Appellate Division :
(Criminal)
Surendra Kumar Sinha J
Md Abdul Wahhab Miah J
Hasan Foez Siddique J
AHM Shamsuddin
Chowdhury J
Judgment
June 16th, 2014
Engineer Abdul Wadud ….. Petitioner
vs
State and another ………..Respondent *
Code of Criminal Procedure (V of 1898)
Sections 241A and 242
Section 242 of the Code empowers a court to frame a formal charge if after consideration of the materials on record it is of the opinion that there is ground for presuming that the accused has committed the offence. An accused person can claim for discharge under Section 241A of the Code if upon consideration of the material evidence on record of the case and the documents submitted therewith and making such examination, if any, of the accused as the court thinks necessary considers the charge to be groundless. ….. (4)
Code of Criminal Procedure (V of 1898) Section 241A
Records of the case and documents “Record of the case” includes the police report submitted after completion of investigation and “documents” means the documents sized by the investigation officer in course of the investigation. If the investigation officer upon perusal of the materials on record found prima-facie complicity of any accused person, he shall submit charge-sheet against him. The High Court Division is justified in maintaining the order of the trial court which, has legally framed charge on finding that the materials on record are sufficient to frame a charge. …… (4)
ASM Abdul Mobin, Advocate, instructed by Zainul Abedin, Advocate-on-Record–For the Petitioner.
Madhumaloty Chowdhury Barua, a dvocate-on-Record -For the Respodents.
Judgment
Surendra Kumar Sinha J: In this petition accused petitioner Abdul Wadud, former Managing Director of Rupantorita Prakritik Gas Company Limited seeks leave from a judgment of the High Court Division which refused to quash the proceeding initiated against him and others under sections 409/109 of the Penal Code read with section 5(2) of Act II of 1947.
2. The case was initiated pursuant to an FIR lodged with the Golapgonj police station, Sylhet by an officer of the Durnity Daman Commission for misappropriation of Taka 4,08,37,973 against five persons who were then working at Rupantorita Prakritik Gas Company Limited for producing Liquidified Petroleum Gas from Natural Gas extracted from Kailashtilla Gas Field. The petitioner was not suspected as an accused initially in the FIR. In course of investigation, the investigation officer found his complicity to the effect that he being the Managing Director of the organization knowing well that there was continuous misappropriation, he did not take any step for which the accused persons being emboldened with his conduct, misappropriated huge amount of money and that though he had been performing as Managing Director for a long time, he did not take any actions, rather he had suppressed the misappropriation and thereby, he had sustained pecuniary benefit out of the said misappropriation,
3. Mr ASM Abdul Mabin, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the High Court Division has committed an error of law in not interfering with the proceeding in failing to consider that the charge of misappropriation of money cannot be sustained against the petitioner on the basis of the police report and since there is no allegation against him in the FIR, there is practically no legal evidence to substantiate the charge brought against him. He further submits that the learned Special Judge made discrimination in considering the case of the petitioner, inasmuch as, on the basis of self same materials he has found prima facie case against the petitioner, but found no prima-facie case against co-accused Md Abdul Khalek and Shafiul Alam.
4. We have perused the FIR, the police report and heard the learned counsel. The High Court Division on a thorough consideration of the materials on record, particularly the police report has arrived at the conclusion that a prima facie case has been found against the petitioner for framing a charge of misappropriation of money. Section 242 of the Code of Criminal Procedure empowers a court to frame a formal charge if after consideration of the materials on record it is of the opinion that there is ground for presuming that the accused has committed the offence. An accused person can claim for discharge under section 241A of the Code of Criminal Procedure if upon consideration of the material evidence on record of the case and the documents submitted therewith and making such examination, if any, of the accused as the court thinks necessary considers the charge to be groundless. “Record of the case” includes the police report submitted after completion of investigation and “documents” means the documents sized by the investigation officer in course of the Investigation. If the investigation officer upon perusal of the materials on record found prima-facie complicity of any accused person, he shall submit charge-sheet against him. In this case the investigation officer has found prima-facie case against the petitioner. In view of the above, the High Court Division is justified in maintaining the order of the trial court which has legally framed charge against the petitioner on finding that the materials on record are sufficient to frame a charge. In respect of discharge of two accused persons, the High Court Division having found their prima-facie complicity has issued suo moto rule upon them to show cause why the order of discharge passed by the Divisional Special Judge should not be set-aside and why they should not be proceeded with the trial of the case. Therefore, the High Court Division has committed no discrimination in considering the case of the petitioner. We find no merit in the contention of the learned counsel. The petition is accordingly dismissed.
(Criminal)
Surendra Kumar Sinha J
Md Abdul Wahhab Miah J
Hasan Foez Siddique J
AHM Shamsuddin
Chowdhury J
Judgment
June 16th, 2014
Engineer Abdul Wadud ….. Petitioner
vs
State and another ………..Respondent *
Code of Criminal Procedure (V of 1898)
Sections 241A and 242
Section 242 of the Code empowers a court to frame a formal charge if after consideration of the materials on record it is of the opinion that there is ground for presuming that the accused has committed the offence. An accused person can claim for discharge under Section 241A of the Code if upon consideration of the material evidence on record of the case and the documents submitted therewith and making such examination, if any, of the accused as the court thinks necessary considers the charge to be groundless. ….. (4)
Code of Criminal Procedure (V of 1898) Section 241A
Records of the case and documents “Record of the case” includes the police report submitted after completion of investigation and “documents” means the documents sized by the investigation officer in course of the investigation. If the investigation officer upon perusal of the materials on record found prima-facie complicity of any accused person, he shall submit charge-sheet against him. The High Court Division is justified in maintaining the order of the trial court which, has legally framed charge on finding that the materials on record are sufficient to frame a charge. …… (4)
ASM Abdul Mobin, Advocate, instructed by Zainul Abedin, Advocate-on-Record–For the Petitioner.
Madhumaloty Chowdhury Barua, a dvocate-on-Record -For the Respodents.
Judgment
Surendra Kumar Sinha J: In this petition accused petitioner Abdul Wadud, former Managing Director of Rupantorita Prakritik Gas Company Limited seeks leave from a judgment of the High Court Division which refused to quash the proceeding initiated against him and others under sections 409/109 of the Penal Code read with section 5(2) of Act II of 1947.
2. The case was initiated pursuant to an FIR lodged with the Golapgonj police station, Sylhet by an officer of the Durnity Daman Commission for misappropriation of Taka 4,08,37,973 against five persons who were then working at Rupantorita Prakritik Gas Company Limited for producing Liquidified Petroleum Gas from Natural Gas extracted from Kailashtilla Gas Field. The petitioner was not suspected as an accused initially in the FIR. In course of investigation, the investigation officer found his complicity to the effect that he being the Managing Director of the organization knowing well that there was continuous misappropriation, he did not take any step for which the accused persons being emboldened with his conduct, misappropriated huge amount of money and that though he had been performing as Managing Director for a long time, he did not take any actions, rather he had suppressed the misappropriation and thereby, he had sustained pecuniary benefit out of the said misappropriation,
3. Mr ASM Abdul Mabin, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the High Court Division has committed an error of law in not interfering with the proceeding in failing to consider that the charge of misappropriation of money cannot be sustained against the petitioner on the basis of the police report and since there is no allegation against him in the FIR, there is practically no legal evidence to substantiate the charge brought against him. He further submits that the learned Special Judge made discrimination in considering the case of the petitioner, inasmuch as, on the basis of self same materials he has found prima facie case against the petitioner, but found no prima-facie case against co-accused Md Abdul Khalek and Shafiul Alam.
4. We have perused the FIR, the police report and heard the learned counsel. The High Court Division on a thorough consideration of the materials on record, particularly the police report has arrived at the conclusion that a prima facie case has been found against the petitioner for framing a charge of misappropriation of money. Section 242 of the Code of Criminal Procedure empowers a court to frame a formal charge if after consideration of the materials on record it is of the opinion that there is ground for presuming that the accused has committed the offence. An accused person can claim for discharge under section 241A of the Code of Criminal Procedure if upon consideration of the material evidence on record of the case and the documents submitted therewith and making such examination, if any, of the accused as the court thinks necessary considers the charge to be groundless. “Record of the case” includes the police report submitted after completion of investigation and “documents” means the documents sized by the investigation officer in course of the Investigation. If the investigation officer upon perusal of the materials on record found prima-facie complicity of any accused person, he shall submit charge-sheet against him. In this case the investigation officer has found prima-facie case against the petitioner. In view of the above, the High Court Division is justified in maintaining the order of the trial court which has legally framed charge against the petitioner on finding that the materials on record are sufficient to frame a charge. In respect of discharge of two accused persons, the High Court Division having found their prima-facie complicity has issued suo moto rule upon them to show cause why the order of discharge passed by the Divisional Special Judge should not be set-aside and why they should not be proceeded with the trial of the case. Therefore, the High Court Division has committed no discrimination in considering the case of the petitioner. We find no merit in the contention of the learned counsel. The petition is accordingly dismissed.
* Civil Petition for Leave to Appeal No.3414 of 2014
