PARIMAL KUNDU Vs. STATE AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) To wriggle out from the situation arising out of the conviction and an order of sentence passed by the learned Trial Court the petitioner nereinabove preferred an appeal which met with the same fate.

(2.) To countenance the fate suffered by the petitioner in both the Forums the present Revisional Application has been taken out on his behalf being directed against the judgment and order dated 13.8.98 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, third Court, Krishnanagar, Nadia in Criminal Appeal No. 3 of 1992 thereby affirming the conviction and sentence passed by the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Ranaghat in case No. C-133 of 1988.

(3.) Pursuant to a petition of complaint (Ext. 7) filed by the second respondent (the petitioner hereinabove) was arrayed before the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Ranaghat to answer both charges under Sec. 135(1)(b) of the Customs Act, 1962 and Sec. 85(ii) of the Gold (Control) Act, 1968 (hereinafter referred to as "the said Act"1 for having in his possession three pieces of gold biscuits concealed in his pelvic cavity, which were primary gold of foreign origin valued at Rs. 1114,598.80.00.