Md. Tajul Islam Vs. The State

Appellate Division Cases

(Criminal)

PARTIES

Md. Tajul Islam and another ……………………………..Petitioners

-vs-

The State and another ………………………………Respondents.

JUSTICE

Md. Ruhul Amin, J.

M.M. Ruhul Amin, J.

Md. Tafazzal Islam, J.

JUDGEMENT DATE: 21st July, 2004

The Penal Code, Section 409, 420, 467, 468,471, 477A .

Dismissed the petition for leave to appeal upon holding “The High Court Division correctly held that the allegation against tin petitioners were not of a civil nature and as charge-sheet clearly stated that form the materials collected during investigation that the petitioner No.l Tajul Islam through forgery and aeception took money from the Bank. It was by creating false and forged documents that he took loan from Bank and misappropriated Tk. 1, 22, 83,555/00. There is clear disclosure of offence in the charge sheet …………………..(4)

Criminal Review Petition No. 13 of 2003. (From the Judgment and Order dated January 15, 2003 passed by Appellate Division in Criminal Petition for Leave to Appeal No. 40 of 2002)

Dr. M. Zahir, Senior Advocate, (Mr. Moz.affar Hossain, Senior Advocate with him) instructed by Md. Nawab Ali, Advocate-on-record ………………….. For the Petitioners.

Not represented …………………..Respondents

JUDGMENT

1. Md. Ruhul Amin, J:- This petition for review is directed against the judgment dated January 15, 2003 dismissing the Criminal Petition for Leave to Appeal No. 40 of 2002. The petition for leave lo appeal was filed against the judgment and order dated November 26, 2001 of a Division Bench of the High Court Division passed in Criminal Miscellaneous Case No. 10004 of 2001 dismissing the same. The said Criminal Miscellaneous Case was filed seeking quashing of the proceedings of G.R. Case No. 1033 of 2000 (corresponding the Double Mooring P.S. Case No. 43(9) 2000 dated 26.9.2000).

2. The allegation in the criminal case is that Tajul Islam and his wife Razia Begum through false and fabricated documents took loan from the National Credit and Commerce Bank Ltd. Agrabad Branch, Chittagong and ultimately mis-appropriated Tk. 1.22.83,555/-. In the background of the aforesaid allegation a case under Section 409, 420.467,468.471.477A of the Penal Code was started. The case was investigated and a charge-sheet has been submitted. It may be mentioned charge-sheet has been submitted under Section 409, 420 and 109 of the Penal Code.

3. The petitioners in support of prayer for quashing of the proceedings of the G.R. Case No. 1033 of 2000 contended that the FIR and the charge sheet do not disclose any offence against them and the allegation against them is of civil nature and as such the proceeding of the G.R. Case is required to be quashed since continuation thereof would be an abuse of the process of the Court. The contention so made before the High Court Division was not accepted by the said Division and thereupon prayer for quashing of the proceeding was rejected summarily.

4. This Division dismissed the petition for leave to appeal upon holding “The High Court Division correctly held that the allegation against the petitioners were not of a civil nature and as charge-sheet clearly stated that form the materials collected during investigation that the petitioner No.l Tajul Islam through forgery and deception took money from the Bank. It was by creating false and forged documents that he took loan from Bank and misappropriated Tk. 1, 22, 83,555/00. There is clear disclosure of offence in the charge sheet”.

5. The learned Counsel for the petitioners submits that there is nothing in the chargesheet that petitioner No. 1 through forgery and deception took the money form the Bank and that the transaction between the petitioners and the Bank was of creditor and debtor and as such was of civil nature. The learned Counsel also submits that no material was colleted in the course of investigation to establish that petitioner No.l through forgery and deception took money from the Bank and that also there is nothing in the charge-sheet that by creating false and forged documents petitioner No. 1 took loan from the Bank and mis-appropriated the loan money obtained form the Bank. The submissions so made are reiteration of the submissions made before this Division at the time of hearing of the petition for leave to appeal as well as before the High Court Division.

6. Since the submissions made in support of the review petition were considered by us while dismissing the petition for leave to appeal and that no case of review having been made we find no substance in this petition. Accordingly the petition is dismissed.

Ed.

Source: I ADC (2004), 550

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.