Page No.# 1/6 GAHC030007102025 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : I.A.(Crl.)/48/2025 Sh. Sumeona S/o Lalnghaka, Durtlang Leitan, Aizawl VERSUS The State of Mizoram R/b Secretary to Govt. of Mizoram, Vigilance Dept. and Anr. Aizawl Advocate for the Petitioner : Mr. Jonathan L Sailo Advocate for the Respondent : P.P./Addl.PP, Mizoram BEFORE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KAUSHIK GOSWAMI ORDER 27.11.2025 Heard Mr. Jonathan L. Sailo, learned counsel appearing for the applicant. Also heard Mrs. Mary L. Khiangte, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, appearing for the State respondents. 2. By way of this application under Section 432 of the BNSS, the applicant is seeking direction to take the additional evidence before the Special Court, Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, Aizawl, Mizoram, (hereinafter referred to as the “trial court”) in S.R. (PCA) No. 7/2015 Page No.# 2/6 (Ref: ACB P.S. Case No. 9/2014 dt. 17/12/2014). The case of the applicant is that the trial court, vide its judgment & order dated 29.10.2019 in S.R. (PCA) No. 7/2015 (Ref: ACB P.S. Case No. 9/2014 dt. 17/12/2014), has convicted the accused/applicant under Section 409 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 3 years and 6 months, and to pay to fine of Rs. 30,000/-, in default to pay the fine to undergo rigorous imprisonment for another period of 6 months. Against the aforesaid conviction, the accused/applicant has filed an appeal before this court, which is registered as Criminal Appeal No. 1/2020. 3. During the pendency of the criminal appeal, it is urged by Mr. Jonathan L. Sailo, learned counsel appearing for the applicant, that the applicant has come to learn that his counsel in the trial court had failed to lead defence evidence and that one of the prosecution witnesses in the criminal trial was the father of his counsel, a fact that was not disclosed to the applicant during the course of the trial. It is the specific case of the applicant that the right of defence of the applicant to a fair trial has been seriously prejudiced and jeopardized because of the conflict of interest of the counsel engaged by him in the trial court. It is the further case of the applicant that key witnesses for the defence of the applicant were not examined during the trial, and if the aforesaid witnesses had been examined, the applicant would have been exonerated from the charges proved against him. 4. Mrs. Mary L. Khiangte, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, submits that she has received no instructions to oppose the prayer made by the applicant. Page No.# 3/6 5. Having heard and perused the material available on record, it appears that the applicant in his examination under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. before the trial court in reply to the question no. 2 “It is in the evidence that you handed over Rs. 5,43,530 to ASI(M) C. Laisemmawia while handing over the charge of Cashier, 2nd IR Bn and failed to handover Rs. 9,55,913 as the total amount you were supposed to handover to him was Rs. 14,99,443. What have you to say?” replied “It is true. Though my predecessor Pu R. Vanlaltana was supposed to handover to me Rs. 17,50,091, I received only Rs. 4,70,000 only when I assumed the charge. Therefore, there was shortage of Rs. 12,80,091 already”. 6. It further appears that in response to the question no. 3 “It is in the evidence that SI(M) Vanlaltana drew the GPF(A) Bill of C/419 Malsawmtluanga amounting to Rs. 10,000 on 21.10.2012. SI(M) Vanlaltana handed over Rs. 4,70,000 to you including the GFP(A) Bill of C/419 Malsawmtiuanga. However, you did not disburse the sum of Rs. 10,000 to C/419 Malsawmtluanga and had misappropriated it. What have you to say?”, the applicant submitted his reply as “I was not aware whether the sum of Rs. 4,70,000 1 received included the GPF(A) Bill of C/419 Malsawmtluanga amounting to Rs. 10,000 as there was huge shortage when I took the charge”. 7. It further appears that against question no. 4 “It is in the evidence that SI(M) Vanlaltana drew the GPF(A) Bill of C/124 Vanlalmawia amounting to Rs. 30,000 on 21.11.2012. SI(M) Vanlaltana handed over Rs. 4,70,000 to you including the GFP(A) Page No.# 4/6 Bill of C/124 Vanlalmawia. However, you did not disburse the sum of Rs. 30,000 to C/124 Vanlalmawia and had misappropriated it. What have you to say?”, the applicant has replied as “I was not aware whether the sum of Rs. 4,70,000 I received included the GPF(A) Bill of C/124 Vanlalmawia amounting to Rs. 30,000 as there was huge shortage when I took the charge.”. 8. It is clearly evident from the aforesaid reply submitted by the applicant that he has taken the defence in his examination under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. that his predecessor, Sh. R. Vanlaltana, handed over to him only Rs. 4,70,000/- when he assumed charge, instead of Rs. 17,50,091/-. It is clearly evident that the applicant has taken the defence that there was a shortage of Rs. 12,80,091/- at the time of handing over charge by his predecessor. It appears that though he wanted to adduce the evidence of Sh. R. Vanlaltana as a defence witness, his counsel advised him that there is no need to call anyone as a defence witness other than him. It is further evident that despite the applicant having taken the defence that Sh. R. Vanlaltana has given him Rs. 4,70,000/- instead of Rs. 17,50,091/- at the time of handing over charge, the trial court has also not taken the same into consideration. 9. It is further apparent that though the name of one Sh. Dinesh Kumar appears to be listed as a prosecution witness, he was not examined during trial. It appears that Dinesh Kumar, who was the then Commandant, 2nd IR Bn., Khawzawl, was the highest-ranking officer and in-charge of all administrative, supervisory, and financial handling. However, though he was a key witness to the allegations made against Page No.# 5/6 the accused/appellant, he was not examined before the trial court. Similarly, one J. Lalthafamkima, who was the Drawing and Disbursing Officer (DDO), in the 2nd IR Bn., Khawzawl and was in-charge of maintaining and signing the cash book, i.e., the record of all the money/bills drawn and disbursed within 2nd IR Bn., Khawzawl and who was also the direct superior of the applicant though could have brought light to the allegations in the aforesaid case; however, he was also not examined. 10. Having noted that the aforesaid witnesses, who if examined could have brought light to the charges brought against the applicant vis-à-vis the endorsement made by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, this court deems it appropriate in the interest of a fair trial and justice to direct the Special Court, Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, Aizawl, Mizoram, to take additional defence evidence in S.R. (PCA) No. 7/2015 (Ref: ACB P.S. Case No. 9/2014 dt. 17/12/2014) and thereafter forward the same before this court in Crl.A. No. 1/2020. 11. Accordingly, the Special Court, Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, Aizawl, Mizoram, is directed to examine (i) Sh. R. Vanlaltana, (ii) Sh. Dinesh Kumar, (iii) J. Lalthafamkima, as court witnesses and further grant the prosecution as well as the defence to cross-examine them in accordance with law. 12. Let the exercise be completed within a period of 3 (three) months from the date of receiving the records by the trial court. 13. Let the Registry communicate this order along with the records of the trial court for doing the needful. Page No.# 6/6 14. It is needless to clarify that after the evidence of the witnesses as directed by this court has been recorded and/or the outcome of the said exercise, the trial court shall remit back the records along with the evidence of the newly examined court witnesses. 15. The interlocutory application accordingly stands disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant