Afjal Hossain v. State
Case brief
What is this about?
The High Court modified the passed order of conviction. Instead of imprisonment, the petition is directed to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000 within 10 days; failure to pay necessitates serving the sentence.
What did the court decide?
Conviction affirmed but sentence modified to a fine of Rs. 5,000 payable in 10 days; default leads to imprisonment.
What the court decided
12.9.2022 11 SB Ct. No.236
CRR 723 of 2005 CRAN 1 of 2006
In the matter of : Afjal Hossain
Mr. Prabir Majumder Mr. S. Majumder … for the petitioner Mr. N. P. Agarwal Mr. Pratick Bose … for the State
This revisional application is directed against the judgment passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court-I, Krishnanagar, Nadia in Criminal Appeal No. 20 of 2004 affirming the judgement passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nadia in Complaint Case No. 321(C) of 1999 registered under Sections 16(1)(a)(ii) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. The learned Trial Court having considered the materials made available, recorded an order of conviction directing the petitioner to undergo simple imprisonment of six months and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- with a default clause which has been affirmed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court-I. The impugned order was passed by learned Appellate Court on 28th February, 2005 while the proceeding was initiated in the year 1999.
In view of the concurrent findings of the learned Trial Court and learned Appellate Court below, I do not find any reason to interfere with the order of conviction. However, considering, the passage of time elapsed, I am of the view that ends of justice
would be met if the petitioner is directed to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/instead of asking him to serve out the sentence. The judgement of learned Trial Court duly affirmed by the learned Appellate Court is thus modified.
The petitioner shall pay the fine within 10 days from date before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nadia failing which the petitioner shall have to serve sentence. If necessary, learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nadia shall open a skeleton record and receive fine.
Issues for consideration
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the conviction under Section 16(1)(a)(ii) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act in a 1999 case should be set aside considering the passage of time elapsed.
Parties & counsel
- petitioner
Afjal Hossain
- respondent
State
Coram
Siddhartha Roy Chowdhury
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
- Court
- Calcutta HC
- Decided on
- · September
- Registered
- Case no.
- CRR/723/2005
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court