.gif "63 DLR (HCD) 363")
The fact of the case:
On June 17, 2002,
Kazi Samsul Islam, Inspector of the Bureau of Anti-Corruption, Bangladesh,
Dhaka, lodged a First Information Report (FIR) with Motijheel Police Station,
alleging, inter alia, that in the course of inquiry into allegations against
Mr. Tofail Ahmed, it transpired that Mr. Tofail Ahmed, having been elected as a
Member of Parliament (MP) in the general election held in 1996, was in charge
of the Ministry of Industry from 1996 to 2001 with intent to conceal crores of
Taka earned by him through dishonest means while he was in charge of the
Ministry of Industries and with intent to frustrate the apprehended possibility
of the forfeiture of the said money.
Mr. Tofail Ahmed has got a portion of the said money tactfully removed, by way of telegraphic transfer (TT), from Madona Advertising Ltd, Managing Director Mr. ARM Harun-ur-Rashid, maintained with the National Bank Ltd., Dilkusha CIA, Dhaka, to the Savings Account of Mr. Abdul Momen Tulu, maintained with the National Bank Ltd., Bhola Branch. In this process, an amount of Tk. 25,00,000 (twenty lakh) was transferred by TT No. 27 dated 2-9-2001, and another amount of Tk. 25,00,000 (twenty lahks) was transferred by TT No. 28 dated 04-09-2001, thus a total amount of Tk. 50,00,000 was transferred.
The further
allegations are that Mr. Tofail Ahmed is the owner of the said amount of Taka
50,00,000 (fifty lacks) and at his request, the said amount was transferred to
the account of Mr. Abdul Momen Tulu, and later on, Mr. Tofail Ahmed withdrew
the said money through Mr. Tulu; that there existed a friendly relationship
between Mr. Tofail Ahmed and the above named two account holders, who were
loyal to him and were also supporters of his political ideology. On these
allegations, Motijheel Police Station Case No. 54, dated June 17, 2002, has
been registered under Sections 206, 420, 424, and 109 of the Penal Code, 1860,
read with Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947, against Mr.
Tofail Ahmed and the aforementioned account holders.
The learned
Advocate Mr. Awsafur Rahman appeared for the accused petitioner and the learned
Advocate Mr. Khurshid Alam Khan appeared for the Bureau.
Issue of the case:
Whether the impugned proceeding amounts to an abuse of the process of the Court or whether the same is liable to be quashed otherwise to secure ends of justice?
Decisions:
The court found
that the case stated in the FIR or in the charge sheet does not disclose any
offense under sections 206, 420, 424, or 109 of the Penal Code or under Section
5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947. In their considered view, it
was so preposterous, vexatious, and oppressive that it was quashed.
Justification:
The advocate of the accused argued that the entire
case stated in the FIR and in the charge sheet does not disclose any offense
under the aforesaid sections of the law. There were no allegations against the
petitioner as to how he has illegally earned an amount of Taka 50,00,000 (fifty
lakh) by dishonest means, as alleged, and nothing has been stated in the
FIR or in the charge sheet to show his complicity in the alleged banking
transaction that took place between two persons through their respective
accounts, maintained in two places, except the allegation that there existed a
friendly relationship between the petitioner with those two persons and that
they were loyal to the petitioner and were the follower of his political
ideology.
The court also did not find any description either in the FIR or in the charge sheet that prima facie discloses that the petitioner has dishonestly earned crores of Taka or Tk. 50.00.000 (fifty lakh) while he was in charge of the Ministry of Industry, so there arises no question of dishonest concealment or removal of the same. There was not a single word in the FIR or in the charge sheet as to how, when, from whom, in connection with what deal or deals the petitioner had dishonestly earned the aforesaid amount of money. Although a charge sheet had been filed after holding a complete investigation into the case narrated in the FIR. As such ingredients of section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 were absent. Similarly, the court found no allegation that the petitioner had deceived or induced anybody and thereby committed any act of cheating. The court also noted the ratio decidendi of the case between Indu Bhushan Chatterjee vs State, AIR 1955 Calcutta 430 in this case.
Written by---
Asadul Islam
Department of Land Management and Law
Jagannath University, Dhaka
Read Also
No comments:
Post a Comment