Partly allowed

Jyotindra Nath Daradi v. State

Calcutta HC14 Sept 2022CRR/2201/2002

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this CCR, the Court modified the affirmed conviction by altering the sentence from imprisonment to a Rs. 2,000 fine to meet the ends of justice, citing the significant delay between the appeal's disposal and the present petition.

What did the court decide?

The petitioner shall pay a fine of Rs. 2,000 instead of serving the sentence of imprisonment failing which he shall have to serve out the sentence.

Jyotindra Nath Daradi Vs State — Execution and Attachment | Calcutta HC (2022)

¶1

14.9.2022 8 AB Ct. No.236

¶2

CRR 2201 of 2002

¶3

In the matter of : Jyotindra Nath Daradi

¶4

Mr. Prabir Majumder Mr. Snehansu Majumder Mr. Avik Chatterjee … for the petitioner Mr. Amajit De … for the UOI

¶5

This proceeding comes out of an application under Section 401 read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed by the petitioner challenging the judgment passed by the learned Appellate Court in Criminal Appeal No. 5 of 1999 affirming the order of conviction and sentence imposed by the learned Trial Court in case No. C/561 of 1994 for committing offence punishable under Section 3(a) of Railway Property (Unlawful possession) Act, 1966 and to suffer simple imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.500/-.

¶6

Mr. Prabir Majumder, learned advocate appearing for the petitioner fairly submits that the order of conviction was passed on 12.11.1998 by the learned Trial Court and the Criminal Appeal was disposed of by the learned Appellate Court on 10^th April, 2002. The petitioner has been enduring the trauma of the order of conviction and sentence for last twenty years.

¶7

Mr. Amajit De, learned advocate representing the Railway Authority submits that there is no infirmity to be found in the

¶8

judgment passed by the learned Trial Court affirmed by the learned Appellate Court. The petition may therefore dismissed.

¶9

In view of the concurrent findings of the learned Court below, I am not inclined to interfere with the order of conviction, however, considering the yawning gap of time from the date of disposal of the Criminal Appeal till this day. I am inclined to alter the order of sentence. In my view that ends of justice would be met if the petitioner is directed to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/- instead of asking him to serve out the sentence of improvement. The judgment of learned Trial Court duly affirmed by the learned Appellate Court is thus modified.

¶10

The petitioner shall pay the fine within 10^th November, 2022 before the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Krishnagar failing which the petitioner shall have to serve out sentence. If necessary, learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Krishnagar shall open a skeleton record and receive fine.

¶11

The revisional application is thus disposed of.

¶12

The interlocutory application, if any stands disposed of.

¶13

Parties to act on server copy of the order.

¶14

Let a copy of the order be sent to learned Trial Court for

¶15

information and necessary action.

¶16

(Siddhartha Roy Chowdhury, J.)

Jyotindra Nath Daradi v. State

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jyotindra Nath Daradi 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

Ranjan Mitra @ Devendra Singh Vs State

Susovan Roy Vs State