IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BANGLADESH

APPELLATE DIVISION

PRESENT:

Mr. Justice Hasan Foez Siddique,C.J. Mr. Justice Md. Nuruzzaman

Mr. Justice Borhanuddin

  Mr. Justice M. Enayetur Rahim

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.89 OF 2016

(Arising out of Criminal Petition No.154 of 2011)

(From the judgment and order dated the 5th August, 2009 passed by a Division Bench of the High Court Division in Criminal Miscellaneous Case No.7970 of 2007)

The State  

Md. Ramizuddin and another  For the Appellant

For the Respondents Heard and Judgment

:                                                                                                  .  .   .  Appellant -Versus-

:                                                                                                  . .  . Respondents

:                                                                                                  Mr.  Samarendra  Nath  Biswas,  Deputy Attorney  General  instructed  by  Mr. Haridas Paul, Advocate-on-Record

:                                                                                                  Mr.  S.M.  Shahjahan,  Senior  Advocate instructed  by  Mr.  Syed  Mahbubar Rahman, Advocate-on-Record

:                                                                                                  The 19th day of October, 2022

J UD G M E N T

M. Enayetur Rahim, J: This appeal, by leave, is directed against the judgment and order dated 05.08.2009 passed by the High Court Division in Criminal Miscellaneous Case No.7970 of 2007 arising out of Metro. Sessions Case No.177 of 2007 corresponding to G.R. No.691 of 2006 and Tejgaon Police Station Case No.27 dated 15.11.2006 under section 22(Ga) of the Madok Drabbya Neontron Ain,1990 making the Rule absolute.

The relevant facts for disposal of the appeal are as follows:

On 15.11.2006 one Md. Mojaffor Hossain S.I., Rab-2, Mohammadpur Camp, Dhaka after arresting the present respondents along with 13 others lodged a First Information Report (FIR) with the Tejgaon Police Station alleging, inter alia, that on getting secret information the informant party raided the house of accused-Victor Rojario and they found the present respondents sitting on a sofa at the drawing room of the said house; they disclosed their identity as Police Officer. From the said house the informant party recovered some bottles of liquor and found that the accused gathered there for immoral purpose.

On the basis of the said First Information Report Tejgaon Police Station Case No.27 dated 15.11.2006 under section 22(Ga) of the Madok Drabbya Neontron Ain,1990 was started.

After investigation police submitted charge sheet against 15 persons including the present petitioner under section 22(Ga) of the Madok Drabbya Neontron Ain,1990.

The case being ready for trial the case record was transmitted to the Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Dhaka for trial which was registered as Metropolitan Sessions Case No.177 of 2007 and eventually, case was transferred to the Court of learned Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, 3rd Court, Dhaka.

At this stage, the present accused-respondents filed an application under section 561A of the Code of Criminal Procedure before the High Court Division for quashing the proceeding. Initially a Rule was issued and proceeding was stayed. Eventually, a Division Bench of the High Court Division after hearing the Rule made the same absolute and quashed the impugned proceeding so far it relates to the present accused-respondents.

Against the said judgment and order the State has preferred criminal petition for leave to appeal No.154 of 2011 and leave was granted.

Thus, this appeal.

Mr. Samarandra Nath Biswas, learned Deputy Attorney General, appearing for the appellant submits that the trial Court having found prima-facie case against the respondents framed charge against them under section 22(ga) of the Madok Drabbya Neontron Ain,1990 and falsity or truthiness of the allegation is to be decided at the trial and thus, the High Court Division committed serious error in making the Rule absolute holding that without considering the fact that in the FIR and charge sheet prima-facie offence has been disclosed against the respondents.

However, Mr. S.M. Shahjahan, learned Senior Advocate, appearing for the respondents submits that from the plain reading of the FIR and charge sheet it transpires that no offence under section 22(Ga) of the Madok Drabbya Neontron Ain,1990 has been disclosed against the respondents. The alleged liquor were not recovered from the exclusive possession of the present respondents and thus, the High Court Division rightly and lawfully quashed the proceeding and the present appeal is liable to be set aside.

We have considered the submissions of the learned Advocate for the respective parties, perused the impugned judgment as well as FIR and charge sheet and other materials as placed before us.

From the FIR and charge sheet it transpires that the alleged liquor were recovered from the dining room of the house of accused-Victor Rojario and the accused persons gathered in that house for some immoral purpose. The FIR and charge sheet do not disclose that the present respondents had the exclusive possession of the liquor in question or they abetted accused-Victor Rojario to commit such offence.

Section 22(Ga) of the Madok Drabbya Neontron Ain,1990 deals with the punishment of runs as follows;

""২২৷            এই  ই           -

 ( ) ই               ৯ (৩) ( ) এ                  ,      ই           ২     এ       ১০                    ই   এ  ই                      ই  ; ( )                        ৯ (৩) ( )  (গ) এ                  ,      ই           ২                ৫                   ভ           ই  ;

 (গ) ই               ১০(১) এ                  ,      ই          ২     এ       ১০                    ই   এ  ই                      ই  ;

 (ঘ)                   ১০ (২) এ              ,      ই           ২              ৫                   ভ           ই  ৷”

Section 9 and 10 of the said Ain are as follows:

""৯৷ (১) এ                                   ,      ,           ,   ,

     ,      ,     ,      , ,    ,    ,     , গ         ,      14[   গ  

          ই   ,     এ                       গ   ,         গ          

         ,                             ই   ]৷

 (২)                            এই                          ,      ,

,   ,      ,      ,     ,      ,   ,    ,    ,     , গ         ,      15[, গ]             ই   ৷

 (৩)   -    (১)   (২) এ        ই         ,    -                       ,

              ই                    16[ঔ              ,       ]      

       গ                ই     এই  ই          -

( ) ই      17[      ,]                 ,      ,     ,      , ,    ,

   ,     , গ                     ই ;

18[( )             গ             ই ;]

(গ)                      ই ৷

19[(৪)   -    (৩) এ            ,         এ         

                    ই ৷ (৫)                            ,      

                                   ,       ,          ,        গ            ,               ঔ                গ             ,   ,      ,    গ                 এই             ই        ই   ৷]

and

১০৷ (১) এই  ই           ই                  -

 ( )                                       ;

 ( )     এ             ,           ,   ,      ,      ,     ,      , ,    ,    ,     , গ         ,                           ;

 (গ)     এ        ঔ                                      ৷

 (২) এই  ই                             এ                        ; এ                        ভ                               ভ গ          গ                         ভ                   এ                             

ই    20[:

           ,-

( )    ,    ,    ,   গ           -    গ                 ই          , এ  

( )   গ   ,           গ                      -    গ           গ ভ   

-    গ                 , এই -            ই       

 ই   ৷]

(৩) -    (২) এ                      গ             এ                        ই    গ               ই এ            

            ই ৷

(৪) এই             ই         ,            গ    ই         এ      এ        

              ৷

(৫)                           গ                         ই              গ      এ                         এ             ,     , ,   ,                    এই             ই        ই   ৷

21[১০ ৷     ৯   ১০ এ              ,     ,               ,       এ        এ  এ                                                          ই ৷]”

and section 25 of the said runs as follows;

""২৫৷         এই  ই                 ঘ                                    

                   ই  34[    এ                গ              ],       ঘ           ,          ৩     এ       ১৫                  ই   এ  ই                      ই  ৷”

If we consider the above law coupled with the allegation made against the accused, we are of the view that the allegation as brought against the present respondents does not come within the mischief of the above provisions of law.

It transpires from the FIR that so many persons gathered in the house of accused-Victor Rojario for immoral purpose. But this fact does not constituted any offence within the mischief of section 22(Ga) or any other sections of the Madok Drabbya Neontron Ain,1990.

In view of the above, it is our considered opinion that there is no illegality and infirmity in the impugned judgment passed by the High Court Division, which calls for interfered by us.

Thus, we find no merit in the appeal.

Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed without any order as to cost.     

C.J. J.

B/O.Imam Sarwar/ Total Wards:1,586