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.
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
