Partly allowed

Susovan Roy v. State

Calcutta HC14 Sept 2022CRR/2155/2005

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal revision under CrPC 401/482 challenging a food adulteration conviction, the Calcutta High Court affirmed the conviction due to lack of gross infirmity but mitigated the execution mode by directing a monetary deposit instead of imprisonment to address the 22-year delay.

What did the court decide?

The conviction is affirmed, but the petitioner is directed to deposit Rs. 10,000/- by 30th September, 2022, in lieu of imprisonment.

Susovan Roy Vs State — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Calcutta HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA (CRIMINAL REVISIONAL JURISDICTION)

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HON’BLE JUSTICE SIDDHARTHA ROY CHOWDHURY

¶4

CRR 2155 of 2005

¶5

SUSOVAN ROY VS. STATE OF WEST BENGAL & ANR. For the Petitioner : Mr. S. Ash, Adv. For the Opposite Parties : Mr. Goutam Dinda, Adv. Hearing concluded on : 9^th September, 2022 Judgement on : 14^th September, 2022

¶6

:- Siddhartha Roy Chowdhury, J

¶7

This proceeding stems out of an application filed under Section 401 read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, challenging the judgement and order passed by learned Judge Fast Track Court, 6^th Bench, Kolkata affirming the order of conviction passed by learned Senior Municipal Magistrate, Kolkata in Case No. 6D of 2000 dated 17^th January, 2002, under Section 16 (1) (a) (i) read with Section 7 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954.

¶8

Learned Senior Municipal Magistrate recorded an order of conviction against the petitioner and sentenced him to suffer simple imprisonment for six months and to pay fine of Rs. 1000/- in default to suffer simple imprisonment for two months.

¶9

¶10

The petitioner made an unsuccessful attempt to get the order of conviction reversed in an appeal; learned Appellate Court was pleased to dismiss the appeal and decided to maintain order of conviction.

¶11

In view of the concurrent finding of learned Trial Court as well as learned Appellate Court towards culpability of the petitioner in committing offence, I do not find any reason to interfere with concurrent finding particularly when I do not find any gross infirmities in the judgement passed by learned Courts below. Accordingly the order of conviction is affirmed however, taken into consideration that the petitioner is suffering the proceeding for nearly 22 years, despite his right to have speedy justice, I am of the view that ends of justice would be met if the petitioner instead of being sent to Correctional Home is directed to deposit a sum Rs. 10,000/- by 30^th September, 2022. In case of failure on the part of the petitioner to deposit fund learned Senior Municipal Magistrate will be at liberty to issue nonbailable warrant or arrest against the petitioner and to send him to Correctional Home for serving out the sentence as directed by the learned Trial Court on 17^th January, 2002 in Case No. 6D of 2000.

¶12

With the observation the Revisional Application being no. CRR 2155 of 2005 is disposed of.

¶13

Parties to act on the server copy of this judgement duly downloaded from the official website of this Court.

¶14

The copy of the judgement be sent down to learned Trial Court for information and necessary action.

¶15

¶16

Urgent Photostat certified copy of this judgement, if applied for, should be made available to the parties upon compliance with the requisite formalities.

¶17

(SIDDHARTHA ROY CHOWDHURY, J.)

Susovan Roy v. State

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Susovan Roy v. State

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Uttam Kr Chatterjees Vs State of West Bengal & Anr.

Basudeb Sharma Vs State

Uttam Harijan Vs State

Sufian Sk. Vs State

Jyotindra Nath Daradi Vs State

Ranjan Mitra @ Devendra Singh Vs State