IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BANGLADESH

HIGH COURT DIVISION

(CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS JURISDICTION)

Present

Mr. Justice Md. Salim

And

Mr. Justice Shahed Nuruddin

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS CASE NO. 11250 OF 2021

Md. Abdus Sattar Mia ............Accused-Petitioner.

-VERSUS-

The State and another ...Opposite Parties. None appears

............ For the petitioner. Mr. Md. Taufiqul Islam, Advocate

......For the Opposite Party No.2.

Mr. B.M. Abdur Rafell, DAG with

Mr. Binoy Kumar Ghosh, A.A.G.

Mr. A.T.M. Aminur Rahman (Milon), AAG

Ms. Lily Rani Saha, AAG

..............For the State.

Heard and Judgment on: 31.01.2024.

SHAHED NURUDDIN,J:

By this Rule, the accused-petitioner by filing an application  under  Section  561A  of  the  Code  of Criminal Procedure sought to quash the proceedings of  Metropolitan  Sessions  Case  No.17643  of  2019 arising out of C.R. Case No.423 of 2019 under Section 138  of  the  Negotiable  Instruments  Act,1881,  now pending  before  the  learned  Additional  Metropolitan Sessions Judge, 1st Court, Dhaka.

Material facts leading to this Rule are that, in order  to  discharge  the  loan  liability  the  accused petitioner gave the cheque to the complainant which on  presentation  to  the  bank  for  encashment  was dishonored  on  the  ground  of  payment  stopped  by drawer. Following the procedure and in compliance with statutory provisions laid down in section 138 of the  Negotiable  Instruments  Act,1881  the complainant filed the instant case.

The learned Magistrate took cognizance of the offense and subsequently, the charge was framed by the Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, 1st Court, Dhaka. The case is now pending for trial.

Feeling  aggrieved  the  accused  petitioner preferred  the  instant  application  and  obtained  the present Rule on 28.02.2021.

Heard the learned Advocates and the learned Deputy Attorney General and perused the record.

On  exploration  of  the  materials  on  record,  it transpires that the complainant categorically narrated the manner of crime committed by the accused. The learned Judge after considering the entire materials on record rightly framed the charge under the same section  against  the  accused  petitioner.  Moreso,  in defence the accused denied the entire allegations. So, when there is such denial, the question of innocence does not arise in this regard reliance has been placed on  the  case  of  Abdur  Rahim  alias  A.N.M  Abdur Rahman Vs. Enamul Haq and another reported in 43 DLR (AD) 173. Moreover, we can also rely upon the cases reported in 68 DLR (AD) 298, 72 DLR (AD) 79, and  the  case  of  Phoenix  Finance  and  Investment Limited  (PFIL)  Vs.  Yeasmin  Ahmed  and  another reported in XVIII ADC (AD) 490. In the instant case, the accused stand indicted for an offense punishable under the same section. Cognizance has been taken as  well  the  charge  has  been  framed  against  the accused petitioner under the same section. We have meticulously examined the allegations made by the complainant and we find that the offence punishable under the above offence has been clearly disclosed in the instant case against the accused. We have gone through  the  grounds  taken  in  the  petition  of Miscellaneous Case and we find that such grounds

Therefore  we  hold  that  there  are  sufficient grounds for proceeding against the accused petitioner for going to trial under the same section. To that end, view, we are at one with the learned Judge of the Court  below  regarding  the  framing  of  the  charge against the accused.

 In the light of the discussions made above and the preponderant judicial views emerging out of the authorities referred to above we are of the view that the  impugned  proceedings  suffer  from  no  legal infirmities  which  calls  for  no  interference  by  this Court.

In view of the foregoing narrative, the Rule is discharged. The order of stay granted earlier stands vacated.

The  office  is  directed  to  communicate  the judgment at once.

MD. SALIM, J:

I agree.

Hanif/BO