The period of limitation for a revision petition against a discharge order is 90 days from the date of the order, as prescribed by Article 131 of the Limitation Act, 1963. The practice of approaching the Sessions Court before the High Court in revision is no longer tenable in light of this limitation period.

This criminal revision by W. Iboton Singh is directed against the order dated 13-3-1970 by which Shri L. Rabindra Singh. Magistrate First Class, Imphal, discharged Th. Amutombi Singh, one of the three accused who were prosecuted on the charge of cheating by impersonation. A revision petition filed by the complainant W. Iboton Singh against that discharge order having proved abortive in the Court of the Sessions Judge, Manipur, he has come up in revision to this Court.

2. The allegations set out in the complaint were that in the month of March 1968 the accused Amutombi Singh approached the complainant for lending some money to his friend S. Babu Singh against the security of a paddy filed. The complainant having agreed to do so, detailed talks followed between him, Amutombi Singh and Babu Singh when he (the complainant) was apprised that the paddy field proposed to be mortgaged is situate in Iram Siphai and that it stands in the name of S. Nabin Singh a younger brother of Babu Singh. The amount of the loan was settled at Rs. 3,000/- and it was agreed that before executing the mortgage deed the paddy field shall be inspected by the complainant and he shall also have talks with the owner Nabin Singh. On 9th April 1968, the complainant and the accused Amutombi Singh and Babu Singh, besides some persons connected with the complainant, left for the paddy filed in a jeep hired by Amutombi Singh. When the party reached the field, the saw one person (who ultimately turned out to be the accused Achou Singh) on the land and he was introduced to the complainant by the accused Amutombi Singh as Nabin Singh, the owner of the field. The complainant exchanged talks with Achou Singh respecting the mortgage transaction and when the visiting party was about to leave the paddy field, the accused Achou Singh delivered kacha patta of the paddy field to the accused Babu with the direction that it should be appended to the mortgage deed. At the instance of Achou Singh, it was stated further, the complainant fixed 10-4-1968 as the date for execution and registration of the mortgage deed, and the deed was scribed on that date by Shri Charugopal Singh. Advocate, Imphal, in his chamber in the presence of all the three accused. Amutombi Singh. Achou Singh and Babu Singh. That done, the party proceeded to the Registry at Imphal where the deed was registered against cash payment of Rs. 3,000/- by the complainant to Achou Singh. The period for repayment of the mortgage-loan was fixed at five months. On 22-9-1968 when W. Iboton Singh, the complainant, went to Iram Siphai to contact the mortgagor Nabin Singh to request him for repayment of the debt, he was surprised to learn that Achou Singh accused had cheated him on 9-4-1968 by representing himself to be Nabin Singh, the owner of the paddy field. The matter came to light when the owner Nabin Singh told Iboton Singh in the village that he had never mortgaged his paddy field with any one. Having felt frustrated, Iboton Singh filed a complaint on 30th September 1968 in the Court of Shri L. Rabindra Singh charging Achou Singh with offences punishable under Sections 419 and 420, I.P.C. and accused Amutombi Singh and Babu Singh with those offences read with Section 109, I.P.C.

After recording the statement of the complainant on 30th September 1068 the Court summoned all the three accused under Section 420. I.P.C. Babu Singh was reported to have absconded and so the case proceeded only against the other two accused. After examining three witnesses including the complainant the trial Court discharged Amutombi Singh on the finding that no such case against him had been made out which, if unrebutted, would warrant his conviction. The Court however charged the accused Achou Singh under Sections 466 and 420, I.P.C. and the trial ended in his conviction which was also upheld in appeal.

4. The Sessions Judge, Manipur, rejected the revision petition of the complainant against the order discharging Amutombi Singh on h