G. M. Majid Vs. Amjad Hossain Judgment Lablu and another

Appellate Division Cases

(Criminal)

PARTIES

G. M. Majid………………………. Petitioner.

-Vs-

Amjad Hossain Judgment Lablu and another…………………….. Respondents.

Md. Ruhul Amin CJ M. M. Ruhul Amin J .

Md. Joynul Abedin J

Md. Hassan Ameen J

Judgment Dated: 21st March 2007

The Penal Code. Sections 407, 408. 409

The Anti Corruption Act, 1947, Section 5(1), 5(2)

The Code of Criminal Procedure, Section 265C

The accused respondent and the other two accused in collusion with each other and with a view to deprive the government from huge amount of revenue did not send the tender schedule to the office of the Deputy Commissioner and fixed the date for purchasing tender schedule on a holiday with a view to obtain financial benefit…………… (2)

We have heard Mr. Md. Nawab AH and perused the impugned judgment and other connected papers. We regret, we do not find any merit in the points urged and we are of the opinion that the High Court Division upon correct assessment of the materials on record arrived at a correct decision and rightly quashed the proceedings of the aforesaid criminal case. There is therefore no cogent reason to interfere with the same……………………………. (4)

Md. Nawab AH, Advocate-on-Record. ………………………For the Petitioner

Sufia Khatun, Advocate-on-Record ……………….For Respondent No. 1

Not Represented ………………..For Respondent No. 2

Criminal Petition For Leave To Appeal No. 149 of 2004

(From the judgment and order dated 5.5.2004 passed by the High Court Division in Criminal Miscellaneous Case No.739 of 2004.)

JUDGMENT

Md. Joynul Abedin J: This petition for leave to appeal at the instance of the complainant petitioner is directed against the judgment and order dated 5.5.2004 passed

by a Division Bench of the High Court Division in Criminal Miscellaneous Case No.739 of 2004 quashing the proceedings of Special Case No. 8 of 2001 arising out of the Petition Case No.24 of 2001 dated 31.7.2001 under section 5(1) of the Anti Corruption Act, 1947 and sections 407, 408 and 409 of the Penal Code now pending before the court of the learned Special Judge, Jessore.

2. The prosecution case, in short, is that the complainant petitioner, G.M. Majid, filed a petition before the Senior Special Judge, Jessore against the accused respondent, Md. Amjad Hossain Lablu and two other accused, Md. Anwar Hossain and Ratan Kundu, alleging, inter alia, that on 6.2.2001 a tender was invited for auction-sale of Monirampur Pourashava Bazar vide Memo No.Moni/Paura/Hat Bazar/424/2000-2001 dated 6.2.2001 fixing 24.2.2001 as the last date of purchasing the tender schedule and 25.2.2001 for

dropping the tender. The complainant himself and some other intending bidders could not buy the tender schedule on 24.2.2001 being holiday. Thereafter, they went to the office of the Deputy Commissioner, Jessore and also found no tender schedule there. The accused

respondent and the other two accused in collusion with each other and with a view to deprive the government from huge amount of revenue did not send the tender schedule to the office of the Deputy Commissioner and fixed the date for purchasing tender schedule on a holiday with a view to obtain financial benefit. It is further alleged that only four tenders were submitted and the accused No.3 was granted the lease of the Hat. Subsequently the lease was cancelled by the Deputy Commissioner directing re-tender of the Hat but the accused persons in collusion with each other filed a civil suit and managed to stop the process of re-tender by obtaining an order of stay and mis-appropriated the revenue of the Bazar illegally. One Wazed Ali Gazi, Inspector of the

Anti- Corruption Bureau, Jessore submitted an inquiry report on 29.10.2001 to the

Court and the Senior Special Judge took cognizance of the offence against the accused including the accused respondent No.l herein under section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 and also under sections 407, 408 and 409 of the Penal Code and the case was registered as Special Case No.8 of 2001. Thereafter the accused including the

accused respondent filed an application under section 265C of the Code of Criminal Procedure for discharge. The learned Senior Special Judge after hearing the parties rejected the same on 9.9.2003 and framed charge under section 5(2) of the prevention of Corruption Act against the said accused including the accused respondent No.l. The accused respondent No. 1 then filed the said criminal miscellaneous case before the High Court Division for quashing the proceedings of the said Special Case No.8 of 2001 and the High Court Division by the impugned judgment and order dated 5.5.2004 quashed the proceedings of the said special case. Hence the present petition for leave to appeal.

3. Mr. Md. Nawab Ali, the learned Advocate-on-Record, for the complainant petitioner submits that the High Court Division committed an error of law in failing to appreciate and consider that the petition of complaint filed before the Senior Special Judge disclosed a~criminal offence and accordingly the aforesaid special case was commenced against the accused including the accused respondent No.l inasmuch as the Inspector of the

Bureau of Anti-Corruption found the allegations contained in the petition of complaint

true and the learned Senior Special Judge was also satisfied as to the ingredients of the said offence and started the special case against the accused.

4. We have heard Mr. Md. Nawab Ali and perused the impugned judgment and other

connected papers. We regret, we do not find any merit in the points urged and we

are of the opinion that the High Court Division upon correct assessment of the

materials on record arrived at a correct decision and rightly quashed the proceedings

of the aforesaid criminal case. There is therefore no pogent reason to interfere with the same.

5. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed.

Source : V ADC (2008), 268

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.