Abdul Hoq Sikder Vs. The State

Appellate Division Cases

(Criminal)

PARTIES

Abdul Hoq Sikder and 2 others……………………. Convict Petitioners

-vs-

The State,

Represented by the Deputy Commissioner,Barisal…………………….Respondents

JUSTICE

Mainur Reza Chowdhury C. J

Mohammad Fazlul Karim. J

Syed J. R Mudassir Husain . J

Abu Sayeed Ahammed. J

JUDGEMENT DATE: 20th October, 2002

The Penal Code Read (Act-II of 1947), Section 5 (2), 467,471,409,109.

The petition was not maintainable in as much as petitioners did not surrender before the High Court division in time as per direction of the High Court Division……………………. (5)

The petitioners did not surrender and became fugitive from law……………(6)

Criminal Review petition No. 15 of 2002 (From the Judgment and Order dated 16

March, 1999 passed by the Appellate Division in Criminal Petition for leave to Appeal

Number 101 of 2000).

Syed Ziaul Karim, Advocate, Instructed by Md. Nawab AH, Advocate-on-record……………… For the Petitioners.

Not represented………………… Respondents.

JUDGMENT

1. Syed J.R Mudassir Husain, J :_ This review petitioner has arisen out of judgment

and order dated 04-02-2001 passed by this division in Criminal petition for leave to Appeal No. 101 of 2000 dismissing the same being not maintainable.

2. The facts, leading to this petition, are that the convicted petitioners filed criminal petition for leave to appeal being no. 101 of 2000 against the judgment and order dated 16m March, 1999 passed by the Single Bench of the High Court Division in Criminal Appeal No. 466 of 1995 dismissing the same by affirming the judgment and order dated 31.01.1995 passed by the Divisional special Judge, Khulna Division, Khulna in Special Case no. 1ll of 1994 arising out kotawali (Barisal ) Police Station case No. 30 dated 31-01-1993 convicting the petitioners under Section 467/471/409/109 of the Penal Code read with Section 5 (2) of Act-II of 1947 and sentencing petitioner No.l Huq Sikder under Sections 467/471 of the Penal Code to suffer rigorous imprisonment for l(one) year 3 (three) months and to pay a fine of Tk. 7500/- in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 3 (three) months more and he was also convicted under Section 409 of the Penal Code read with Section 5(2) of Act II of 1947 and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 1 (one) year and to pay a fine of Tk. 7500/- in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 3 (three) months more. The petitioner No. 2 and 3 Md. Joynal Fakir and Abdur Rahim Chowdhury respectively were convicted under Section 467/471 of the Penal code and were sentenced hereunder to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 6 (six) months and to

pay a fine of Tk. 3000/- in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for l(one) month and they were also convicted under Section 409/109 of the Penal Code and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 3 (three) months and pay a fine of Tk. 3000/- and in default to suffer rigors imprisonment for l(one) month more and all the sentences will run concurrently.

3. Prosecution case, is that one Md. Rafiqul Islam, Assistant Inspector of the district Anti

Corruption Bureau Lodged First Information Report on 31/01/1993 with Kotwali Police

Station (Barisal ) against the petitioners stating inter alia that the convict petitioner Abdul Huq Sikdcr was a Field Assistant of Sonli Bank, Barisal and he recommended for loan of the fake person named Motaleb Majhee who was alleged to have been identified by one fake Matleb Jamader and convict petitioner No. 2 Md. Joynal Fakir, Ex Member, Kashipur Union Perished and the convict petitioner No. 3 and Abdur Rahim Chowdhury, Ex Block Supervisor, Kashipur stood guarantors for the agricultural loan in favour of loaner Matlabe Majhee amounting to Tk. 3000/= against loan case No. 19 (b) 85-84 and all the three misappropriated the said amount in collusion with each other for their personal gain.

4. Upon the said F.I.R the police investigated the case, and the Investigation officer thereafter submitted charge sheet on 11-04-1994 against the convict petitioners under Section 467/471/409/109 of the Penal Code read with Section 5(2) of Act II of 1947.

5. The case was tried by the Divisional Special Judge, Khulna Division , who after conclusion of the trial and upon consideration of evidence both oral and documentary on record found the petitioners guilty of the charge leveled against them and accordingly convicted and sentenced the petitioners as aforesaid by his judgment and order dated 31-01-1995. Against the aforesaid order of conviction petitioners filed Appeal before the High Court division and the learned Single Judge of the High Court Division upon hearing the parties and on considering the evidence dismissed the appeal and

affirmed the judgment of the trial court. Against the aforesaid judgment and order of conviction the petitioners preferred criminal Petition for leave to Appeal No. 101 of 2000 before this division and this division upon hearing the Petitioners, learned Advocate, scrutinizing the petitioner on 02.04.2002 and the judgment of the court below dismissed the leave petition on 02.04.2002 holding that the petition was not maintainable in as much as petitioners did not surrender before the High Court division in time as per direction of the High Court Division.

6. Mr. Syed Ziaul Karim, the learned Counsel, Appearing for the accused petitioners

argued that due to hardship and inadvertence the petitioners could not surrender in time. This submission cannot be accepted on the fact of a specific direction by the High Court Division to surrender. Admittedly, the petitioners did not surrender and became fugitive from law. Having regard to this aspect we fined no new ground to review the order of this division and as such this review petition merits no consideration. Accordingly, this review petition is dismissed.

Ed

Source: I ADC (2004), 458


Disclaimer:

The information contains in this web-site is prepared for educational purpose. This site may be used by the students, faculties, independent learners and the learned advocates of all over the world. Researchers all over the world have the access to upload their writes up in this site. In consideration of the people’s participation in the Web Page, the individual, group, organization, business, spectator, or other, does hereby release and forever discharge the Lawyers & Jurists, and its officers, board, and employees, jointly and severally from any and all actions, causes of actions, claims and demands for, upon or by reason of any damage, loss or injury, which hereafter may be sustained by participating their work in the Web Page. This release extends and applies to, and also covers and includes, all unknown, unforeseen, unanticipated and unsuspected injuries, damages, loss and liability and the consequences thereof, as well as those now disclosed and known to exist.  The provisions of any state’s law providing substance that releases shall not extend to claims, demands, injuries, or damages which are known or unsuspected to exist at this time, to the person executing such release, are hereby expressly waived. However the Lawyers & Jurists makes no warranty expressed or implied or assumes any legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy, completeness or usefulness of any information, apparatus, product or process disclosed or represents that its use would not infringe privately owned rights. Reference herein to any specific commercial product process or service by trade name, trade mark, manufacturer or otherwise, does not necessarily constitute or imply its endorsement, recommendation or favouring by the Lawyers & Jurists. The views and opinions of the authors expressed in the Web site do not necessarily state or reflect those of the Lawyers & Jurists. Above all, if there is any complaint drop by any independent user to the admin for any contents of this site, the Lawyers & Jurists would remove this immediately from its site.