Research › Search › Judgment

Calcutta High Court · body

2002 DIGILAW 3 (CAL)

Ajit Kumar Dutta v. State

2002-01-07

Nure Alam Chowdhury

body2002
Judgment Nure Alam Chowdhury, J. This revisonal application on behalf of the two petitioners Ajit Kumar Dutta and Amrita Kumar Dutta is directed against the judgment and order dated March 16, 1994 passed by ld. Additional Sessions Judge, Suri, in Criminal Appeal No. 17 of 1993, dismissing the appeal and confirming the judgment and order passed by the ld. C.J.M., Birbhum on April 26, 1993 in Criminal Case No. 191/91, convicting the appellant under section 16(1)(a)(i) read with section 7(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 as amended in 1976 and sentencing each of the petitioners herein to suffer R.I. for 6 months and to pay fine of Rs.2000/- each and default to suffer, R.I. for three months. 2. The complainant's case, in brief, is that on 20.8.91 during inspection of the grocery shop of the petitioner No.1, Ajit Kumar Dutta at Ahmadpur Bazar, Sub-Divisional Food Inspector, Sadar Sub-Division, Sayed Nasiruddin (P.W. 1) found articles of foodstaff, namely Besan stored and exposed for sale, P.W. 1, then purchased a sample of the said "Besan" from the petitioner No.2, Amrita Kumar Dutta, in presence of the petitioner No. I, and the witnesses and sent one part of the sample to the public analyst for analysis and the other two parts were kept in the safe custody of ACMO(H) Sadar, Birbhum and Local (Health) Authority, Sadar Sub-Division, Birbhum. The report of the analyst showed that the food-sample namely "Besan" was adulterated. 3. Accordingly both the petitioners were tried in the Court of the ld. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Birbhum, on the charge punishable under section 16(1)(a)(i) as amended read with section 7(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and convicted and sentenced as above and the said conviction and sentence of both the petitioners have also been confirmed by judgment and order of the ld. Additional Sessions Judge on appeal by the petitioners in this court. 4. I have heard the ld. Advocates for the parties and passed and considered all the materials and evidence on record including both the judgments of both the courts below. Additional Sessions Judge on appeal by the petitioners in this court. 4. I have heard the ld. Advocates for the parties and passed and considered all the materials and evidence on record including both the judgments of both the courts below. It appears that both the trial court and the appellate court have all the materials on record extensively and I do not find anything illegal in the impugned judgment and order requiring interference with the same in the revisional jurisdiction of this court except in respect of the quantum of substantive sentence of imprisonment in view of long pendency of the case for more than ten years since the initiation of the proceeding. 5. This revisional application is heard as a contested application is therefore disposed of with commutation of sentence of R.I. for six months to S.I. for three months with sentence of fine remaining unaltered. 6. Interim order of stay of realisation of fine on the petitioners is vacated. Both the petitioners are directed to surrender to their bail bonds forthwith to serve out the sentence. There will be no order as to costs. Revisional application disposed of with commutation.