IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BANGLADESH

HIGH COURT DIVISION

(Criminal Revisional Jurisdiction)

Present

Mr. Justice Md. Salim

And

Mr. Justice Shahed Nuruddin

CRIMINAL REVISION NO. 1325 OF 2018

Mahbub Kadir Shahi

............Accused-Petitioner.

-VERSUS- The State and another

.....Opposite parties. No one appears                    ------- For both the parties. Mr. B.M. Abdur Rafell, D.A.G. with

Mr. Binoy Kumar Ghosh, AAG

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

Ms. Lily Rani Saha, AAG            .......For the State.

Heard and Judgment on 23.11.2023 Shahed Nuruddin,J:

By this Rule, the accused-petitioner by filing an application

under Section 439 read with section 435 of the Code of Criminal Procedure  sought  for  setting  aside  the  order  dated  13.03.2018  in  Sessions Case No. 1685 of 2017 arising out of G.R. Case No. 192 of 2014 corresponding to Kotwali Model Police Station Case No. 33 dated 28.06.2014 under Sections 143/341/302/34 of the Penal Code, now  pending  before  the  learned  Additional  Metropolitan  Sessions Judge, Sylhet.

Material  facts  leading  to  this  Rule  are  that  the  allegation brought against the accused-petitioner is punishable under sections 143/341/302/34 of the Penal Code.

The learned Magistrate took cognizance of the offence and later charge was framed by the learned trial Court. The case is now pending for trial.

Feeling aggrieved the accused petitioner preferred the instant application and obtained the present Rule on 22.05.2018.

Heard 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  trial  Court  after  considering  the  entire materials on record rightly framed charge under same section against the  accused.  Moreso,  in  defence  the  accused  denied  the  entire allegations. So, when there is such denial, the question of innocence does not arise with this regard reliance has been placed in the case of Abdur  Rahim  alias  A.N.M  Abdur  Rahman  Vs.  Enamul  Haq  and another reported in 43 DLR (AD) 173. In the instant case the accused stand indicted for offence punishable under sections 143/341/302/34 of the Penal Code. Charge has been framed under the said 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 application under Section 439 read with section 435 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and we find that such grounds are absolutely the disputed question of facts and the same should be decided at the trial. The pleas of the petitioners are nothing but the defence plea. Be that as it may the proposition of law is now well settled that on the basis of defence plea or materials the criminal proceedings should not be stifled before trial; when there is a prima-facie case for going for trial. In view of such facts, the grounds taken  in  the  application  of  Criminal  Revision  are  not  the  correct exposition of law. Moreso interruption of the course of Justice will set up a wrong precedent by which the course of justice instead of being advanced  readily  been  stifled  inasmuch  as  the  grounds  advanced before us are not correct or legal exposition of law. Therefore we hold that there are sufficient grounds for proceeding against the accused for going for trial under the same section. To that end in view we are at one  with  learned  Judge  of  the  Court  below  regarding  framing  of charge against the accused. In view of the above we failed to discover any merit in this Rule. Thus the Rule having no merit fails.

Since the ground taken by the petitioner is disputed question of fact  and  all  the  submissions  are  settled  principle  by  the  Hon’ble Appellate Division.

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

In view  of 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