দায়বর্জন বিবৃতি (DISCLAIMER)

এই ওয়েবসাইটে প্রকাশিত রায় বা আদেশ আপনি google translation এর মাধ্যমে বাংলায় দেখতে পাচ্ছেন তা সুপ্রীম কোর্ট কর্তৃক বাংলায় অনূদিত নয়। জনসাধারণের বিচার-প্রক্রিয়ায় সহজ অভিগম্যতা নিশ্চিতকরণের অভিপ্রায়ে বাংলায় অনূদিত রায়-আদেশ দেখার ব্যবস্থা রাখা হয়েছে। অনূদিত রায় বা আদেশের অনুলিপি সইমোহরী/জাবেদা নকলের (certified copy) বিকল্প হিসেবে অথবা অন্য কোন উদ্দেশ্যে ব্যবহার করা যাবে না। রায় ও আদেশ বাস্তবায়নের ক্ষেত্রে মামলার নথিতে বিধৃত মূল রায় বা আদেশ প্রণিধানযোগ্য।
Microsoft Word - CrlRevisionNo699of2012

  In The Supreme Court of Bangladesh

  High Court Division

  (Criminal Revisional Jurisdiction)

PRESENT:

         MR. JUSTICE ABU TAHER MD. SAIFUR RAHMAN

AND

              MR. JUSTICE KHANDAKER DILIRUZZAMAN

CRIMINAL REVISION NO. 699 of 2012

Bangladesh Krishi Bank.......….…...Accused petitioner 

-Versus-

The State.…...............Opposite party

Mr. Md. Faruk Hossain, Advcate

.........For the accused petitioner Mr. Imran Ahmed Bhuiyan, DAG with

Mr. Mehadi Hasan (Milon), AAG and

Ms. Aleya Khandker, AAG

........For the state

Heard on: 31.07.2023, 02.08.2023, 06.08.2023 and 16.08.2023 Judgment on: The 16th of August, 2023

ABU TAHER MD. SAIFUR RAHMAN, J.

This Rule was issued on an application filed by the accused petitioner under section 439 read with section 435 of the Code of Criminal Procedure calling upon the opposite parties to show cause as to why the impugned order  dated  13.02.2012  passed  by  the  Special  Judge, Kushtia in Special Case No. 07 of 2009 rejecting the petitioner’s  application  for  further  investigation  in Doulatpur Police Station Case No. 21 dated 20.06.2005 under sections 120B /409/ 419/ 420/ 467/ 468/ 471/ 109 of  the  Penal  Code  read  with  section  5(2)  of  the


1

Prevention  of  Corruption  Act,  1947  corresponding  to G.R. Case No. 121 of 2005 now pending in the Court of Special Judge, Kushtia should not be set aside and/or such other or further order or orders passed as to this Court may seem fit and proper.

At the time of issuance of the Rule, the Court was pleased to stay all further proceedings of the aforesaid Special Case No. 07 of 2009 for 3 (three) months from the date so far as it relates to the petitioner only which was subsequently extended till to disposal of the Rule.

For  the  purpose  of  disposal  of  the  Rule,  the relevant facts may briefly be stated as follows:

That one A.Z.M. Moniruzzaman, the sub-Inspector of  police  of  Doulatpur  police  station,  Kushtia  as  an informant  lodged  an  FIR  which  was  registered  as Doulatpur Police Station Case No. 21 dated 20.06.2005 under sections 409/420/467/468/471 of the Penal Code alleging inter alia that one Md. Abdur Razzaque, the then  Manager  of  Doulatpur  (Taragunia)  Branch  of Bangladesh Krishi Bank as an informant filed an FIR dated 20.05.2005 with the local police station which was registered as Doulatpur Police Station Case No. 11 dated 20.05.2005 under sections 406/420/467/468/471 of the Penal Code wherein it has been stated that the accused Alhaj  Nazrul  Islam  along  with  others  has  obtained various loan from the bank by way of depositing various fake  ‘Sanchoy  Patra’  and  thereby  misappropriate  the money amounting to Tk. 1,00,00,000/- (Taka one crore). After investigation of the said case, it transpires that the informant Manager Md. Abdur Razzaque himself was involved with the aforesaid offence and in connivance with each other misappropriated the money more than Tk. 1,00,00,000/- (Taka one crore) and accordingly he submitted a final report against Doulatpur Police Station Case No. 11 dated 20.05.2005 and with permission of his superior authority he filed the instant case against 6 (six) accused persons including the Manager Abdur Razzaque under sections 409/420/467/468/471 of the Penal Code. After investigation, police submitted a Charge Sheet No. 360 dated 31.12.2008 as against 10 (ten) accused persons under sections 409/420/467/468 but did not send up the name of Manager Abdur Razzaque in the said charge sheet.  Thereafter,  the  case  was  transferred  to  the Sessions Judge and Special Tribunal No. 1, Kushtia for trial which was registered as Special Case No. 03 of 2009  subsequently  it  was  renumbered  as  Special

Mr. Md. Faruk Hossain, the learned Advocate for the accused petitioner submits that the learned Special Judge,  Kushtia  committed  an  error  of  law  by  not considering the facts and circumstances of the case as mentioned  in  Police  Station  Case  No.  21  dated 20.06.2005  as  well  as  the  charge  sheet  and  thereby passed the impugned order which is liable to be set aside for the ends of justice.

Mr.  Imran  Ahmed  Bhuiyan,  the  learned  Deputy Attorney General for the state submits that regarding the same matter earlier one Md. Hajrat Ali, the Regional Manager  of  Bangladesh  Krishi  Bank,  Kushtia  filed  a Criminal Revision No. 1321 of 2009 before the Hon’ble High Court which was discharged vide its judgment and order dated 04.05.2011 and as such the learned Special Judge, Kushtia rightly passed the impugned order which does not call for any interference by this Court.

Heard the submissions of the learned Advocates of both  sides  and  perused  the  materials  on  record thoroughly.

On  perusal  of  the  petitioner’s  application  along with the impugned order, it transpires that the petitioner is neither an informant nor any accused of the instant case. Though the subject matter of the instant case is relates to the Bangladesh Krishi Bank. We have further noticed that regarding the same issue, the Zonal Manager of  Bangladesh  Krishi  Bank  earlier  filed  a  Criminal Revision  No.  1321  of  2009  before  the  Hon’ble  High Court  which  was  discharged  vide  order  dated 02.08.2009. Since the impugned issue has already been settled by the Hon’ble High Court, the learned Special Judge, Kushtia has rightly passed the impugned order which does not call for any interference by this Court under  the  jurisdiction  of  section  439  of  the  Code  of Criminal Procedure. 

Under  the  given  facts  and  circumstances  of  the case and the reasons as stated above, we do not find any substance of this Rule.

As a result, the Rule is discharged.

The order of stay granted earlier by this Court is hereby stand vacated.

The trial Court is hereby directed to proceed with the case expeditiously in accordance with the law.

Communicate this judgment and order at once.

Khandaker Diliruzzaman, J:

I agree

Ibrahim B.O.