The fact of the case:
The chairman of
the aforementioned Parishad, PW 5 Md Nazrul Islam, telephoned the informant
officer-in-charge of Dupchachia Police Station, Kazi Ataur Rahman, at around
2:30 PM on February 27, 1998, to let him know that they had arrested the
convict appellant Omela Bibi and found three counterfeit 300 Taka notes in her
possession. The informant then took possession of the aforementioned three fake
notes, created a seizure list in front of the witnesses, and acquired their
signatures.Issue of the case:
The prosecution's evidence contends that the crucial elements under Section 25A(b) of the Special Powers Act 1974 are that in order to establish an offense under this section, the prosecution must demonstrate not only that the counterfeit currency note was recovered from the convict appellant's possession but also that she either used the note knowing it to be a fake or that she did so.Decision:
As a result, the appeal is granted and the challenged decision is canceled. Omela Bibi, the convict appellant and the wife of Ismar Hossain Pramanik from the the village of Agapur in the district of Bogra, was declared not guilty of the charges brought against her and was cleared of them. Therefore, if the convicted appellant from above is not required in connection with any other case, she should be released right away.Justification:
A person must have mens rea, or guilty mentality, or have a good cause to think that the currency note they were possessing or intending to use was a counterfeit in order to be found guilty under Section 25A(b) of the Special Powers Act.We find that the prosecution has not been able to show that the convict appellant knew the said three five hundred Taka notes were counterfeit notes and she attempted to use one such note knowing or having reason to believe it to be so. We have given careful consideration to due and careful assessment of the evidence on file, including the confessional statement of the convict appellant in light of the aforesaid discussions. Even if she was unable to account for her possession of the aforementioned items, the convict appellant will never be held liable under section 25A(b) of the Special Powers Act for making any false statements with intent or even out of fear as a result of the incident. The confessional evidence in this case that the convict appellant was described as a simple rural housewife. We also know from PW 8's evidence that he did not discover any allegations of cheating against the convict appellant nor was there any complaint at the local police station against her as a bad element. Instead, he determined that the convict appellant's name and address were correct.
The prosecution was unable to prove that the convicted appellant was connected with or involved in any organized gang that was engaged in the production of counterfeit currency notes, and nothing from her control or possession that could be used to produce counterfeit currency notes was found. The mere possession of the mentioned counterfeit notes or the intended use of one of them cannot be considered dishonest to warrant conviction and sentencing under section 25A(b) of the Special Powers Act in the absence of such proof. The elements of section 25A(b) against the convicted appellant have not been shown by the prosecution. Because of this, the trial court violated the law when it issued the challenged decision, convicting the convict appellant. Therefore, this Court should intervene.
Written by---
Sadia Hosen Ema
Department of Land Management and Law
Jagannath University, Dhaka
No comments:
Post a Comment