h¡wm¡­cn p¤fË£j ®L¡  VÑ

q¡C­L¡VÑ ¢hi¡N      (®g±Sc¡l£ Bf£m A¢d­rœ) Ef¢ÙÛax

¢hQ¡lf¢a Se¡h ®j¡x Bnl¡g¥m L¡j¡m ­g±Sc¡l£ l¦m ew 284(Le-H)/ 2023

­j¡x ®j¡l­nc¤m qL j¤¢Lj

-----B¢fmL¡l£-clM¡Ù¹L¡l£z -he¡j-

l¡øÊ J AeÉ

------l¡øÊ-fТafrz

HÉ¡X­i¡­LV Ef¢ÙÛa e¡C

---B¢fmL¡l£-clM¡Ù¹L¡l£f­rz

                              HÉ¡X­i¡­LV ­j¡x ¢Nu¡pE¢Ÿe Bq­Çjc, ®Xf¤¢V HÉ¡Ve£Ñ ®Se¡­lm                                                              pw­N

HÉ¡X­i¡­LV m¡L£ ­hNj, pqL¡l£ HÉ¡Ve£ ®Se¡­lm

HÉ¡X­i¡­LV ®gl­c±p£ Bš²¡l, pqL¡l£ HÉ¡Ve£Ñ ®Se¡­lm             

-- l¡øÊ-fТafr f­rz  

öe¡e£  Hhw  l¡u  fËc¡­el  a¡¢lMx 03.03.2024z

¢hQ¡lf¢a Se¡h ®j¡x Bnl¡g¥m L¡j¡mx

Bf£mL¡l£-clM¡Ù¹L¡l£ La«ÑL a¡j¡¢c BC­el 5 d¡l¡l ¢hd¡e ®j¡a¡­hL ­g±Sc¡l£ Bf£m c¡­u­l 2953 (c¤C q¡S¡l euna ­aè¡æ) ¢ce ¢hmð jJL¥­gl clM¡Ù¹ c¡¢M­ml ®fË¢r­a Aœ ¢hi¡N q­a ¢ejÀh¢ZÑai¡­h l¦m¢V Cp¤É Ll¡ q­u¢  Rmx

“e¢b am­hl fË­u¡S e¡Cz

2953 (c¤C q¡S¡l euna ­aè¡æ) ¢ce ¢hm­ð Aœ clM¡Ù¹¢V c¡­ul Ll¡ quz a¡j¡¢c BC­el 5 d¡l¡ ®j¡a¡­hL Aœ ¢hmð ®L jJL¥g Ll¡ q­h e¡ Hhw Aœ Bc¡ma La«ÑL p¢WL Hhw kb¡kb j­e Ll­m BlJ AeÉ¡eÉ h¡ A¢a¢lš² B­cn h¡ B­cnpj¤q ®Le f Ëc¡e Ll¡ q­h e¡ j­j Ñf Ë¢af r à­ul f Ë¢a L¡lZ cnÑ¡­e¡f §hÑL l¦m

S¡l£ Ll¡ qmz

AcÉL¡l a¡¢lM q­a 10(cn) ¢c­el j­dÉ l¦m¢V S¡l£ q­u ®gla­k¡NÉz

Aœ l¦m¢V ¢eØf¢š e¡ qJu¡ fkÑ¿¹ Bp¡j£-clM¡Ù¹L¡l£ ®j¡x ­j¡l­nc¤m qL j¤¢Lj, ¢f a¡-­j¡x CS¡S¤m qL-­L ¢h‘ ¢hQ¡¢lL Bc¡ma LaÑL« f Ëcš ¢hNa Cw­lS£

23.10.2023 a¡¢l­Ml S¡¢je B­cn¢V Aœ l¦m¢V ¢eØf¢š e¡ qJu¡ fkÑ¿¹ hq¡m b¡L­hz

amh¡e¡ 02(c¤C) gcÑ 03(¢ae) LjÑ ¢ch­pl j­dÉ k¡l 01(HL) gcÑ ®l¢S¢øÊ X¡L¡­k¡­N Hhw AeÉ gcÑ ü¡i¡¢hL ¢eu­j c¡¢Mm Ll¡l SeÉ clM¡Ù¹L¡l£­L ¢e­cÑn fËc¡e Ll¡ q­m¡”z  

…l¦aÄf§ZÑ  ¢hd¡u  clM¡Ù¹L¡l£  LaѪL  c¡¢MmL«a  a¡j¡¢c BC­el d¡l¡ 5 Hl clM¡Ù¹¢Vl fÉ¡l¡ 1-8 ¢e­jÀ A¢hLm Ae¤¢mMe q­m¡x

1. That  this  criminal  appeal  is  preferred  by  the  convict-appellant- petitioner against the judgment and order dated 01.09.2015 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, 3rd Court Jessore in Sessions Case No. 877 of 2014 arising out of C.R. Case No. 96 of 2014, convicting  the  convict-appellant  under  section  138  of  Negotiable Instruments  Act,  1881  and  sentencing  him  to  suffer  simple imprisonment for 1(one) year and to pay a fine of Tk. 8,40,000/- (Eight Lacs and Forty Thousands) taka only with an observation that the imprisonment shall start from date of his arrest by the police or sufrrender of the convict-appellant before the court for serving out the sentence.
2. That it is stated that while the above Criminal Appeal was presented before the office of the Hon’ble Court on 28th November, 2023 the Stamp Reporter made a note on the body of the instant Appeal that “This Appeal u/s Cr. P.C. has been filed on 28.11.2023. It is out of time by 2953 days delay in respect of order dated 01.09.2015.”
3. That it is most humbly submitted that on 23.10.2023 the convict- appellant  could  managed  the  amount  required  for  appeal  and deposited Tk. 2,10,000/-(Two lacs and ten thousands) taka (i.e. half of the cheque amount) through challan and surrendered before leanred Additional  Sessions  Judge,  3rd  Court,  Jessore  on  23.10.2023  and submitted an application praying for grant of mercy in the form of enlarging him on bail in order to provide to him an opportunity of preferring  an  appeal  before  this  Hon’ble  court  as  against  the impugned judgment and order of conviction and sentence and learned court was kind enough to grant him the privilege of bail for limited period till 30.11.2023, vide order dated 23.10.2023, on furnishing a bail  by  one  lawyer  and  one  local  surety  and  thus  the  learned Additional Sessions Judge, 3rd Court, Jessore kindly provided to the convict-appellant  an  opportunity  of  preferring  appeal  before  this Hon’ble Court and the petitioner did not misuse the previledges of bail and hence the delay may be condoned by way of showing marcy.

4. That the petitioner’s learned advocate at Dhaka having received the certified  copy  of  the  impugned  order  along  with  other  necessary papers started drafting and preparing the required criminal appeal and completed typing of the same and finally prepared the instant criminal appeal till 27.11.2023 and presented the same to the office of the Hon’ble Court on 28.11.2023 and thus a delay of 2953 days occurred due to reasons/causes beyond the control of the petitioner, but  not  for  any  intentional  fault  or  latches  on  the  part  of  the petitioner.
5. That from the statement made in paragraph 3-4 above, it is apparent that  time  from  01.09.2015  (date  of  pronouncement  of  impugned order) to 28.11.2023 was spent as the petitioner could not know the procedure as his engaged learned advocate, due to inadvertent or mistake, did not inform the petitioner the procedure of case and if he could know the procedure of case; that time he would approach.
6. That it is submitted that the delay of 2953 days in filing this Criminal Appeal has been caused not for any intentional or wilful fault or latches on the part of the Appellant-petitioner or his tadbirkar or his learned  advocate  or  the  cleark  of  his  learned  advocate,  but  for unavoidable circumstances/causes and reasons beyond the control of the appellant-petitioner.

7. That it is submitted that in the event of not condoning the delay of 2953  days  in  filing  this  instant  criminal  appeal,  the  appellant- petitioner shall be deprived of his legal right of getting justice from this Hon’ble Court for no fault of his own, but for causes or reasons beyond his control, though the complainant-petitioner has very good grounds for getting his desired relief in this instant Criminal Appeal involving most vital law points. Further in the event of not condoning the aforesaid delay of 2953 days in presenting the instant Criminal Appeal, the present appellant-petitioner shall suffer irreparable loss and injury which loss and injury shall never be recovereable in future in  any  way,  though  he  was  prevented  by  sufficient  cause  from preferring this Criminal Appeal in time.
8. That it is most humbly submitted that in the event of not condoning delay  of  2953  days  in  presenting  the  instant  criminal  revision application, the appellant-petitioner haiving good ground for getting his desired relief would be deprived of his legal right of getting a judicial verdict from the higher judiciary upon ventilating her causes of grievances before the Hon’ble Court.

 Aœ a¡j¡¢cl clM¡Ù¹ fkÑ¡­m¡Qe¡ Llm¡jz B¢j p¡S¡f¡Ëç-Bf£mL¡l£ f­r l ¢h‘

HÉ¡X­i¡­LV Hl a¡j¡¢c clM¡­Ù¹l p¡lhš¡ f¡Cz haÑj¡e ®j¡LŸj¡u a¡j¡¢c Bq~­el 5 d¡l¡l

clM¡Ù¹¢V  k­bø  k¤¢š²k¤š²  Hhw  Hl  hÉ¡MÉ¡  p­¿¹¡oSeLz  Ef¢l¢õ¢Ma  AhÙÛ¡d£­e  l¦m¢V Q§s¡¿¹­k¡NÉz

AaHh, B­cn qu ®k, Aœ l¦m¢V ¢he¡ MlQ¡u Q¥s¡¿¹ Ll¡ q­m¡z

p¡S¡fË¡ç-Bf£mL¡l£  ­g±Sc¡l£  L¡k¢Ñh¢dl  10  d¡l¡u  ®g±Sc¡l£  Bf£m  c¡¢M­m 2953 (c¤C q¡S¡l euna ®aè¡æ) ¢ce ¢hmð jJL¥g Ll¡ q­m¡z

Aœ Bf£m¢V BCe ®j¡a¡­hL ­l¢S¢øÊi¨¢š²l fË­u¡Se£u fc­rf NËq­Zl SeÉ pw¢nÔø n¡M¡­L ¢e­cÑn fËc¡e Ll¡ q­m¡z

(¢hQ¡lf¢a ®j¡x Bnl¡g¥m L¡j¡m)