Rokanuddin Sheikh Vs. The State

Appellate Division Cases

(Criminal)

PARITES

Rokanuddin Sheikh …………………………………………..Appellant

. -Versus-

The State ……………………………………………………. Respondent

JUDGES

Syed J.R. Mudassir Husain C.J

M.M.Ruhul Amin,J.

Amirul Kabir Chowdhury. J

Date of Judgment

1st August. 2006

Sections 467/468/109 of the penal code.

Created a sale deed bearing No. 5971 dated 30.12.1978 in his favour by forging signature of Pramila Sundari it was wrongly held to be proved without examining the signature of the executant in the disputed sale deed with that of the sale deed of the informant or with the admitted signature of Pramila Sundari (6)

It appears that the prosecution succeeded to prove the charge producing witnesses and also the reports of examination by experts (9)

ADVOCATES

Mr. Shamsul Huda Manik, Advocate instructed by Mr. Md. Aftab Hossain, Advocate-on-Record For the Appellant Mr. Golam Kibira, Deputy Attorney General, (Mr. Khandker Gulzar Hossain, Deputy Attorney General with him) instructed by Mrs.

Sufia Khatun, Advocate-on-Record. -—For the Respondent.

JUDGMENT

1. Amirul Kabir Chowdhury, J.- Convict appellant Rokanuddin Sheikh preferred this appeal against the judgment and order dated 24.04.2000 passed by a Single Bench of the High Court Division in Criminal Revision No. 667 of 1997 making the rule absolute in part maintaining conviction of the appellant under Sections 467/468/109 of the Penal Code but modifying the sentence to suffer rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay fine of Tk. 5,000/-, in default, to suffer rigorous imprisonment for further period of one year.

2. The appellant along with seven other accused were prosecuted under Sections 467/109 of the Penal Code on the charge of forging, in collusion with each other, deed of sale No. 5971 dated 30.12.1978 with a view to grab the case land ( 81/2 decimals) of Plot No. 2827 of Khatian No. 353 of mouza Bendabari under Police Station-Kotwalipara, District-

Gopalganj belonging to Md.Chand Miah P.W.I.

3. The learned Additional District Magistrate after examining 16 witnesses produced by the prosecution by the judgment and order dated 25.05.1997 convicted all the accused under Sections 467/468/109 of the Penal Code and sentenced each of them to suffer fine of Tk. 5,000/-, default, and sentenced each of them to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 5(five) years under section 467 of the Penal Code and to pay fine of Tk. 7,000/- in default, to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 1 (one) year more. Under Sections 468/109 of the Penal Code, they were sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 4(four) years and to pay fine of imprisonment for nine months each: the sentences to run concurrently. The accused preferred the learned Sessions Judge who heard the appeal and by the judgment and order dated 03.08.1997 maintained conviction of the appellant under Section 467 of the Penal Code and sentenced him thereunder to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 4(four) years and to pay fine of Tk. 5,000/- while convicted coaccused

Afsar Uddin Sarder under Sections 467/109 of the Penal Code sentencing him thereunder to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 2(two) years and to pay fine of Tk. 5,000/, in default, to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 6 (six) months.

4. The appellant along with co-accused Afsar Uddin Sarder Preferred Criminal Revision No. 677 of 1997 before the High Court Division and a learned Single Judge of the High Court Division passed the impugned judgment and order.

5. Hence is this appeal.

6. Leave was granted to consider the submission on behalf of the appellants that in view of the allegation against the leave petitioner that he created a sale deed bearing No. 5971 dated 30.12.1978 in his favour by forging signature of Pramila Sundari it was wrongly held to be proved without examining the signatur of the executant in the disputed sale deed with that of the sale deed of the informant or with the admitted signature of Pramila Sundari.

7. In support of the appeal Mr. Shamsul Huda Manik. learned Advocate has taken us through the materials on record including the impugned judgment and submits, inter alia,

that the prosecution failed to prove the charge against the appellant beyond shadow of doubt.

8. Mr. Golam Kibria, learned Deputy Attorney General appearing on behalf of the State opposes the appeal submitting, inter alia, that the prosecution proved the charge against

the appellant beyond shadow of doubt producing witnesses and also getting reports of the

experts who examined the signature and thumb impressions in the impugned document. We have considered the submissions.

9. It appears that the prosecution succeeded to prove the charge producing witnesses and

also the reports of examination by experts.

10. The courts below also concurrently found that the prosecution case has been proved. There is nothing on record to dislodge the findings of the courts below.

11. In this view of the matter we find that the judgment and order of conviction of the appellant cannot be interfered.

12. In the facts and circumstances we are however, of the view that the ends of justice would be met if the sentence is modified.

13. In the result the appeal is dismissed subject to modification of the sentence awarded against the appellant, reducing the sentence to the period of imprisonment already undergone by the appellant.

14. The appellant Rokanuddin Sheikh be discharged from the bail bond.

Source: III ADC (2006) 758

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.