Appellate Division Cases
(Criminal)
PARTIES
Dr. Zahirul Haque Bhuiyan & others………………………. Petitioners.
-Vs-
Dr. Shamsuddin Jahangir & another…………… Respondents.
Md. Ruhul Amin CJ
Mohammad Fazlul Karim J .
M.M. Ruhul Amin J
Judgment Dated: 19th August 2007
The Code of Criminal Procedure took, Section 200
The Penal Code, Section 500/501
The Code of Criminal Procedure, Section 339 B(2), 241A, 561A
Petitioners published a leaflet date 06.07.2001 contending false and defamatory
statements and the leaflet was distributed among the members of the aforesaid
Housing Society. As a result, the petitioner suffered social, mental and financial loss
and injury and he was also defamed and suffered huge financial loss………. (2)
The order rejection of prayer for discharge under section 241A of the Code of Criminal Procedure an application under section 561A of the Code of Criminal Procedure does not lie and in that view of the matter, the petition is misconceived ………..(6)
The High Court Division accordingly rightly discharged the Rule……….. (7)
The petition is dismissed…………….. (8)
Abdul Halim Chaklader, Senior Advocate, instructed by Md. Aftab Hossaw, Advocate-on-Record………….. For the Petitioners
Respondents……………………. Not represented.
Criminal Petition For Leave To Appeal No.271 of 2005
(From the judgment and order dated 12.03.2005 passed by the High Court Division in Criminal Miscellaneous Case No.6654of2002.)
JUDGMENT
M. M. Ruhul Amin J: This petition for leave to appeal is directed against the judgment
and order dated 12.03.2005 passed by a Division Bench of the High Court Division in Criminal Miscellaneous Case No.6654 of 2002 discharging the Rule.
2. Short facts are that one Dr. Shamsuddin Jahangir as president of BCSIR Co-operative
Housing Society filed a petition of complaint in the Court of the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Dhaka on 29.07.2001 against the accused petitioner alleging, inter alia,
that the accused petitioners published a leaflet date 06.07.2001 contending false and defamatory statements and the leaflet was distributed among the members of the aforesaid Housing Society. As a result, the petitioner suffered social, mental and financial
loss and injury and he was also defamed and suffered huge financial loss.
3. The Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Dhaka after recording the statement of the complainant under section 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure took cognizance of
the case and issued summons upon the accused persons. Thereafter, the case was
transferred to the Court of Mrs. Fatema Begum, Metropolitan Magistrate, Dhaka for
disposal. The trying Magistrate framed charge in absence of the accused under section 500/501 of the Penal Code on 20.01.2002 and proceeded as per provisions of Section 339-B(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure and fixed 09.05.2002 for examination of witnesses. Thereafter the accused persons appeared and were enlarged on bail. The accused persons subsequently filed an application seeking their discharge under section 241A of the Code of Criminal Procedure but the learned Magistrate after hearing both the parties rejected the same. The accused petitioner then moved the High Court Division under section 561A of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing the proceeding. The High Court Division after hearing discharged the Rule.
4. We have heard Mr. Abdul Halim Chaklader, the learned Counsel, for the petitioner
and perused the judgment of the High Court Division and other connected papers.
5. It is on record that the trying Magistrate after hearing both the parties and perusing
the materials on record framed charge under section 500/501 of the Penal Code and rejected the prayer of the accused persons for discharge.
6. In our view against the order rejection of prayer for discharge under section 241A of
the Code of Criminal Procedure an application under section 561A of the Code of Criminal Procedure does not lie and in that view of the matter, the petition is misconceived.
7. The High Court Division accordingly rightly discharged the Rule.
8. The petition is dismissed.
Source : V ADC (2008),537