Research › Search › Judgment

Tripura High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 279 (TRI)

Krishna Saha v. State of Tripura

2014-07-14

S.TALAPATRA

body2014
JUDGMENT S. Talapatra, J. 1. Heard Mr. D. Bhattacharji, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as Mr. R.C. Debnath, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor appearing for the state. 2. This petition filed under Section 397 read with Section 401 of the Cr.P.C. is directed against the judgment and order dated 08.09.2005, delivered in Criminal Appeal No. 25(3) of 2005 by the Sessions Judge, South Tripura, Udaipur. By the said judgment and order dated 09.09.2005, the judgment of conviction dated 28.06.2005, delivered in Case No. C.R.145/2005 by the Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Amarpur, South Tripura, has been affirmed. The Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate has convicted the petitioner under Section 45(b) of the Standards of Weights and Measures (Enforcement) Act, 1985 for committing the offence of not getting the measuring instrument verified even though the verification is a mandatory one and, sentenced to suffer simple imprisonment for six months and to pay fine of Rs.1,000, in default of payment of fine, to suffer further simple imprisonment for three months. By the impugned judgment, the appellate court has reduced the sentence to simple imprisonment for three months and to pay fine of Rs.500, in default thereof, to suffer further simple imprisonment for one month. 3. Mr. D. Bhattacharji, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that he would not challenge the findings of conviction, as non-verification of the measuring instrument has been established by the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt. But, he has contended that the notice by the Inspector of Weights and Measures, who was authorised to issue notice of compounding the offence with certain terms and conditions, was not received by the petitioner and, as such, he could not take that benefit before the formal prosecution was launched against him. 4. Mr. R.C. Debnath, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor appearing for the state has submitted that the petitioner had not taken such defence in the trial court. 5. Be that as it may, since there is no controversy that such non-verification has been committed by the petitioner for the first time, even though this court is not called for assessing the finding of conviction, but is of the view that the petitioner should not be directed to suffer the imprisonment. 6. Having held so, the findings of the conviction is affirmed having interfered with the sentence. The sentence is modified. 6. Having held so, the findings of the conviction is affirmed having interfered with the sentence. The sentence is modified. The petitioner shall pay a fine of Rs.1,000 (rupees one thousand) within 15(fifteen) days from today, in default thereof, to suffer simple imprisonment for 1(one) month. 7. In the result, this petition stands dismissed, subject to the modification in the sentence as directed. The bail bond shall remain in force till the fine amount is paid. Send down the LCRs forthwith.