Partly allowed

Dibakar Nag v. Debasis Roy

Calcutta HC16 Jan 2023CRR/91/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a revision under CrPC 401/482, the High Court upheld the conviction for selling adulterated lozenges but modified the sentence, substituting the original fine and simple imprisonment with a requirement to pay Rs. 25,000 to the Legal Services Authority and State of West Bengal.

What did the court decide?

Modified sentence to payment of fine Rs. 25,000 to be shared between District Legal Services Authority and State of West Bengal, with liberty to trial court to execute imprisonment on default.

Dibakar Nag Vs Debasis Roy — Calcutta HC (2023) — LawSathi Research

16.1.2023

20 Sc

CRR 91 OF 2008

-------

In Re: - An application under Section 401 read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

¶6

And

¶7

In the matter of: Dibakar Nag

….Petitioner

Mr. Debjit Sahani

…For the Petitioner

Mr. Narayan Prasad Agarwala

¶12

Mr. Pratik Bose.

¶13

Heard Mr. Debjit Sahani, learned counsel for the petitioner who has challenged the order of conviction passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate and affirmed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, 2^nd Court, Nadia on 17^th December, 2007.

¶14

It is contended by Mr. Sahani, learned counsel that the petitioner being a retailer procured the lozenges from the manufacturer against a receipt. This fact is sufficient to protect the petitioner from the clutches of law.

¶15

Learned trial Court did not consider this aspect as laid down under Section 14 of the Prevention of Adulteration Act, 1954 (hereafter the PFA Act).

¶16

Upon perusal of records I do not find any such document was tendered in course of trial from the side of the accused person who discharged his obligation as laid down under Section 14 of the PFA Act.

¶17

Mr. Sahani with all fairness submits that the original receipt was given to the Food Inspector but he has no document to

¶18

¶19

substantiate such claim. It further transpires that no attempt was made on behalf of the accused persons to challenge the Chemical Examination Report. practically the accused persons have waived the statutory right and thereby accepted the fact that the product sold by him was adulterated and thereby he has made himself culpable for committing offence and he has been rightly punished by the learned trial court to serve out sentence of Simple Imprisonment for a terms of six months and also to pay a fine of Rs.1000/-(Rupees one thousand only) with a default clause in the order of the trial court, as have already indicated, has been affirmed by the learned appellate court.

¶20

However, considering the age of the proceeding and the anxiety of the petitioner for the last twenty-six years, though I do not find any reason to interfere with the order of conviction, however, I am inclined to interfere with the sentencing part of the judgment.

¶21

In my opinion, ends of justice would be made if the petitioner is directed to pay a fine of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees twenty-five thousand only) out of which Rs.15,000/- (Rupees fifteen thousand only) to be paid to the District Legal Services Authority, Nadia within two weeks from the date and Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only) to the State of West Bengal failing which, learned trial court shall have the liberty to take all necessary steps to make the petitioner serve out sentence as imposed by the learned trial court.

¶22

Let a copy of the judgment be sent down to the learned trial court for information.

¶23

¶24

Accordingly, this revisional application stands disposed of. With the disposal of this revisional application pending application, if any, also stands disposed of.

¶25

Photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for , be furnished expeditiously.

¶26

(Siddhartha Roy Chowdhury, J.)

Dibakar Nag v. Debasis Roy

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dibakar Nag v. Debasis Roy

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

Malay Roy and Ors. Vs the State of West Bengal and Anr.

Palatok Ghosh Vs State of West Bengal and Ors.

Palatok Ghosh Vs State of West Bengal and Ors.

Akhilesh Kumar Singh & Ors. Vs State of West Bengal & Anr.

Arun Rai Vs a.K.Mondal

Akhilesh Kumar Singh & Ors. Vs the State of W.B. & Ors.