Jyotindra Nath Daradi vs Unknown
2022 Latest Caselaw 6578 Cal

14.9.2022

AB Ct. No.236

CRR 2201 of 2002

In the matter of : Jyotindra Nath Daradi

Mr. Prabir Majumder Mr. Snehansu Majumder Mr. Avik Chatterjee ... for the petitioner

Mr. Amajit De ... for the UOI

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/-.

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 10th April, 2002.

The petitioner has been enduring the trauma of the order of

conviction and sentence for last twenty years.

Mr. Amajit De, learned advocate representing the Railway

Authority submits that there is no infirmity to be found in the judgment passed by the learned Trial Court affirmed by the

learned Appellate Court. The petition may therefore dismissed.

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.

The petitioner shall pay the fine within 10th 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.

The revisional application is thus disposed of.

The interlocutory application, if any stands disposed of.

Parties to act on server copy of the order.

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

information and necessary action.

(Siddhartha Roy Chowdhury, J.)