National Credit and Commerce Bank Limited-Versus-The State Represented by: The Deputy Commissioner

DISTRICT: DHAKA

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BANGLADESH

HIGH COURT DIVISION

(CRIMINAL REVISIONAL JURISDICTION)

CRIMINAL REVISION NO. OF ______________

IN THE MATTER OF:

An application under section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

AND

IN THE MATTER OF:

Mr. X

Son of Late Y

Ex-Managing Director

National Credit and Commerce Bank Limited

Residing at:

House No. 29, Road No. 6

Sector-3, P.S. Uttara, Dhaka

ACCUSED-PETITIONER

(ON BAIL)

-Versus-

The State

Represented by:

The Deputy Commissioner

Dhaka

OPPOSITE-PARTY

A N D

IN THE MATTER OF:

The proceedings in Special Case No. ______________ arising out of F. I. R. Nos. 17/102, 18/103, 19/104, 20/105, 21/106, 22/107 and 23/108 all dated 04.02.2003 under section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 and section 406, 409, 402, 467, 468, 471 and 109 of the Penal Code alleging misappropriation of Tk. 18,34,49,796.00 only by opening of letters of credit on account of H. B. Apparels (Pvt) Limited now pending before the Special Sessions Judge, Dhaka.

To

Mr. Justice J. R. Mudassir Husain, the Chief Justice of Bangladesh and his companion justices of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of Bangladesh.

The humble petition of the petitioner above-named most respectfully –

SHEWETH:

01. That the petitioner is the former Managing Director of National Credit and Commerce Bank Limited, which is a banking company incorporated under the relevant Companies Act, having its Head Office at 7-8 Motijheel Commercial Area, Dhaka-1000. It carries on banking business within the territory of Bangladesh through its various branches (hereinafter referred to as “NCC Bank”). On 25.01.2001 the petitioner joined as the Managing Director of NCC Bank and continued till 02.01.2003. The present criminal case has been initiated against him only for the reason that he as Managing Director presented the proposal of renewal of existing loan before the Board of Directors of NCC Bank. Since the charge sheet ex-facie does not disclose any criminal offence against him, this application for quashing of the proceedings has been filed.

02. That this revisional petition is filed for quashing of the criminal proceedings instituted by the opposite-party on the basis of the First Information Report (“FIR”) Nos. 17/102, 18/103, 19/104, 20/105, 21/106, 22/107 and 23/108 all dated 04.02.2003 lodged by the Bureau of Anti-Corruption against the petitioner and others under section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 and section 406, 409, 402, 467, 468, 471 and 109 of the Penal Code alleging misappropriation of Tk. 18,34,49,796.00 only by opening of letters of credit on account of H. B. Apparels (Pvt) Limited now pending before the Special Sessions Judge, Dhaka.

Certified copy of the entire order sheet is annexed herewith and marked as ANNEXURE “A”.

03. That the petitioner comes from established and respected family and has impeccable reputation as experienced banker in the Society. The petitioner is a prominent and experienced banker who acquired professional qualifications by (a) completing training for officers in 1963 by Habib Bank Training Institute, Karachi, (b) qualifying in the International Trade Loan Syndication, Credit Roll-over at Bank Brussels Lambert, Brussels, Belgium in 1981, (c) completing the Executive Internship at American Express, New York, USA in International Banking in 1990, (d) completing Bank Reform and Agricultural Credit Program at Thunderbird International Banking Institute, USA in 1992 and (e) attending many conferences and seminars at home and abroad including Forex Trading at Dubai Bank, Dubai.

04. That the petitioner started his carrier as banker in 1962 as a Probationary Officer in Habib Bank. Because of his professional skills and expertise the then United Bank Limited (now Janata Bank) picked the petitioner from Habib Bank in 1964 and assign him the responsibility as Branch Manager. In 1977 the petitioner was promoted to Assistant General Manager and was posted as Area Manager, Janata Bank, Chittagong. In 1980 the petitioner was transferred to the Credit Division, Head Office where he continued up to 1982.

05. That in 1983 the petitioner joined Arab Bangladesh Bank Limited as Vice President and was posted in the Operation and Credit Department. Because of the satisfactory performance of the official responsibilities, the petitioner was promoted to Senior Vice President and was posted as Regional Head, Dhaka in 1986. In 1987 he was posted as Senior Regional Vice President in Chittagong. Because of his skill and expertise, within a short period the petitioner was promoted to Executive Vice President and was posted in International Division in 1990. In March, 1994 the petitioner jointed as the Chief Executive Officer of Five Continental Credit Limited, Hong Kong and continued till July, 1995. The petitioner then joined as the Executive President (Managing Director) of Al Baraka Bank Bangladesh Limited in 1996.

06. That on 25.01.2001 the petitioner joined as the Managing Director of NCC Bank and continued till 02.01.2003. During his long professional carrier as banker in different banks the petitioner was never charged with any irregularities in discharging his official duties.

a) That at the request of H. B. Apparels (Pvt) Limited (the borrower Company) a Current Account being A/C No. 01009942 was opened with the Motijheel Branch of NCC Bank on 08.03.97. The borrower Company is a 100% export oriented Knit Garments Factory. It is registered with the Board of Investment. The borrower Company has obtained certificates from Export Promotion Bureau, national Board of Revenue, Bangladesh garments Manufacturers and Exporters Association, Textiles Department. The following persons were the Directors of the borrower Company:

a) Mr. A : Chairman

b) Mr. B : Managing Director

c) Mr. C : Director

d) Mr. D : Director

b) That on 29.10.2000 Mr. B transferred his shares and resigned as Director of the borrower Company.

c) That from 18.11.99 to 09.04.2000 the borrower Company was granted back to back Letter of Credit facility on case to case basis for eight occasions. By availing the said facility the borrower Company opened letters of credit for an aggregate amount of US$ 18,19,939.31 only. In granting the facilities NOCs were obtained from the Bangladesh Bank.

d) That subsequently, in consideration of the fact that the enterprise was an export-oriented body and it had shown reliable performance until that time, a memo was presented to the Board of Directors of the Bank and the following credit facilities were granted:

(i) Revolving B/B L/C to a limit of US$ 20,00,000.00

(ii) Revolving PC for an amount of Tk. 1.25 crore

(iii) FDBP limit for US$ 10,00,000.00

e) That the past record of the borrower Company shows that since borrower 1999 the borrower Company has opened back to Back letters of credit against Contract/Export L/Cs, imported raw materials, completed the order and made export of readymade garments. The liabilities of the borrower Company were being adjusted against export proceeds. Since 1999 the borrower Company has made exports of US$ 1,17,29,775.17 equivalent to Tk. 64,47,05,037.02 only out of which an amount of US$ 1,13,43,089.84 equivalent to Tk. 62,24,82,231.10 and an amount of US$ 3,86,685.33 equivalent to Tk. 2,22,22,805.92 only was not repatriated. The year-wise calculation is as follows:

Year Export Amount repatriated Amount un-repatriated
1999 Tk. 2,85,79,298.20 Tk. 2,85,79,298.20 Nil
2000 Tk. 28,35,78,097.82 Tk. 28,35,78,097.82 Nil
2001 Tk. 28,83,94,302.05 Tk. 26,83,94,742.05 Tk. 1,99,99,,560.00
2002 Tk. 4,41,53,338.95 Tk. 4,19,30,093.03 Tk. 22,23,245.92.92
Total Tk. 64,47,05,037.02 Tk. 62,24,82,231.10 Tk. 2,22,22,805.92

f) That in view of the past record of the borrower Company it is clear that NCC Bank had made transaction of Tk. 62,24,82,231.10 in equivalent foreign currency. Considering the past transaction it cannot be said that false transaction was made through a “bvg me©¯^ cÖwZôvb” as alleged in the case.

07. That it is submitted that the letters of credit in question were opened upon the application of the borrower Company considering its past business transaction and the L/C liability was adjusted out of the export proceeds. In carrying on the business the borrower Company has got stuck up liability of Tk. 4,30,82,376.12 only as on 20.06.2002 with NCC Bank for which Money Suit No. 29 of 2002 was filed on 26.06.2002 in the Court of Joint District Judge and Artha Rin Adalat, 3rd Court at Dhaka for recovery of the said amount.

08. That in such circumstances it cannot be said the petitioner has personally misappropriated Tk. 18,34,49,796.00 only through opening of false letters of credit. As such it is submitted that the police case as reported in the newspapers is false, fabricated and has been lodged with sole purpose of harassing the petitioner and maligning his good reputation.

09. That it is submitted that at the time of granting of any of the credit facilities as mentioned above the petitioner was not the Managing Director of NCC Bank. However, the loan was renewed and enhanced on 26.05.2001 after the inclusion of the petitioner in the Bank as the Managing Director. That was the first time when this account was brought to the attention of the petitioner. As Managing Director of NCC Bank the petitioner was not involved in the processing of the loan proposal of the borrower Company. The petitioner along with other loan proposals submitted the loan proposal of the borrower Company before the Board. It is mentioned here that in no uncertain terms that the name of Mr. Om Prakash Chowdhury or any of his concerned entities were not mentioned anywhere in the Board Memo that contained the proposal for renewal and enhancement.

10. F.I.R. Nos. 17/102, 18/103, 19/104, 20/105, 21/106, 22/107 and 23/108 all dated 04.02.2003 has been lodged with Motijheel Police Station by the Bureau of Anti-Corruption under section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 and section 406, 409, 402, 467, 468, 471 and 109 of the Penal Code for misappropriation of Tk. 18,34,49,796.00 only by opening of letters of credit on account of H. B. Apparels (Pvt) Limited. The FIRs state as follows:

F.I.R. No. 17/102: Amr D‡Ï‡k¨ ci¯ci †hvMmvR‡k ¶gZvi Ace¨env‡ii gva¨‡g cÖZviYv I RvwjqvwZi Avkªq wb‡q AcivaRbK wek¦vmfsMcye©K Gwewc Lv‡Zi 1401.78 j¶ UvKvi g‡a¨ 2001 mv‡j 1092.21 j¶ UvKv `vq m„wói gva¨‡g AvZ¡¯§vr K‡i `Ûwewai 406/409/420/467/468/471/ 109 aviv Ges 1947 mv‡ji 2 bs `ywb©wZ cÖwZ‡iva AvB‡bi 5(2) avivi Aciva Kivq D‡j­wLZ Awfhy³ e¨w³e‡M©i weiy‡× ewY©Z avivq 1(GK)wU gvgjv iyRyi mycvwik Kiv n‡jv| Z`šZKv‡j D³ Aciv‡ai mv‡_ Ab¨ Kv‡iv m¤c„³Zv cvIqv †M‡j Zv‡K Awfhy³ Kiv n‡e|

F.I.R. No. 18/103: Amr D‡Ï‡k¨ ci¯ci †hvMmvR‡k ¶gZvi Ace¨env‡ii gva¨‡g cÖZviYv I RvwjqvwZi Avkªq wb‡q AcivaRbK wek¦vmfsMcye©K Gwewc Lv‡Zi 1401.78 j¶ UvKvi g‡a¨ 2002 mv‡j 309.57 j¶ UvKv `vq m„wói gva¨‡g AvZ¡¯§vr K‡i `Ûwewai 406/409/420/467/468/471/ 109 aviv Ges 1947 mv‡ji 2 bs `ywb©wZ cÖwZ‡iva AvB‡bi 5(2) avivi Aciva Kivq D‡j­wLZ Awfhy³ e¨w³e‡M©i weiy‡× ewY©Z avivq 1(GK)wU gvgjv iyRyi mycvwik Kiv n‡jv| Z`šZKv‡j D³ Aciv‡ai mv‡_ Ab¨ Kv‡iv m¤c„³Zv cvIqv †M‡j Zv‡K Awfhy³ Kiv n‡e|

F.I.R. No. 19/104: Amr D‡Ï‡k¨ ci¯ci †hvMmvR‡k ¶gZvi Ace¨env‡ii gva¨‡g A‰eafv‡e cÖZviYv I RvwjqvwZi Avkªq wb‡q AcivaRbK wek¦vmfsMcye©K †jvb (K¨vk Bb‡mbwUf) Lv‡Z 106.30 j¶ UvKv f‚qv cwiwPwZ‡Z cwiPvwjZ cÖwZôv‡bi bv‡g D‡Ëvjbcye©K AvZ¡¯§vr K‡i `Ûwewai 406/409/420/467/468/471/109 aviv Ges 1947 mv‡ji 2 bs `ywb©wZ cÖwZ‡iva AvB‡bi 5(2) avivi Aciva Kivq D‡j­wLZ Awfhy³ e¨w³e‡M©i weiy‡× ewY©Z avivq 1(GK)wU gvgjv iyRyi mycvwik Kiv n‡jv| Z`šZKv‡j D³ Aciv‡ai mv‡_ Ab¨ Kv‡iv m¤c„³Zv cvIqv †M‡j Zv‡K Awfhy³ Kiv n‡e|

F.I.R. No. 20/105: Amr D‡Ï‡k¨ ci¯ci †hvMmvR‡k ¶gZvi Ace¨env‡ii gva¨‡g A‰eafv‡e cÖZviYv I RvwjqvwZi Avkªq wb‡q AcivaRbK wek¦vmfsMcye©K †jvb (K¨vk Bb‡mbwUf) Lv‡Z 2002 m‡b 68.11 j¶ UvKv f‚qv cwiwPwZ‡Z cwiPvwjZ cÖwZôv‡bi bv‡g D‡Ëvjbcye©K AvZ¡¯§vr K‡i `Ûwewai 406/409/420/467/468/471/ 109 aviv Ges 1947 mv‡ji 2 bs `ywb©wZ cÖwZ‡iva AvB‡bi 5(2) avivi Aciva Kivq D‡j­wLZ Awfhy³ e¨w³e‡M©i weiz‡× ewY©Z avivq 1(GK)wU gvgjv iyRyi mycvwik Kiv n‡jv| Z`šZKv‡j D³ Aciv‡ai mv‡_ Ab¨ Kv‡iv m¤c„³Zv cvIqv †M‡j Zv‡K Awfhy³ Kiv n‡e|

F.I.R. No. 21/106: Amr D‡Ï‡k¨ ci¯ci †hvMmvR‡k A‰eafv‡e ¶gZvi Ace¨env‡i K‡i Rvj RvwjqvwZi Avkªq wb‡q AcivaRbK wek¦vmfsMcye©K 2001 m‡b GdwWwewc/GdwWwewm Lv‡Z 3,48,000.00 gvwK©b Wjvi hv evsjv‡`kx gy`ªvq 1,99,99,560.00 UvKv cÖZ¨vevmb bv KiZt AvZ¡¯§vr K‡i `Ûwewai 406/409/420/468/ 471/109 aviv Ges 1947 mv‡ji 2 bs `ywb©wZ cÖwZ‡iva AvB‡bi 5(2) avivi Aciva Kivq D‡j­wLZ Awfhy³ e¨w³e‡M©i weiz‡× ewY©Z avivq 1(GK)wU gvgjv iyRy Kivi Rb¨ Aby‡iva Kiv n‡jv| Z`šZKv‡j D³ Aciv‡ai mv‡_ Ab¨ Kv‡iv m¤c„³Zv cvIqv †M‡j Zv‡K Awfhy³ Kiv n‡e|

F.I.R. No. 22/107: Amr D‡Ï‡k¨ ci¯ci †hvMmvR‡k A‰eafv‡e ¶gZvi Ace¨envi K‡i cÖZviYv I RvwjqvwZi Avkªq wb‡q AcivaRbK wek¦vmfsMcye©K 2002 m‡b GdwWwewc Lv‡Z 38,685.33 gvwK©b Wjvi hv evsjv‡`kx gy`ªvq 22,23,246.00 UvKv cÖZ¨vevmb bv KiZt AvZ¡¯§vr K‡i `Ûwewai 406/409/420/468/471/109 aviv Ges 1947 mv‡ji 2 bs `ywb©wZ cÖwZ‡iva AvB‡bi 5(2) avivi Aciva Kivq D‡j­wLZ Awfhy³ e¨w³e‡M©i weiz‡× ewY©Z avivq 1(GK)wU gvgjv iyRyi mycvwik Kiv n‡jv| Z`šZKv‡j D³ Aciv‡ai mv‡_ Ab¨ Kv‡iv m¤c„³Zv cvIqv †M‡j Zv‡K Awfhy³ Kiv n‡e|

F.I.R. No. 23/108: Amr D‡Ï‡k¨ ci¯ci †hvMmvR‡k ¶gZvi Ace¨env‡ii gva¨‡g cÖZviYv I RvwjqvwZi Avkªq wb‡q AcivaRbK wek¦vmfsMcye©K Avg`vbxK…Z †gwkbvix KviLvbvq ¯’vcb bv K‡i weµq cye©K †dvm©W †jvb Lv‡Z 36,07,990.00 UvKv AvZ¡¯§vr K‡i `Ûwewai 406/409/420/467/468/471/109 aviv Ges 1947 mv‡ji 2 bs `ywb©wZ cÖwZ‡iva AvB‡bi 5(2) avivq D‡j­wLZ Awfhy³ e¨w³e‡M©i weiz‡× ewY©Z avivq 1(GK)wU gvgjv iyRyi mycvwik Kiv n‡jv| Z`šZKv‡j D³ Aciv‡ai mv‡_ Ab¨ Kv‡iv m¤c„³Zv cvIqv †M‡j Zv‡K Awfhy³ Kiv n‡e|

Certified copy of the First Information Report (FIR) is annexed herewith and marked as ANNEXURE “B”.

11. That on the basis of the aforesaid FIR P.S. Case No. ______________ was instituted against the accused petitioner and others section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 and section 406, 409, 402, 467, 468, 471 and 109 of the Penal Code. The said P.S. Case was sent to the Court of Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Dhaka on ____________.

12. That the Investigating Officer (IO) of the said P.S. Case prepared and submitted the Charge Sheet No. _______ dated __________. In the Charge Sheet the allegation against the petitioner has been stated in the following manner:

Certified copy of the Charge Sheet is annexed herewith and marked as ANNEXURE “C”.

13. That after lodgment of the FIR the police obtained statements under section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procure from _____ witnesses at different time. None of the witnesses made any statement involving or referring to the accused-petitioner.

Certified copies of the Statements under section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procure given by the witnesses are annexed herewith and marked as ANNEXURES “D Series”.

14. That it is submitted that no accusation or even any reference has been made against the accused-petitioner in the FIR lodged by the Bureau of Anti Corruption or in the statements made by the witnesses under section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure which discloses any of the ingredients under the section referred to in the FIR or Charge Sheet. As such the proceedings against the accused-petitioner is nothing but an abuse of the process of the Court and as such liable to be quashed.

15. That it is submitted that.

16. That it is submitted that from the FIR and Charge Sheet it is apparent that there was no appropriation of money by the accused-petitioner. It is not a case that the accused-petitioner has defalcated or misappropriated any money from NCC Bank, rather the fact is that certain letters of credit were issued by NCC Bank in its usual course of business at the request of its client. It is a business risk, which NCC Bank had taken by issuing the letters of credit. Now even if the allegation of no-repatriation

17. a lawyer while vetting the property documents of any specific property cannot be aware that the owner of the said property is already dead, unless such information is provided to the lawyer. In the present case from the FIR it is clear that the fact of demise of Khandaker Shamsul Huda was not also within the knowledge of the Bank at the time of sanctioning the loan. The accused-Bank has come across the said information while it was trying to find out Khandaker Shamsul Huda in his permanent address at Faridpur. Accordingly, Bank did not bring any accusation against the accused-petitioner. But the IO with the malafide intention to harass the accused-petitioner has included the name of the accused-petitioner in the Charge Sheet without making any specific charge against him.

18. That the case is now pending before the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Dhaka as G. R. Case No. 1623 of 2002.

19. That it is submitted that the inclusion of the name of the accused-petitioner in the Charge Sheet by the IO is an abuse of his power and proceeding of the criminal case against the accused-petitioner on the basis of the said Chart Sheet is nothing but an abuse of the process of the Court. No allegation whatsoever was made in the FIR against the accused-petitioner. No specific charge has been made against the accused-petitioner in the Charge Sheet. In such circumstances the proceeding against the accused-petitioner is nothing but an abuse of process of the Court and the same may be quashed.

20. That it is submitted that the function of a lawyer in verification of title of the owner of a land does not include the function of identifying the owner at the time of execution and registration of the Mortgage Deed. As such the lawyer cannot be held responsible if the Mortgage Deed is executed and registered by any person other than the actual owner of the land. Therefore, the impugned proceeding against the accused-petitioner is liable to be quashed.

21. That it is submitted that the learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate has committed serious error of law in entertaining the proceeding against this accused-petitioner.

22. That it is submitted that providing legal opinion by a lawyer on the basis of papers/documents referred to a lawyer cannot be an offence under sections 419, 420, 465, 467, 471, 406, 34 and 109 of the Penal Code. As such the instant proceeding is nothing but an abuse of the process of the Court, hence this application has been filed for quashing of the proceedings.

23. That it is submitted that unless the instant proceeding is quashed, no lawyer will feel save in providing legal opinion on the basis of papers/documents referred to him. As such the instant proceedings should be quashed.

24. That in the premises set forth, the accused-petitioner begs to prefer this revisional petition for quashing the proceeding in P.S. Case No. 7(8)2002 under sections 419, 420, 465, 467, 471, 406, 34 and 109 of the Penal Code now pending before the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Dhaka on the following amongst others-

GROUNDS

I. For that the FIR or the Charge Sheet or the Statements made by the witnesses under section 161 of the Cope of Criminal Procedure do not disclose any criminal case against the accused-petitioner and the impugned proceeding against him is nothing but an abuse of the process of the Court and as such liable to be quashed.

II. For that the impugned proceeding against this accused-petitioner is nothing but an abuse of process of the Court in that no accusation or even reference against this accused-petitioner has been made in the FIR lodged by the Bank and as such the proceeding is liable to be quashed.

III. For that the impugned proceeding against this accused-petitioner is nothing but an abuse of process of the Court in that no accusation or even reference against this accused-petitioner has been made by the six witnesses in their Statements under section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and as such the proceeding is liable to be quashed.

IV. For that the impugned proceeding against this accused-petitioner is clearly an abuse of process of the Court inasmuch as the Investigating Officer without making any specific charge against him has included the name of the accused-petitioner in the Charge Sheet and as such the proceeding is liable to be quashed.

V. For that the impugned proceeding against this accused-petitioner is an abuse of process of the Court because it is proceeding on the basis of the Charge Sheet filed by the IO including the name of this accused-petitioner without making any specific charge against him and as such the proceeding is liable to be quashed.

VI. For that providing of legal opinion by a lawyer on the basis of papers/documents referred to him cannot be an offence under sections 419, 420, 465, 467, 471, 406, 34 and 109 of the Penal Code and as such the proceeding is liable to be quashed.

VII. For that while the name of the accused-petitioner is not present in the FIR, the IO in order to mislead the Court has stated in his Charge Sheet – GW‡fv‡KU †gv¯Zdv Avw`j (GRvnvi bvgxq I Z`‡šZ cÖvß) whereupon the learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate has issued warrant of arrest against the accused-petitioner and as such the proceeding is liable to be quashed.

VIII. For that the function of a lawyer in verification of title of the owner of a land does not include the function of identifying the owner at the time of execution and registration of the Mortgage Deed and as such the lawyer cannot be held responsible if the Mortgage Deed is executed and registered by any person other than the actual owner of the land. Therefore, the impugned proceeding against the accused-petitioner is liable to be quashed.

IX. For that unless the instant proceeding is quashed, no lawyer will feel save in providing legal opinion on the basis of papers/documents referred to him and as such the instant proceedings should be quashed.

Wherefore, it is humbly prayed that your Lordships would graciously be pleased to:

(a) Issue Rule calling upon the opposite- party No. 1 to show cause as to why the proceeding in Cantonment P.S. Case No. 7(8)2002 under sections 419, 420, 465, 467, 471, 406, 34 and 109 of the Penal Code now pending in the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Dhaka as G. R. Case No. 1623 of 2002 shall not be quashed so far it relates to the accused-petitioner and after hearing the parties and cause shown, if any, make the Rule absolute;

(b) Pending hearing of the Rule stay all further proceedings of Cantonment P.S. Case No. 7(8)2002 under sections 419, 420, 465, 467, 471, 406, 34 and 109 of the Penal Code now pending in the Court of Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Dhaka as G. R. Case No. 1623 of 2002 against the accused-petitioner;

(c) Pass such other order or as may deem fit and proper in this case.

And for this act of kindness, the petitioner, as in duty bound, shall ever pray.

AFFIDAVIT

I, ________________________, son of Late ________________, of ____________________________, aged about__________ years, by occupation Service, by faith __________, nationality Bangladeshi, do hereby solemnly affirm and say as follows:

01. That I am the Tadbirkar of the petitioner in this case and as such I am fully acquainted with the facts and circumstances of the case and competent to swear this affidavit.

02. That the statements of facts made above are true to my knowledge and belief, which I verily believe to be true, and the rests are submissions before this Hon’ble Court.

Prepared in my office:
Advocate DEPONENT
Solemnly affirmed before me by the aforesaid deponent on this the _________st day of ______________ at _____ a.m. The deponent is known to me and identified by me.
Commissioner of AffidavitsSupreme Court of Bangladesh

High Court Division

 ADVOCATE

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.