IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BANGLADESH HIGH COURT DIVISION

(CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS JURISDICTION)

Present:

Mr. Justice Md. Nazrul Islam Talukder And

Mr. Justice Khizir Hayat

Criminal Miscellaneous Case No. 23205 OF 2014.

Ahmed Kamal Chowdhury

........Accused-petitioner.      -Versus-

 The State and another

.......Opposite-parties.

Mr. Md. Momtaz Uddin Fakir, Senior Advocate with  Mr. A. H. M. Zia Uddin, Advocate and

 Mr. Abu Md. Ziaul Haque, Advocate

&&&.For the Accused-petitioner.          Mr. A K M Amin Uddin, D A.G with

 Ms. Anna Khanom Koli, A.A.G. and

 Mr. Md. Shaifour Rahman Siddique, A.A.G

..... For the State-opposite-party.  Mr. Md. Omar Farook, Advocate,

....For the Anti-Corruption Commission.

Heard on : 25.10.2022, 09.11.2022 and 30.11.2022 Judgment on: 30.11.2022.

Md. Nazrul Islam Talukder, J:

On an application under Section 561A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, this Rule, at the instance of the accused-petitioner, was issued calling upon the opposite-parties to show cause as to why the impugned proceeding of Special Case No.17 of 2013 dated

18.08.2009 under Sections 406 / 409 / 420 / 467 / 468 / 471 / 109 of the Penal Code, 1860 read with Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947, now pending in court of learned Divisional Special Judge, Chittagong,  should  not  be  quashed  and/or  pass  such other or further order or orders as to this Court may seem fit and proper.

The prosecution case, in short, is that one Sumon Roy, Manager, IFIC Bank Ltd., Teri Bazar Branch, Chittagong filed petition of complaint before the learned Senior Special Judge, Chittagong mentioning the name of 02 (two) officials of the said bank alleging, inter-alia, that one Md. Selim, owner of M/S Selim and Brothers opened 2 F.D.R in IFIC Bank Ltd. being FDR No.078180/14645 for an amount of Tk.1,00,00,000/- (one crore) and FDR No.078179/14637 for an amount of Tk.1,00,00,000/- (one crore). The proprietor of M/S

Selim and Brothers kept the aforesaid 2 FDR as lien to the bank and carried out his business. The branch manager of the concerned bank as the First Assistant Vice-President and another Officer, Grade-1 while in service in the IFIC Bank Ltd., Teri Bazar Branch, Chittagong in collaboration with other accused persons abusing their official power and authority opened SOD loan account in the name of one M/S. Selim and Brothers forging signature and seal of Md. Selim, proprietor of M/S. Selim and Brothers and forging some papers and documents. After sanctioning loan, the loan amounts were transmitted in the different accounts of the firms of the accused persons including the present accused-petitioner through forged cheques. The accused persons without the permission of the Head Office created loan sanction certificate. On different occasions in between 15.06.2008 to 19.10.2008, the

accused persons misappropriated a huge amount of money amounting to Tk. 3,29,62,800/- using their respective cheques provided against their respective accounts. When this matter came to the notice of the bank, the accused persons deposited Tk.1,35,72,300/- in the fake loan account. The remaining amount of Tk.1,93,90,500/- has not been deposited as yet. Thus, the accused-persons in collaboration with each other committed offences of forgery and misappropriation of money under Sections 409/408/106/ 467/468/471/109 of the penal Code read with Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947. Hence, the case being registered as Special Case No.17 of 2013.

After lodging the petition of complaint, the learned judge sent the case for investigation to the Durnity Damon Commission, Chittagong directing to treat it as an F.I.R and after investigation, one Md.

Amirul Islam, Assistant Director of Durnity Damon Commission, Chittagong submitted investigation report under Sections 409/406/420/467/468/471/109 of the Penal Code read with under Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 against 11 accused including the present accused-petitioner.

On getting investigation report, the learned Judge took cognizance against the accused-petitioner with other co-accused by an order dated 05.04.2012 and issued warrant of arrest against them.

 Thereafter, the accused-petitioner surrendered before the High Court Division for anticipatory bail by filing Criminal Miscellaneous CaseNo. 15422 of 2012 and after hearing, the High Court Division granted bail to the accused-petitioner for a period of 4 (four) months by an order dated 30.05.2012.

Being enlarged on anticipatory bail, the accused- petitioner surrendered before the learned Mohanagor Senior Special Judge, Chittagong for regular bail and after hearing, the learned Judge granted him bail till 30.04.2012 by an order dated 30.08.2012 and since that time, he is enjoying the privilege of bail.

The learned Divisional Special Judge, by order No.11 dated 30.06.2013, framed charged against the accused-petitioner and others under Sections 409/406/420/467/468/471/109 of the Penal Code read with Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 rejecting the respective applications of the accused filed under sections 265C/241A of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

Being aggrieved by the impugned proceeding of Special Case No.17 of 2013, the accused-petitioner approached this court with an application under Section

561A of the Code of Criminal Procedure and obtained this Rule along with an order of stay of the impugned proceeding.

At the very outset, Mr. Md. Momtaz Uddin Fakir, the learned Senior Advocate with Mr. A. H. M. Zia Uddin, the learned Advocate and Mr. Abu Md. Ziaul Haque, the learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the accused-petitioner, submits that as per FIR story, statements recorded under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal procedure and the investigation report, if the facts of the case are admitted in its entirety for the shake of argument, it does not disclose any offence as alleged against the accused-petitioner and as such, the continuation of the impugned proceeding of the case is nothing but a sheer abuse of the process of the court and is liable to be quashed.

He next submits that the FIR named accused Nos.1 and 2 in collaboration with other accused by forging signature of one FDR holder Md. Selim withdrew a huge amount of money opening SOD loan account and misappropriated the same but the FDR holder is neither a complainant nor an accused nor a witness in this case, so it is clear that the ACC by holding investigation falsely implicated the accused- petitioner in this case out of enmity and grudge at the instance of some bank officials and as such, the impugned proceeding is liable to be quashed.

He then submits that the accused-petitioner is not an FIR named accused and he is not involved in this case in any way and there is no allegation against him in the petition of complaint by the bank authority; the investigating officer intentionally implicated him in the investigation report when he failed to receive

unexpected demand from the accused-petitioner and since no prima facie case has been made out against the petitioner, the impugned proceeding is liable to be quashed.

He candidly submits that the accused-petitioner is a well reputed businessman and is a regular tax payee, he is not named in the FIR and even not suspected in the body of the FIR; he is implicated in this case out of grudge and previous enmity at the instance of some Bank officials who influenced the officer of the Durnity Daman Commission for submitting the investigation report by including the name of the accused-petitioner though no prima facie case is found against him and as such, the impugned proceeding is liable to be quashed.

 He vigorously submits that the allegations brought against the accused-petitioner and others are that the accused in collaboration with each other out of

pre-planning opened SOD Account No. 16061 in the name of M/S Selim and Brothers forging signature and seal of Md. Selim and withdrew a huge amount of money by forged cheques and then misappropriated the same by using their own cheques but this fact is not true and if it was true, then the accused-petitioner would have been named as an accused in the petition of complaint filed by the bank authority and as such, this amounts to abuse of process of court and  for this reason, the impugned proceeding is liable to be quashed.

He strenuously submits that though some portion of the money in question was withdrawn through the cheques of the accused-petitioner but he is no way connected with the alleged offence since he had no knowledge about the cheques by which the money in question was withdrawn rather the money was

withdrawn at the planning of the bank officials beyond the knowledge of the accused-petitioner and as such, the impugned proceeding is liable to be quashed.

He categorically submits that the proceeding so far it relates to one of the co-accused Farook Ahmed Chowdhury was quashed by the High Court Division on 24.11.2016 in Criminal Miscellaneous Case No.10500 of 2014 and as such, the impugned proceeding against the present accused-petitioner on the similar facts and grounds may be quashed for ends of justice.

He lastly submits that the bank authority did not raise any claim against the accused-petitioner and there is no prima-facie case in the FIR against him but the ACC by filing investigation report falsely implicated the accused-petitioner in the case because of the fact that the accused-petitioner did not meet up the unexpected demand of the investigating officer though

no ingredients of the sections under which the accused- petitioner has been charged, has been made out against the accused-petitioner and as such, in order to prevent the abuse of the process of law and court, the impugned proceeding is liable to be quashed.

On the other hand, Mr. Md. Omar Farook, the learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the Anti- Corruption Commission, submits that in the petition of complaint, through the name of accused-petitioner was not directly mentioned in the column of the name of accused but the name of the firm of the accused- petitioner namely Royal Touch Trading Corporation has been mentioned in the body of the FIR wherefrom it is clearly evident that the accused-petitioner9s firm Royal Touch Trading Corporation received Tk.2,00,000/-, Tk.3,30,000/-, Tk.50,00,000, Tk.2,75,000/- and Tk.3,50,000/- through 5 forged

cheques forging the signature and seal of the proprietor of M/S Selim and brothers and then the accused- petitioner withdrew the same using his cheques and under the aforesaid facts and circumstances, there is no scope to say that the accused-petitioner is not involved in the commission of forgery and misappropriation of money and for this reason, the Rule is liable to be discharged.

He next submits that the case was investigated by the Anti-Corruption Commission and thereby submitted the investigation report on 12.08.2020 against the accused-petitioner and 10 others under Sections 409/406/420/467/471/109 of the Penal Code read with Section 5(2) of Prevention of corruption Act, 1947, having found prima-facie case against the accused and that being the reason, the impugned proceeding should not be quashed.

He candidly submits that the learned Divisional Special Judge, by an order dated 30.06.2013, framed charge against all the 11 accused including the present accused-petitioner following the investigation report submitted against the present accused-petitioner and others under Sections 409/406/420/467/468/471/109 Penal Code read with Section 5 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 rightly rejecting the respective applications of the accused filed under Section 265C/241A of the Code of Criminal Procedure and on that landscape, the impugned proceeding should not be quashed.

He lastly submits that since there are specific allegations against the accused-petitioner and others in the prosecution materials and that the allegations that have been brought against the accused are highly disputed and complicated questions of fact which

cannot be decided by this court invoking its jurisdiction under Section 561A of the Code of Criminal Procedure and in that view of the matter, the impugned proceeding should not be quashed.

       Mr. A.K.M Amin Uddin, the learned Deputy Attorney- General appearing for the State, submits that all the facts emanated from the prosecution materials are disputed questions of fact and for this reason, this Rule is liable to be discharged.  

It is pertinent to note that the inherent power under Section 561A of the Code of Criminal Procedure can be invoked at any stage of the proceeding even after conclusion of the trial, if it is necessary to prevent the abuse of process of the court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. The aforesaid view finds support in decision taken in the case of Sher Ali (Md) and others

Vs The State, reported  in 46 DLR (AD) (1994) 67 wherein it was decided as under:-

<the inherent power under Section 561A of the Code of Criminal Procedure can be exercised to quash a proceeding or even a conviction on conclusion of a trial if the court concerned got no jurisdiction to hold the said trial or the facts alleged against the accused do not constitute any criminal offence, or the conviction has been based on 8no evidence9 or otherwise to secure ends of justice=. 

The guidelines and principles for quashing a proceeding were initially formulated and settled in the decision taken in the case of Abdul Kader Chowdhury Vs The State reported in 28 DLR (AD)38. Subsequently, the aforesaid views were reiterated in the decision taken in the case of Ali Akkas Vs Enayet Hossain and others, reported in 17BLD(AD)(1997)

44=31 DLR(AD)69 wherein it was spelt out that to bring a case within the purview of Section 561A of the Code of Criminal Procedure for the purpose of quashing a proceeding, one of the following conditions must be fulfilled:-

(I)                         Interference even at an initial stage may be justified where the facts are so preposterous that even on admitted facts no case stands against the accused;

(II)                     Where the institution and continuation of the proceeding amounts to an abuse of the process of the Court;

(III)                  Where there is a legal bar against the initiation or continuation of the proceeding;

(IV)                 In a case where the allegations in the FIR or the petition of complaint, even if taken

at their face value and accepted in their entirety, do not constitute the offence as alleged and

(V)                     The allegations against the  accused although constitute an offence alleged but there is either no legal evidence adduced in support of the case or the evidence adduced clearly or manifestly fails to prove the charge. 

           The aforesaid principles were reechoed in the decision taken in the case of Begum Khaleda Zia Vs. The State and another, reported in 70 DLR (AD) (2018) 99.

       Now, question arises as to whether the principles and guidelines for quashing a proceeding settled by our Appellate Division, are applicable in the instant case at hands for quashing the same.

We have gone through the application filed under Section 561A of the Code of Criminal Procedure and perused the prosecution materials annexed therewith.

 We have also heard the learned Advocates for the respective parties at length and considered their submissions to the best of our wit and wisdom.

A reference to the prosecution materials indicates that one Md. Selim, owner of M/S Selim and Brothers opened 2 F.D.R in IFIC bank being FDR No.078180/14645 for an amount of Tk.1,00,00,000/- (one crore) and FDR No.078179/14637 for an amount of Tk.1,00,00,000/- (one crore). The proprietor of M/S Selim and Brothers kept the aforesaid 2 FDR as lien to the bank and carried out his business. The branch manager of the concerned bank as the First Assistant Vice-President and another Officer, Grade-1 while in

service in the IFIC Bank Ltd., Teri Bazar Branch,

Chittagong in collaboration with other accused persons abusing their official power and authority opened SOD loan account in the name of one M/S. Selim and Brothers forging signature and seal of Md. Selim, proprietor of M/S. Selim and Brothers and forging some papers and documents. After sanctioning loan, the loan amounts were transmitted to the different accounts of the firms of the accused persons including the present accused-petitioner. The accused persons without the permission of the Head Office created loan sanction certificate. On different occasions in between 15.06.2008 to 19.10.2008, the accused persons misappropriated a huge amount of money amounting to Tk. 3,29,62,800/- using their respective cheques provided against their respective accounts. When this matter came to the notice of the bank, the accused persons deposited Tk.1,35,72,300/- in the fake loan

account. The remaining amount of Tk.1,93,90,500/- has not been deposited as yet. Thus, the accused-persons in collaboration with each other committed the offences of forgery and misappropriation of money under Sections 409/408/106/ 467/468/471/109 of the penal Code read with Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947.

It appears from the petition of complaint that the name of the accused-petitioner has not been mentioned in the column of the accused but there are specific allegations against him to the effect that the loan money from the alleged SOD loan account which was opened forging the signature and seal of the proprietor of M/S Selim and brothers has been transferred to the account of Royal Touch Trading Corporation, a business firm of the accused-petitioner through the forged cheques of M/S Selim and Brothers. Thereafter, the accused-

petitioner withdrew and misappropriated the same using

his cheques. The allegations mentioned in the petition

of complaint against the Royal Touch Trading Corporation, a business firm belonging to the accused-

petitioner, runs as follows:

paragraph 7(S) HLCi¡2h A¡p¡j£àu ®jp¡pÑ ®p¢mj Hä hСc¡pÑ e¡jL fТaù¡2el e¡2jl ®Q2Ll j¡dÉ2j Royal Touch

Trading Corporation e¡jL fТaù¡e2L fСfL E2õ2M Na 08-07-

2008 Cw a¡¢l2M CAD 8860739 ew ®QL j§2m jw 2,00,000/-

V¡L¡ ®jp¡pÑ ®p¢mj Hä hСc¡pÑ Hl e¡jL j¡¢mL ®j¡: ®p¢mj Hl S m cÙ¹Ma ¢cu¡ Hhw p£m fÐc¡2lel j¡dÉ2j eNc E2a¡me L¢lu¡ ¢hnÄ¡p

i20l j¡dÉ2j A¡aÈp¡v L2lz

paragraph 7(c) HLCi¡2h A¡p¡j£àu ®jp¡pÑ ®p¢mj Hä hСc¡pÑ e¡jL fТaù¡2el e¡2j ®Q2Ll j¡dÉ2j Royal Touch e¡jL

fТaù¡e2L fСfL E2õ2M Na 05-08-2008 Cw a¡¢l2M CAD 8862089 ew ®QL j§2m jw 3,30,000/- V¡L¡ ®jp¡pÑ ®p¢mj Hä hСc¡pÑ

Hl j¡¢mL e¡jL j¡¢mL ®j¡: ®p¢mj Hl S¡m cÙ¹Ma ¢ck¡ Hhwp£m fÐc¡2lel j¡dÉ2j E2a¡me L¢lu¡ ¢hnÄ¡p i20l j¡dÉ2j A¡aÈp¡v L2lz

paragraph 7(d) HLCi¡2h A¡p¡j£àu ®jp¡pÑ ®p¢mj Hä hСc¡pÑ e¡jL fТaù¡2el e¡2jl ®Q2Ll j¡dÉ2j Royal Touch e¡jL

fТaù¡e2L fСfL E2õ2M Na 05-08-2008 Cw a¡¢l2M CAD

8862090 ew ®QL j§2m jw 5,00,000/- V¡L¡ ®jp¡pÑ ®p¢mj Hä hСc¡pÑ Hl j¡¢mL ®j¡: ®p¢mj Hl S¡m cÙ¹Ma ¢cu¡ Hhw p£m fÐc¡2lel j¡dÉ2j

eNc E2a¡me L¢lu¡ ¢hnÄ¡p i20l j¡dÉ2j A¡aÈp¡v L2lz

paragraph 7(h) HLCi¡2h A¡p¡j£àu ®jp¡pÑ ®p¢mj Hä hСc¡pÑ e¡jL fТaù¡2el e¡2j ®Q2Ll j¡dÉ2j Royal Touch e¡jL

fТaù¡e2L fСfL E2õ2M Na 01-09-2008 Cw a¡¢l2M CAD 8862094 ew ®QL j§2m jw 2,75,760/- V¡L¡ ®jp¡pÑ ®p¢mj Hä hСc¡pÑ Hl j¡¢mL ®j¡: ®p¢mj Hl S¡m cÙ¹Ma ¢cu¡ Hhw p£m fÐc¡2lel j¡dÉ2j

eNc E2a¡me L¢lu¡ ¢hnÄ¡p i20l j¡dÉ2j A¡aÈp¡v L2lz

paragraph 7(l) HLCi¡2h A¡p¡j£àu ®jp¡pÑ ®p¢mj Hä hСc¡pÑ e¡jL fТaù¡2el e¡2jl ®Q2L Self ¢m2M Na 09-09-2008 Cw a¡¢l2M CAD 8862097 ew ®QL j§2m jw 2,00,000/- V¡L¡ ®jp¡pÑ

®p¢mj Hä hСc¡pÑ e¡jL fТaù¡2el j¡¢mL ®j¡: ®p¢mj Hl S¡m cÙ¹Ma ¢cu¡ Hhw p£m fÐc¡2lel j¡dÉ2j eNc E2a¡me L¢lu¡ ¢hnÄ¡p i20l j¡dÉ2j A¡aÈp¡v L2lz

We have stated earlier that the name of the accused-petitioner has not been mentioned in the column of accused in the petition of complaint but there

are specific allegations of forgery and misappropriation

of money against the accused-petitioner9s firm Royal Touch Trading Corporation. On investigation, the allegations disclosed against the accused-petitioner in

the petition of complaint have been found prima-facie

true in the investigation report. The Investigating officer finding the complicity of the accused-petitioner

in the alleged allegations submitted investigation report.

The relevant portion of the investigation report showing involvement of the accused-petitioner, runs as under:

<........HLCi¡2h ®jp¡pÑ ®p¢mj Hä hСc¡pÑ Hl j¡¢mL ®j¡x ®p¢mj Hl ü¡rl S¡m L¢lu¡ ®p¢mj Hä hСc¡pÑ Hl e¡2j pª¢Sa Ea² HpJ¢X ¢qp¡h ew 16061

Hl ¢hfl£2a 8-7-08 a¡¢l2M 2,00,000/-V¡L¡l ®QL ew ¢pJ¢X 8860739, 15-7-08 a¡¢l2M 1,70,000/-V¡L¡l2QL ew-8860740, 5-8-

08 a¡¢l2M 3,30,000/- V¡L¡l ®QL ew ¢pH¢X 8862089, 5.8.08 a¡¢l2M 5,00,000/- V¡L¡l ®QL ew ¢pH¢X 8862090, 1.9.08 a¡¢l2M 2,75,76/- V¡L¡l ®QL ew ¢pH¢X 8862094 Hhw 7.10.08 a¡¢l2M 3,50,000/- V¡L¡l ®QL ew ¢pH¢X 8862098 ®jp¡pÑ l2um V¡Q ®V¢Xw ®L¡w Hl e¡2j Cp¤É L¢lu¡ Ea² 6¢V ®Q2L E2õ¢Ma (2,00,000/- +1,70,000/-+3,30,000/- + 5,00,000/- +2,75,760/-+3,50,000/-=18,25,760/- V¡L¡ ®p¢mj Hä hСc¡pÑ Hl HpJ¢X ¢qp¡h ew 16061 qC2a l2um V¡Q ®V¢Xw Hl ®Vl£ h¡S¡l n¡M¡l Qm¢a ¢qp¡h ew 17942 Hl ¢hfl£2a VÊ¡¾pg¡l Ll¡ quz l2um V¡QÑ ®VÊ¢Xw Hl Ea² ¢qp¡2h VÊ¡¾pg¡lL«a 18,20,760/-V¡L¡ Ea² a¡¢l2MC Sj¡ qC2mC ®um V¡Q ®VÊ¢Xw Hl j¡¢mL Se¡h Bqj2c L¡j¡m ®Q±d¤l£ ¢h¢iæ a¡¢l2M ®QL ew 3249986, ®j¡a¡2hL 6,32,000/- J 10.08.2008 a¡¢l2M ®QL ew 3249989, ®j¡a¡2hL 6,32,000/- J 10.08.2008 a¡¢l2M ®QL ew 3249989 ®j¡a¡2hL 2,90,000/- V¡L¡ phÑÑ2j¡V (6,32,000/- +2,90,280/-) = 9,22,280/- V¡L¡ ®jp¡pÑ ®p¢mj Hä hСc¡pÑ Hl Ea²

¢qp¡2h Sj¡ ®cez haÑj¡2e q2jc L¡j¡m ®Q±d¤l£l ¢eLV hÉ¡w2Ll (18,25,760-9,22,280)= 9,03,480/-VL¡ f¡Je¡ l¢qu¡2Rz=...........

............ .......... ac¿¹L¡2m ®cM¡ k¡u 1z ®jp¡pÑ f¢m ®S¡2el Bë¥m ®N¡gl¡e E2a¡¢ma 50,00,000/- mr V¡L¡z 2z H2SHj p¡Cg¥l lqj¡2el

E2a¡¢ma 3,00,000/-VL¡ (3) ®jp¡pÑ l2um V¡Q ®VÊ¢Xw Hl j¡¢mL Se¡h

Bqjc L¡j¡m ®Q±d¤l£ E2a¡¢mla 18,25,760/- V¡L¡l j2dÉ 9,03,480/-

V¡L¡, (4)S¢jl Hä hСc¡pÑ Hl j¡¢mL S¢jl E¢y2el E2a¡¢mla 10,00,000/- V¡L¡, (5) ®jp¡pÑ Qm¢¿¹L¡ p¤. Hl j¡¢mL ¢hnÄ Sv ®Q±d¤l£l E2a¡¢la 10,00.000/- V¡L¡l j2dÉ 7,62,000/, V¡L¡, (6) g¡l¦L Bqjc

®Q±d¤ll E2a¡¢ma 3,15,000/- V¡L¡, (7) Bq¡c C2mLVÊ¢e> Hl j¡¢mL

Bë¥m B¢SS ®Q±d¤l£l E2a¡¢ma 20,00,000/- V¡L¡ j2dÉ 17,78,000/-

VL¡ phÑ2j¡V (60,00,000/-+3,00,000/-+9,03,480+10,00,0 /- +7,62,000/-+3,15,000/-+17,78,000/-) 1,00,58,480/- V¡L¡

hÉ¡w2Ll f¡Je¡ l¢qu¡2Rz S¡m S¡¢mu¡¢a j§mLi¡2h E2a¡¢ma Ea² 1,00,58,480/- V¡L¡ ®k2qa¥ Ea² 7 Se hÉ¢a²l ü¡r2l a¡q¡2cl ¢qp¡h

qC2a E2a¡me Ll¡ qCu¡2R Hhw a¡q¡2cl ¢eLV HMe J hÉ¡w2Ll Ea² 1,00,578,480/- V¡L¡ f¡Je¡ l¢qu¡2R ®p2qa¥ Ea² V¡L¡ BaÈp¡2al c¡u

qC2a a¡q¡l¡ AhÉ¡q¢a f¡C2a f¡2l e¡ z Ea² V¡L¡ a¡q¡2cl pq¡ua¡u flØfl ®k¡Np¡S2p BaÈp¡a Ll¡ qCu¡2R h¢mu¡ ac2¿¹ fÐj¡¢ea quz ac¿¹L¡2m ®cM¡ k¡u ®jp¡pÑ ®p¢mj Hä hСc¡pÑ Hl j¡¢mL ®j¡x ®p¢mj Hl ü¡rl S¡m L¢lu¡ ®p¢mj Hä hСc¡pÑ Hl e¡2j pª¢Sa Ea² HpJ¢X ¢qp¡h ew 16061 Hl hl¡h2l ¢e2jÀ h¢ZÑa 19¢V ®QL Cp¤É L¢lu¡ ®Q2L E2a¡¢ma phÑ2j¡V 1,12,47,000/- V¡L¡ eN2c E2a¡me L¢lu¡ BaÈp¡a Ll¡ quz=

......ac¿¹L¡2l l2um V¡Q 2VÊ¢Xw L2f¡Ñ2lne Hl j¡¢mL Se¡h Bq2jc L¡j¡m ®Q±d¤l£2L ¢S8¡p¡h¡c L¢l2m ¢a¢e S¡e¡e BCHg¢pBC hÉ¡wL ¢mx ®Vl£ h¡S¡l n¡M¡u a¡q¡l e¡2j Qm¢a ¢qp¡h ew 3633017942 ®M¡m¡ B2Rz k¡q¡ a¡q¡l BaÈ£u BCHgBC¢p hÉ¡w2Ll A¢gp¡l Se¡h n¢gEm BSj f¢lQ¡me¡ L¢lu¡2Rz a¡q¡l ¢qp¡2h ®QL ü¡rl L¢lu¡ n¢gEm BSj Hl ¢eLV l¡ M2aez Se¡h n¢gEm BSj a¡q¡l ¢qp¡2h V¡L¡ Sj¡ L¢lu¡ E2a¡me L¢l2ae z®p¢mj

Hä hСc¡pÑ Hl ¢qp¡h qC2a a¡q¡l ¢qp¡2h ®fТla 18,25,760/- V¡L¡l hÉ¡f¡2l ¢a¢e S¡2ee e¡z ¢a¢e Ea² V¡L¡ E2a¡me L2le e¡Cz ac¿¹L¡2m a¡q¡l ha²hÉ NËqZ2k¡N h¢mu¡ ¢h2h¢Qa qu e¡Cz=

......2jp¡pÑ l2um V¡Q ®VÊ¢Xw Hl j¡¢mL Se¡h Bq2jc L¡j¡m ®Q±d¤l£ Apv E2y2nÉ hÉhÙÛ¡fL Se¡h g2uS Bq2jc ¢p¢yL£ J A¢gp¡l ®NËX-1 Se¡h n¢gEm BSj Hl pq¡ua¡u flØfl ®k¡Np¡S2p ®p¢mj Hä hСc¡pÑ Hl e¡2j

pª¢Sa i¨u¡ HpJ¢X ¢qp¡h ew 16061 qC2a a¡q¡l 2Vl£ h¡S¡l n¡M l ¢qp¡h ew 17942 Hl ¢hfl£2a 6¢V ®Q2Ll j¡dÉ2j 18,25,760/- V¡L¡ S¡mS¡¢mu¡¢aj§mL i¡2h VÊ¡¾pg¡l L¢lu¡ VÊ¡¾pg¡lL«a V¡L¡ ¢a¢e ¢e2S E2a¡me L¢lu¡ E2a¡¢ma V¡L¡ qC2a 9,22,280/- V¡L¡ Sj¡ ¢cu¡ Ah¢nø (18,25,760-9,22,280/-)= 9,03,480/- V¡L¡ flØfl ®k¡Np¡S2p BaÈp¡a Llax cx ¢hx 406/467/471/109 d¡l¡ h2m n¡¢Ù¹2k¡N Afl¡d L¢lu¡2Rez=

On perusal of the petition of complaint (now FIR)

and the charge-sheet, it is crystal clear that prima facie specific allegations of forgery and misappropriation of money have been disclosed against the accused- petitioner and others who in collaboration with each other created and opened SOD loan account in the name of M/S Selim and Brothers forging the signature

and seal of the proprietor of M/S Selim and Brothers

and transmitted the loan money in the accounts of the firms of the accused persons including the present accused-petitioner through the false and forged cheques

of M/S Selim and  Brothers and then the accused- petitioner and others using their cheques withdrew the money and misappropriated the same.

It is worthwhile to mention that following the aforesaid allegations as disclosed in the prosecution materials, the learned Divisional Special Judge, by an order dated 30.06.2013, rightly framed charge against all the accused-persons including the present accused- petitioner under Sections 408 / 409 / 402 / 406 / 467 / 468 / 471 / 109 of the Penal Code read with Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947.

It is pertinent to note that the allegations that have been brought against the accused-petitioner and others are highly disputed and complicated questions of fact which cannot be decided by this court invoking its jurisdiction under Section 561A of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The disputed questions of fact may

only be resolved by the learned trial judge taking evidence from the witnesses of the respective parties. Furthermore, this court has no jurisdiction to look into the factual aspects of the case unless the conditions for quashing a proceeding are fulfilled.

Having considered all the facts and circumstances of the case, the submissions of the learned Advocates for the respective parties and the propositions of law cited and discussed above, we do not find any illegality or infirmity in the impugned proceeding and accordingly, we do not find any merit in this Rule.

In consequence thereof, the Rule is discharged.

Consequently, the order of stay granted at the time of issuance of the Rule stands vacated.       

The learned judge of the trial court is directed to proceed with the case in accordance with law and conclude the trial of the case as early as possible

preferably within 01 (one) year from the date of receipt of this judgment and order positively and without fail.

Let a copy of this judgment and order be communicated to the learned judge of the concerned court below and the Chairman, Anti-Corruption Commission, at once.

Khizir Hayat, J:

                                I agree.