,48,52,110 a sêng. - See more at: http://www.vanglaini.org/tualchhung/56342#sthash.8xN9wwQu.dpuf

AMERICA RAMAH CHUAN SIKUL TAN TLÂI AN DUH

- K.L.Biakchungnunga

Sawrkar finchhuah a ngaih hun lâi, fin chhuah tura ngaihdàn sawi chhuah hun a nih avângin, sikul tan hun sawn hmà chungchâng hi sawi ve ka duh a ni. Ka ui vawih ngawih ringawt chuan ka inthiam thei dâwn tlat lo. 

Sikul tan hmà chungchângah nu leh pa ngaihdàn làk a ni kha tha ka ti. A nghawng nat ber tûr an ni tlat a; an ngaihdàn hriat kha a pawimawh. Zawhna kha eng zât chiahin nge chhâng? Zâ zêlah eng zâtin nge sikul tan hun sawn hmà duh tih kha hriat a châkawm khawp mai. Kan sawrkar hian sikul tan hun sawn hmà tum ru reng siin, nu leh pa te ngaihdàn hi a serh then nân lek a zâwt mai mai nia ngâi an tam. Hetianga ngaih theih tura thil tih hi a hrisêl lo. 

Kan hotute hian, “Kan enchhin ang a, a that loh chuan a ngaiin kan kal leh mai ang,” an ti a ni âwm e. Zîng dâr 7:30 vela sikul tan hi kan la tih ngai loh a nih avangin enchhinna chu a ni dâwn hrim hrim. Mizoram puma sikul zawng zawng hi enchhinna atana hman luih vek a tûl kher em? Scientist hovin enchhinna (experiment) an neih rêng rêngin, thil pahnih khatah enchhinin an zir chiang hmasa phawt thin. Engkim an zir chian hnuah, mipui chhawr theih tûrin an tlângzarh chauh thin a ni. Sikul tan hmà chungchângah pawh hian, enchhinna sikul (experimental school) awm phawt se. Harsatna awm theite zir chian phawt ni se. A lo \hat viau chuan nakum session-ah sikul tam zâwkah hman ni se, a finthlâk ka ring. Aizâwla tha viau hi, district khawpui dangah leh thingtlâng khaw tam takah a tha kher lo thei bawk. 

 Session laklawh deuha Mizoram pum huapa sikul tan hun sawn hmà rum rum hi a tûl viauna chhan tûr ka hre mai lo. Thih leh dam inkâr thil êm pawh ni lo, hnawhsarum deuha thil tih chûk chûk hi eng nge a tûlna?

Sâpram leh America ramah chuan:

Ka sâp thian, Mizoramah pawh research tia rawn awm reng tawh, Joanna Heath min hrilh dân chuan, an remchân dân leh thâ an tih anga tan hun ruat tûrin United Kingdom-ah chuan sikul hrang hrangin thuneihna an nei. A tam ber sikul kài hun chu dâr 9:00 am – 3:00 pm a ni. Devotion leh Registration nên chuan zîng dâr 8 leh 8:30 inkâr vela tan an awm nual. Tlâi dâr 3 hnu lamah hian, abîkin sports leh music lama tui tân ‘extra-curricular optional class’ a awm a, dâr 4 atanga dâr 5 vêl thleng a awh tlângpui. Sawrkar sikul aiin private sikul an bâng har zâwk

Tun laia America rama an lungkham nia lang chu zirlai naupangin mut kham khawp an hmu lo khu a ni. ‘Boruak leh tuisik thianghlim kan mamawh ang bawkin mut kham khawp kan mamawh’ tih chu 1990 kuma an din, non-profit organization—National Sleep Foundation—a lam tâwia NSF an tih pâwl thupui ber a ni. He pâwlin a tum ber chu America mipuite hnena mut kham khawp hmuh a pawimawhna leh muthilh theih lohna (sleep disorders) chungchânga hriat tûr thil pawimawh puanzâr leh zirtir a ni. Public leh private institution zawng zawngah thawktu leh zirlai zawng zawngin an mamawh mut kham khawp an hmuh theih nân an kalphung her rem leh siam \hat chu NSF thil tum pawimawh tak a ni bawk. 

Tleirâwl (adolescents), kum 13-19 hote hian darkar 8½ a\anga 9¼ mut an mamawh tih chu medical science ngaihdân ding lai a ni. Dr. Mary Carskadon hova research an neihah chuan America rama tleirâwl tam berin an mamawh zât mut an hmu lo tih hmuh chhuah a ni. A chhan pawh America rama sikul tam takin zîng dâr 7:30 vela sikul an tan vâng a ni. 1990 kumah khân, zing dâr 7:25 vela sikul tan thin Minnesota state chuan zing dâr 8:40-ah tan hun an sawn ta a, naupang attendance a that phah bâkah, Health Center-a inentir an tlêm phah tih hmuh chhuah a ni. Kum eng emaw zât research an neih hnuah, Kentucky State-a Fayette County School District-ah chuan, sikul an tan tlài hnuah, zing dâr 7:30 vela la tan reng district aiin, tleirâwl kum 16-18 lirthei khalh zingah accident tâwk an tlêm phah hle tih an hmu chhuak bawk.  

2007 kuma National Youth Risk Behavior Survey an neihah chuan sikul naupangin sikul kài hun laia zân lama mut an hmuh dân an zir chiang a. Zâ zela 68.9 chuan mut khamkhawp an hmu lo tih hmuh chhuah a ni. Mut khamkhawp hmu lote hi thil chîn tha lo (risky behavior) chi hrang hrang 10 zet nên an inkûngkaih tih an hmu chhuak bawk. Chûng risky behavior zingah chuan—insual, sikret zûk, marijuana (ruih hlo) zûk, zu in, sex lama inhman, nguina leh beidawnna, mahni intihhlum tumna te a tel a ni.

Kan taksa hian hun chhiarna sana, ‘biological clock’ a nei. Nausên, naupang leh tleirâwlte hi an mut hun bi (sleeping habit) a inang lo. Kum 5-12 hian darkar 10-11 mut an mamawh laiin, kum 13-19 hian darkar 9 vêl mut an mamawh thung. Tleirawl ho biological clock-ah chuan zân dâr 11 hma lam hi mut hun a ni lo. Zânah an mu har a, zingah an tho tlâi bawk. Zingah thawh hmà ngâi mah se, tleirâwl tam tak hi an mu hmâ thiam chuang lo. Tleirâwl lai hian mut theih lohna (sleep disorders)—narcolepsy, insomnia, restless legs syndrome leh sleep apnea, adt. an vei nasa zual niin an sawi. Zân tumtâwina tûr thil chi hrang hrang a tam tawh bawk si. An lehkha zir dân phungah pawh zîng lam aiin zân lama lehkha zir chî an tam zâwk.

Zzz’s to A’s Resolution:

America rama resolution lâr tak, ‘Zzz’s to A’s Resolution’ an tih mai, House of Congress Resolution 176-ah chuan, America rama sikul zawng zawng chu zîng dâr 8:30 aia hmâah sikul tan lo tura fuih (encourage) an ni. He resolution pu lûttu hi hmeichhe ropui tak, Zoe Lofgren, US Representative for California’s 19^th Congressional District ni lai a ni. He resolution bawhzuia 2002 kuma NSF-in mipui ngaihdân ‘Sleep in America Poll’ a lâkah chuan 80% zetin zîng dâr 8 hmâa sikul tan loh an duh a ni. He resolution fuihna ngai pawimawhin America rama state eng emaw zâtah chuan sikul tan hun zing dâr 7:30 vêl ni thin chu, zing dâr 8:30 – 9:00 vêlah an sawn tlâi tawh a ni. 

Ka thawhna Baptist Higher Secondary School hian tunah hian zîng dâr 9:15-ah sikul kan tan a. School Bus-a kan lam hlat ber, 1^st trip chu Theiriat naupangho an ni. Zing dâr 7:30-ah kan lam thin. Zîng dâr 7:30 hi sikul tan hun a nih chuan, Theiriat naupangho chu zîng dâr 5:45-ah an inpeih ziah a ngâi dâwn tihna a ni. Kan khua, Lunglei atanga a chhehvêl thingtlâng khuaa lânga zirtirtu hna thawk ka hre nual. Zing dâr 7:30 vêlah an chhuak tlângpui. Zing dâr 7:30 vela sikul tan a nih chuan, zing dâr 5:30 – 6:00 vela an thawhna hmun pan tura an chhuah tûk tin a ngâi tawh dawn a ni. Mizoram hmun hrang hrangah hetianga thawk hi an awm nualin ka ring. Mahni khua a\anga khaw danga lânga zirtirtu hna thawk hi an tam lo a ni thei e. Minority an nih avanga palzût leh palzam hi ‘human rights violation’ a nih bâkah, India ram ‘democracy principles’ kalh a ni.

Vâi ramah pawh zing dâr 7:30 vêlah sikul an tan a, engah nge kan theih loh bik ang kan ti a ni âwm e. Vâi rama zirtirtu leh nu leh pa zingah khuan, zing kara NGO leh Kohhran hnuaia pâwl hrang hrang committee meeting-a tel ngai an awm ve lo. Zing kârah kohhran hnatlâng leh YMA hnatlâng an ko ngai bawk lo. Zing kârah emaw chhûnah emaw, thlân lâi turin an thawk chhuak ngai hek lo. Zing tawngtai inkhâwm pawh an nei ngai lo. Vâi society leh Mizo society hi a inang lo lutuk. Kan tih ang tam tak an tih loh avangin, an tih theih ang tam tak khu kan tân tih a rem lo. Kan society nihphung leh kalphung, Mizo naupangte rilru sûkthlêk, tlâi lam hun âwl an hman thin dânte ngaihtuahin, ram pum atan chuan zing dâr 9:00-3:30 vela sikul kan kal hi a la \ha hle rihin ka hria.