Jalal Hazra Vs. The State and another, 3 LNJ (2014) 21

Case No: Criminal Appeal No. 1265 of 2005

Judge: M. Enayetur Rahim,

Court: High Court Division,,

Advocate: Mr. A.M. Mahbubuddin ,Mr. Sk. Saifuzzaman,Mr. M.H. Sarder,Mr. Md. Asaduzzaman Asad,,

Citation: 3 LNJ (2014) 21

Case Year: 2014

Appellant: Jalal Hazra

Respondent: The State and another

Delivery Date: 2012-04-26


HIGH COURT DIVISION
(CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION)
 
M. Enayetur Rahim, J.
And
Sheikh Md. Zakir Hossain, J.

Judgment
26th April, 2012
}
}
}
}
}
Jalal Hazra
... Appellant.
Vs.
The State and another
.. Respondents.
 
 
Acid Aparad Daman Ain (II of 2002)
Section 24(3)
In view of the provisions of  section 24 (3) of  the Acid Aparad Daman Ain, 2002 the Tribunal can take cognizance of the offence rejecting the police report if it finds sufficient materials in the police report. In the impugned order the learned judge did not assign any cogent reason in taking cognizance of the offence against the accused persons and hence the impugned order is set aside. ...(9 and 13)

Mr. A.M. Mahbubuddin with
Mr. Sk. Saifuzzaman, Advocates
---For the Appellant

Mr. M.H. Sarder, DAG with
Mr. Md. Asaduzzaman Asad, AAG
--- For Respondent

Criminal Appeal No. 1265 of 2005
 
JUDGMENT
M. Enayetur Rahim, J.
 

This appeal is directed against the order dated 02.03.2005 passed by the Acid Aparadh Daman Tribunal, Khulna in Aparadh Daman Case No. 07 of 2004 taking cognizance against the present appellant under section  5/7 the Acid Aparadh Daman Ain, 2002 refusing the police report.

The respondent No. 2 on 29.7.2004 lodged FIR with the Paikgacha Police Station, Khulna implicating the present accused appellant alleging, inter alia, that on 28.7.2004 at night when the informant was sleeping in her house with her disable son Kuddus suddenly at 3 am she woke up seeing the light of torch and saw the accused appellant along with 2/3 other accused persons. When the informant started shouting accused Jalal Hazra threw corrosive substance and as a result the informant received seriously burn injury on the different parts on her body including her left cheek and arm and breast.

On the basis of the said FIR Paikgacha Police Station Case No. 14 dated 29.7.2004 under section 5/6 of the Acid Aparadh Daman Ain, 2002 was started. Police after completion of the investigation submitted final report in favour of the accused persons recommending for prosecution against the informant for lodging false case. Against the said police report the informant filed naraji.

Eventually, the case record was sent to the Acid Aparadh Tribunal, Khulna and same was registered as Acid Aparadh Daman Case No. 07 of 2004. The learned Judge of the Tribunal by the impugned order dated 2.3.2005 took cognizance against he accused persons under section 715 of the Acid  Aparadh Daman Ain, 2002 rejecting the final report. Being aggrieved by the said order the present accused has preferred this appeal.

Mr. A.M. Mahbubuddin, the learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant submits that the Tribunal having no material on record has taken cognizance under section 5/7 of the Acid Aparadh Daman Ain, 2002 against the accused appellant which is unwarranted in law. However, the learned Deputy Attorney General submits that the learned Jude of the Tribunal considering the materials on record rightly took cognizance against the accused-persons.

We have gone through the impugned order as well as the FIR and the police report. Police after holding investigation submitted its report and in the said report Investigating Officer categorically stated to the effect:

‘‘বাদীনির শরীর এসিড জাতীয় পদার্থে ছুড়ে কালচে হয়ে গেলেও এসিডের একটি ফোটাও তাহার পরনের কাপড়ে এবং বিছানা পত্রে ও কাথায় লাগে নাই। যাহা মামলায় সত্যতা এবং আসামীদেও জড়িত থাকার ব্যাপাওে যথেষ্ট সন্দেহের সৃষ্টি হয়। ------।
যে ক্ষেত্রে বাদীনির সহিত আসামী জালাল হাজরার জমি-জমা লইয়া শত্রম্নতা চলিতেছে সে ক্ষেত্রে জালাল হাজরার মত একজন সচেতন ব্যক্তি এসিড ছুড়িয়া শারার মত হীন মাসিসিকতা নাই। আসামীর ছোড়া এসিডে মামলায় বাদীনি জোহরা বেগম এবং তাহার প্রতিবন্দী পুত্র আঃ কুদ্দুস জখম প্রাপ্ত হওয়ায়ার কথা হইলেও তাহাদেও গায়ে থাকা কাপড় চোপড় এবং বিছানার কোন অংশেই এসিডের একটি ফোটাও লাগে নাই।------।
বাদীনি পূর্বে নিজেরাই এসিড জাতীয় পদার্থ দ্বরা নিজেদেও শীরর জখম প্রাপ্ত করিয়া অত্র মামলায় লাইফ সাজা হইয়াছেন। ইতিপূর্বে বাদিনী  একাধিক মামলা আসামী জালাল হাজরার বিরম্নদ্ধে দায়ের করিলেও একটি শক্তিশালী মামলার প্রয়োজনে বাদীনি অত্র মিথ্যা এসিড মামলা আনায়ন করেন।’’

The learned Judge of the Tribunal in taking cognizance against the accused appellant did not at all considered the above observation made in the police report. Rather it appears from the impugned order the learned Judge observed to the effect that; ‘‘তদমত্মকারী কর্মকর্তা কি কারণে অভিযোগ হইতে অভিযুক্তকে অব্যাহতি প্রদান করেন তৎমর্মে কোন ব্যাখ্যা প্রদান করেন নাই’’।

This finding of the learned Judge of the Tribunal is absolutely contradictory to the police report and other materials on record.

It is true that the Tribunal can take cognizance into the case in view of provision of section 24 (3) of the Acid Aparad Daman Ain, 2002 rejecting the police report if it's found sufficient materials in police report. In the impugned order the learned Judge did not assign any cogent reason in taking cognizance against the accused persons.

In view of the above we are of the opinion that the impugned orders suffers from illegality and infirmity which calls for interference by us.

Thus, we find merit in the appeal.

Accordingly, the appeal is allowed.

The impugned order dated 2.3.2005 passed by the Acid Aparad Daman Tribunal, Khulna in Acid Aparad Daman Case No. 07 of 2004 taking cognizance against the accused persons is hereby set aside.

Send down the lower court records and copy of this Judgment to the concerned Tribunal at once.

Ed.