.png "63 DLR (AD) (2011)")
Fact of the case:
In this case
related to Criminal Breach of Trust, Here the accused Md. Nazir Ahmed used to
live in the house of the informant as tenant. The accused along with his wife
Mrs. Tahmina Akhter requested the informant to give money for the business of
importing powder milk but the informant did not agree to pay the money.
Subsequently the accused along with his wife created a cordial relationship
with the family members of the informant and addressed the informant as
Khaluzan. Being pleased with the behaviour of the accused and his wife the
informant agreed to help the business of the accused and accordingly the
informant gave cheques of 3800000 to the accused on different dates. The
accused Md. Nazir Ahmed accepted the cheques by signing the counterfoils and
encashed those cheques by signing on the back side of cheques. The informant
told the accused to return the money but the he delayed on different pretexts
and ultimately the accused fled away from the house of the informant.
Issue of the case:
Whether Md. Nazir
Ahmed can be held liable for criminal Breach of Trust under section 405 and
punishable under section 406 of the Penal Code? Whether Amin Mia(Informant)
could be claimed his money?
Decision:
The Favor of
decision goes to Md. Nazir Ahmed and Others.
Justification:
The High Court
Division after the hearing the parties made the Rule absolute and impugned
judgment of the appellate Court was set aside and the appellant petitioner
Nazir Ahmed was acquitted.
The
informant as claimed that he gave cheques of Tk.3800,000 to the accused
petitioner Nazir Ahmed for doing business. But there was no written agreement
or document to prove the contention from the evidence, The High Court Division
held that counterfoils cannot be legal evidence unless the original cheques are
proved to be encashed by the accused-petitioner. Accordingly, the High Court
Division held that the prosecution could not prove the case beyond all
reasonable doubt.
Read Also
No comments:
Post a Comment