Gauhati High Court
Md. Badrul Hussain vs The State Of Assam on 12 August, 2025
Page No.# 1/3
GAHC010010182012
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : Crl.Rev.P./564/2012
MD. BADRUL HUSSAIN
RESIDENT OF KABAITARY UNDER LOGIGHOPA POLICE STATION IN THE
DIST. OF BONGAIGAON, ASSAM,
VERSUS
THE STATE OF ASSAM
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR.K BHATTACHARJEE, MR.J C BARMAN,MS.M
BHATTACHARJEE,MR.D BANERJEE
Advocate for the Respondent : , ,,PP, ASSAM
BEFORE
HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE YARENJUNGLA LONGKUMER
ORDER
Date : 12.08.2025
1. Heard Mr. K. Bhattacharyya, learned counsel for the accused/petitioner.
Also heard Ms. S. H. Bora, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor, Assam, appearing for
the State respondent.
2. This revision petition under Sections 397/401 of the Cr. P.C., 1974 has
Page No.# 2/3
been filed by the petitioner, namely Md. Badrul Hussain against the impugned
judgment dated 05.10.2012, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge
(F.T.C.), Bongaigaon, Assam in Criminal Appeal No. 29(3)/2011 upholding the
judgment passed on 06.09.2011 by the learned S.D.J.M.(S), Bongaigaon in C.R.
Case No. 155/2007 under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, whereby
the accused/petitioner was convicted under Section 7 of the Essential
Commodities Act and sentenced to suffer simple imprisonment for 2 (two)
months and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- and in default simple imprisonment for
another 15 (fifteen) days.
3. The learned counsel for the accused/ petitioner submits that there is no
proper appreciation of the evidence on record by the learned trial Court as well
as the appellate Court to show that the petitioner has committed offence as
alleged. It is stated that there is no evidence on record to show that the
accused/ petitioner did not issue cash memo to the buyers for sale of salt. The
other grounds that have been taken by the accused/ petitioner is that the
accused/ petitioner had no knowledge about the display of the stock and price
list of the trade article to be shown in the display board.
4. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the accused/ petitioner that the
accused/ petitioner being a small retail shop owner has no knowledge about
such display of the stock and price list, which had to be put on the display
board. In view of the above, learned counsel for the accused/ petitioner has
submitted that the judgment dated 05.10.2012, passed by the learned
Additional Sessions Judge (F.T.C.), Bongaigaon, Assam in Criminal Appeal No.
29(3)/2011 may be modified to the extent that the simple imprisonment for 2
(two) months may be set aside and fine of Rs. 500/- may be modified and
Page No.# 3/3
instead of imprisonment, fine amount may be increased.
5. This Court has gone the through the pleadings and the materials on record
including the impugned judgment and order dated 05.10.2012. The learned
Addl. Public Prosecutor has not disputed the submission of the
accused/petitioner about the facts of display of the stock on the board and
about the fact that the petitioner is a retail shop owner and not a whole
seller.
6. I have gone through pleadings and the Clause 17 of the A.T.A.(L & C)
Order, 1982. It is an admitted fact that the petitioner is a retail shop owner and
not a whole seller. In view of the above, this Court is of the view that the
impugned judgment dated 05.10.2012, passed by the learned Additional
Sessions Judge (F.T.C.), Bongaigaon, Assam, in Criminal Appeal No. 29(3)/2011
can be modified to the extent that the sentence of simple imprisonment for 2
(two) months can be altered to a fine of Rs. 1000/- and sentence of simple
imprisonment can be quashed and set aside and it is accordingly ordered.
7. The revision petition is disposed of by quashing the sentence of 2 (two)
months simple imprisonment. The fine of Rs. 500/- is enhanced to Rs. 1000/-
8. The Registry is directed to return the trial Court record.
JUDGE
Comparing Assistant
