Page No.# 1/12 GAHC010234342024 2025:GAU-AS:1605-DB THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : I.A.(Crl.)/1105/2024 NATIONAL INVESTIGATION AGENCY GUWAHATI ZONE. VERSUS SRI W. NOREN SINGH A-8 @ W. NOREN MEETEI S/O SRI WAYEMBAM TOMBA, R/O VILL.MOIRANGKAMPU, POROMPAT, IMPHAL EAST, MANIPUR Linked Case : Crl.A./265/2016 SRI W. NOREN SINGH A-8 @ W. NOREN MEETEI S/O SRI WAYEMBAM TOMBA R/O VILL.MOIRANGKAMPU POROMPAT IMPHAL EAST MANIPUR VERSUS THE NATIONAL INVESTIGATION AGENCY THROUGH ITS STANDING COUNSEL Linked Case : I.A.(Crl.)/1098/2024 Page No.# 2/12 NATIONAL INVESTIGATION AGENCY GUWAHATI ZONE VERSUS O. SAMARJIT SINGH @ NARESH @ KADENG S/O LT. O DHANANJOY SINGH R/O KEISHAMPAT AHEIBAM LEIRAKILL P.S. IMPHAL WEST DIST. IMPHAL WEST MANIPUR Linked Case : Crl.A./289/2016 O. SAMARJIT SINGH @ NARESH @ KADENG S/O LT. O DHANANJOY SINGH R/O KEISHAMPAT AHEIBAM LEIRAKILL P.S. IMPHAL WEST DIST. IMPHAL WEST MANIPUR VERSUS NIA Linked Case : I.A.(Crl.)/1101/2024 NATIONAL INVESTIGATION AGENCY GUWAHATI ZONE VERSUS N. DILIP SINGH S/O- SRI N CHAOBA SINGH R/O- VILL- SINGJAMEI WAIKHOM LEIKAI P.S- SINGJAMEI DIST- IMPHAL WEST MANIPUR Page No.# 3/12 Linked Case : Crl.A./113/2017 N. DILIP SINGH S/O- SRI N CHAOBA SINGH R/O- VILL- SINGJAMEI WAIKHOM LEIKAI P.S- SINGJAMEI DIST- IMPHAL WEST MANIPUR VERSUS NIA Linked Case : I.A.(Crl.)/1104/2024 NATIONAL INVESTIGATION AGENCY GUWAHATI ZONE. VERSUS A. IBOMCHA S/O LATE JOY KUMAR SINGH R/O KHONGMAN SONE-4 IMPHAL RIMS MANIPUR Linked Case : Crl.A./295/2016 A. IBOMCHA S/O LATE JOY KUMAR SINGH R/O KHONGMAN SONE-4 IMPHAL RIMS MANIPUR Page No.# 4/12 VERSUS NIA Linked Case : I.A.(Crl.)/1173/2024 ) THE NATIONAL INVESTIGATION AGENCY THROUGH ITS STANDING COUNSEL CBI VERSUS OINAM MANITON SINGHA A-15 S/O OINAM NILAMANI SINGHA R/O VILL. BAHADURGRAM P.S. UDHARBOND DIST. CACHAR ASSAM PIN 788030 Linked Case : Crl.A./264/2016 OINAM MANITON SINGHA A-15 S/O OINAM NILAMANI SINGHA R/O VILL. BAHADURGRAM P.S. UDHARBOND DIST. CACHAR ASSAM PIN 788030 VERSUS THE NATIONAL INVESTIGATION AGENCY THROUGH ITS STANDING COUNSEL Linked Case : I.A.(Crl.)/1193/2024 NATONAL INVESITGATION AGENCY Page No.# 5/12 GUWAHATI ZONE VERSUS KHWAIRAKPAM JEETEN SINGH and KHOMBO @ DENE S/O- LATE KH. SANAJAOBA SINGH R/O- VILL- AWANG SEKMAI P.S- SEKMAI DIST- IMPHAL WEST MANIPUR. Linked Case : Crl.A./115/2017 KHWAIRAKPAM JEETEN SINGH and KHOMBO @ DENE S/O- LATE KH. SANAJAOBA SINGH R/O- VILL- AWANG SEKMAI P.S- SEKMAI DIST- IMPHAL WEST MANIPUR. VERSUS NIA Linked Case : I.A.(Crl.)/1221/2024 THE NATIONAL INVESTIGTION AGENCY THROUGH ITS STANDING COUNSEL VERSUS SOUGAIJAM RAKESH SINGH @ S. RAKESH SINGH A-6 S/O DR. S. PRIYO KUMAR SINGH R/O MOIRANGKHOM YEISKUL P.S. IMPHAL WEST DIST. IMPHAL WEST MANIPUR Page No.# 6/12 Linked Case : Crl.A./262/2016 SOUGAIJAM RAKESH SINGH @ S. RAKESH SINGH A-6 S/O DR. S. PRIYO KUMAR SINGH R/O MOIRANGKHOM YEISKUL P.S. IMPHAL WEST DIST. IMPHAL WEST MANIPUR VERSUS THE NATIONAL INVESTIGTION AGENCY THROUGH ITS STANDING COUNSEL Linked Case : I.A.(Crl.)/1222/2024 THE NATIONAL INVESTIGATION AGENCY THROUGH ITS STANDING COUNSEL VERSUS MUTUM IBOHAL S/O MUTUM SHYAMKISHORE R/O VILL. KABOWAKCHING P.S. NAMBOL DIST. BISHNUPUR MANIPUR Linked Case : Crl.A./145/2017 MUTUM IBOHAL S/O MUTUM SHYAMKISHORE R/O VILL. KABOWAKCHING P.S. NAMBOL DIST. BISHNUPUR MANIPUR Page No.# 7/12 VERSUS NIA BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KALYAN RAI SURANA HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MRIDUL KUMAR KALITA ORDER Date : 13.02.2025 (K.R. Surana, J) Heard Mr. D.K. Das, learned senior counsel, assisted by Mr. B. Bhardwaj, learned counsel, who appeared on instruction of Mr. R.K.D. Choudhury, learned DSGI. Also heard Mr. B. Prasad, learned counsel for the respondent. 2. These interlocutory applications have been filed for correction of certain typographical error, which has crept in the common judgment and order dated 23.09.2024, passed by this Court in Crl.A. No. 265/2016 and 12 other connected appeals, being Crl.A. 165/ 2016, Crl.A. 262/ 2016, Crl.A. 263/2016, Crl.A. 264/ 2016, Crl.A. 289/ 2016, Crl.A. 291/ 2016, Crl.A. 295/ 2016, Crl.A. 299/ 2016, Crl.A. 113/ 2017, Crl.A. 115 /2017, Crl.A. 145/ 2017. Accordingly, a common order is being passed in all these interlocutory applications. 3. At the outset, the learned senior counsel for the applicant has submitted that if the prayer made in this interlocutory application is allowed, it would not touch upon the merit of the judgment and order and would only cure the judgment of typographical errors, which do not have the effect of altering Page No.# 8/12 the substance of the judgment and order. 4. It has been submitted that in paragraph 324, 350, 367, 393, 419, 436, 451, 462, 472, 489 and 499, the Court had observed that the submissions from all sides was to the effect that after serving of his sentence, the concerned accused nos. A-6, A-7, A-8, A-10, A-11, A-12, A-14, A-15, A-16, A-17, A-23 (since deceased), A-24 and A-25 respectively have served out their sentence and released. In the said context, it is submitted that the accused persons were released on bail and they have not served out their sentence. 5. Accordingly, the said part of the order as contained in paragraph nos. 324, 350, 367, 393, 419, 436, 451, 462, 472, 489 and 499 respectively shall now be read as follows: a. 324. The submission from all sides was to the effect that on being released on bail, the accused no. A-6 has not served out his sentence. b. 350. The submission from all sides was to the effect that on being released on bail, the accused no. A-7 has not served out his sentence. c. 367. The submission from all sides was to the effect that on being released on bail, the accused no. A-8 has not served out his sentence. d. 393. The submission from all sides was to the effect that on being released on bail, the accused no. A-10 has not served out his sentence. e. 419. The submission from all sides was to the effect that on being released on bail, the accused no. A-11 has not served out his Page No.# 9/12 sentence. f. 436. The submission from all sides was to the effect that on being released on bail, the accused no. A-12 has not served out his sentence. g. 451. The submission from all sides was to the effect that on being released on bail, the accused no. A-14 has not served out his sentence. h. 462. The submission from all sides was to the effect that on being released on bail, the accused no. A-15 has not served out his sentence. i. 472. The submission from all sides was to the effect that on being released on bail, the accused no. A-16 has not served out his sentence. j. 489. The submission from all sides was to the effect that on being released on bail, the accused no. A-17 has not served out his sentence. k. 499. The submission from all sides was to the effect that on being released on bail, the accused nos. A-23 (since deceased), A-24 and A- 256 have not served out their respective sentence. 6. The learned senior counsel for the applicant has also submitted that the following further typographical errors have crept in the said judgment: (a) In Sl. No. 30 of the index, the reference to “Crl. Appeal No. 283/2016” was erroneously made instead of “Crl. Appeal No. Page No.# 10/12 263/2016”, and also in the heading preceding paragraph 170, the reference to “Crl. Appeal No. 283/2916” was erroneously made instead of “Crl. Appeal No. 263/2016”,. Accordingly, “Crl. Appeal No. 283/2016” appearing at Sl. No. 30 of the index and “Crl. Appeal No. 283/2916” in the heading preceding paragraph 170 shall now be read as “Crl. Appeal No. 263/2016”. (b) In Sl. No. 32 of the index, as well as in the heading preceding paragraph 179, the reference to “Crl. Appeal No. 145/2017” was erroneously made instead of “Crl. Appeal No. 299/2016”. Accordingly, “Crl. Appeal No. 145/2017” appearing at Sl. No. 32 of the index, as well as in the heading preceding paragraph 179 shall now be read as Crl. Appeal No. 299/2016 in both instances. (c) In paragraph-6 at Sl. No.5, the accused Thaoroijam Herojit Singh @ Prem @ Mangal (A-5) has been shown as “Absconder (not tried in this batch)”, whereas the said accused has been convicted by the Trial Court under section 20 of the UA(P) Act and sentenced to 7 (seven) years rigorous imprisonment and further sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- and in default of payment of fine to further imprisonment of one year. He has not preferred appeal before the Hon’ble High Court. Accordingly, the sentence column in paragraph no.6, Sl No.5 shall now be read as “S.20 UA(P)A – 7 yrs and fine with default stipulation”. (d) In paragraph-6 at Sl. No.7, the reference to “Crl. Appeal No. Page No.# 11/12 264/2016” was erroneously made instead of “Crl. Appeal No. 289/2016”. Accordingly, “Crl. Appeal No. 264/2016” appearing in paragraph-6 at Sl. No.7 shall now be read as Crl. Appeal No. 289/2016. (e) In paragraph-6 at Sl. No.20, 21 and 22, in the sentence column, it is referred as “Suppl. Charge sheet filed. Not tried in this batch”, which is an incorrect fact. Accordingly, the sentence column in paragraph no.6, Sl. Nos.20, 21 and 22 shall now be read as “declared absconder on 25.12.20211 by the learned Trial Court”. (f) In paragraph 6, after Sl. No.20, Sl. Nos.20, 21 and 22 has been repeated. Accordingly, the seriatim stands corrected as Sl. No.23, 24 and 25. (g) In paragraph 7 (f), in the fourth line, the Court has observed that “However, A-1 to A-5 were absconding”, which is an incorrect fact. Accordingly, the same stands substituted as “However, A-1 to A-4 were absconding”. (h) In paragraph-130 of the judgment, it is stated as “It was submitted that A-12 and A-24 had jumped bail and were declared as absconders. A-21 and 22 were also absconders. A-6, A-14 and A-15 were on bail during trial. A-5, A-713, 16-19 and 24-25 were in custody during the trial”, which is an incorrect fact. Accordingly, the paragraph- 130 stands corrected as “It was submitted that A-1 to A-4 had jumped bail and were declared as absconders. A-6, A-14 and A-15 were on bail during trial. A-5, A-7, A-13, A-16 to 19 and A-24 to 25 were in custody Page No.# 12/12 during their trial”. 7. In the judgment and order, in the list of appearing counsel, the name of “Mr. D. Choudhury”, learned counsel for the N.I.A. is mentioned, which is erroneous, which should be read as “Mr. D. Bharadwaj”. Accordingly, the name of “Mr. D. Choudhury” is substituted with “Mr. D. Bharadwaj”. 8. Accordingly, this interlocutory application stands allowed and disposed of. 9. This order shall be read together with judgment and order dated 23.09.2024 passed in Crl.A. 165/ 2016, Crl.A. 262/ 2016, Crl.A. 263/2016, Crl.A. 264/ 2016, Crl.A. 265/ 2016, Crl.A. 289/ 2016, Crl.A. 291/ 2016, Crl.A. 295/ 2016, Crl.A. 299/ 2016, Crl.A. 113/ 2017, Crl.A. 115 /2017, Crl.A. 145/ 2017. JUDGE JUDGE Comparing Assistant