Appellate Division :
(Civil)
Nazmun Ara Sultana J
Syed Mahmud Hossain J
Md Imman Ali J
Chowdhury Mohidul Haque………..Petitioner
vs
Anti-Corruption Commission and others…….
…………Respondents*
Judgment
October 21st, 2014.
Code of Criminal Procedure (V of 1898)
Section 173(3B)
Although the initial charge-sheet was submitted against only one accused person, upon finding prima facie evidence against him, he still remains an accused in spite of the so called “reinvestigation” of the case whereby the petitioner before us has been additionally named an accused, prima facie evidence having been found against him in the subsequent investigation. . … (14)
Section 173(3B)
Under normal circumstances, if on the basis of fresh evidence a supplementary charge-sheet is submitted, for example by adding name of accused person (s) who had not been included in the initial charge-sheet, there would be no questioning the legality of the supplementary charge-sheet. …….(11)
Section 173(3B)
The investigating officer does not require any permission from the court concerned for further investigation and hence after completion of further investigation filing of supplementary charge-sheet does not suffer from any illegality. . .. (17)
Abul Bashar Chowkidar vs Abdul Mannan, 66 DLR (AD) 286 = Crl PLA 456 of 2011 relied.
Afia Khatoon vs Ali, 1995 BLT (AD) 74 = 47 DLR (AD) 62 ref.
Moudud Ahmed, Senior Advocate instructed by Sufia Khatun, Advocate-on-Record-For the Petitioner.
Md Khurshid Alam Khan, Advocate, instructed by Mahmuda Begum Advocate-on-Record-For Respondent Nos. 1-5.
Judgment
Md Imman Ali J: This civil petition for leave to appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 25-10-2011 passed by a Division Bench of the High Court Division in Writ Petition No. 8886 of 2010 discharging the Rule.
2. The facts of the case, in brief, are that the petitioner, Chowdhury Mohidul Haque, is one of the Senior Executive Directors of the Bangladesh Bank. He was General Manager of Barisal Office of Bangladesh Bank during 2002-2004. During his tenure in Barisal Office, he played active role in constructing own Building of the Bank and eventually foundation of the new office building of Barisal Office was given and much of the construction work had been completed and foundation stone was laid by the then Prime Minister of the Country in January, 2004. Thereafter, Bangladesh Bank, Barisal Office found prima facie case through internal audit and inspection report conducted by Head Office of Bangladesh Bank that the Assistant Director of the Bank’s Sanchay Patra section one Abul Kalam Azad misappropriated Taka 30,29,459.50. Thereafter, said Abul Kalam Azad was suspended.
Bangladesh Bank conducted thorough investigation of the case by internal Audit Team and found Abul Kalam Azad guilty for misappropriation of the fund of Sanchay Patra section of the Bank. A First Information Report (FIR) was lodged by the Deputy Director, Bangladesh Bank, Barisal with Kotwali Police Station, Barisal on 2-7-2005 wherein allegation was made that offence was committed during the period 21-11-2002 to 29-10-2003, and on the basis of the FIR, Barisal Police Station Case No. 5/404 dated 2-7-2005 under sections 406 and 409 of the Penal Code was started. The FIR named accused Abul Kalam Azad was dismissed from his service by Bangladesh Bank under Bangladesh Bank Staff Regulations, 2003. Furthermore, Money Suit No. 3 of 2007 was instituted in the Court of Joint District Judge, Barisal for recovery of the said misappropriated money and the said suit was decreed ex-parte on 20-7-2011 for an amount of Taka 46,49,008.95 with interest till recovery.
3. After investigation, the Investigating Officer found prima facie case against the FIR named sole accused Abul Kalam Azad and submitted charge-sheet being No. 348 dated 18-10-2006 under sections 406/409 and 201 of the Penal Code. In the charge-sheet the petitioner was shown as Prosecution Witness No. 11.
4. On 24-12-2006 the learned Magistrate, Barisal accepted the charge-sheet and sent the case record to the Court of Sessions Judge, Barisal for trial. On 23-1-2007 the learned Senior Special Judge, Barisal received the Case Record and on 18-2-2007 cognizance was taken under section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 and date was fixed on 14-3-2007 for framing charge, and then he transmitted the case record to the Divisional Special Judge, Barisal. On transfer, the case was renumbered as Special case No.2 of 2007. On 9-5-2007 the prosecution prayed for reinvestigation of the case, but the learned Divisional Special Judge, Barisal did not pass any order rather he postponed process of framing of charge and sent the case record to the Senior Special Judge, Barisal for obtaining sanction and taking necessary steps regarding the charge-sheet No. 348 under section 32(1) of the Anti-Corruption Commission Act, 2004 from respondent No.1. On 21-5-2007, the learned Senior Special Judge, Barisal sent the case record of Special Case No. 2 of 2007 to the concerned Magistrate for taking step under section 32(1) of Anti-Corruption Commission Act, 2004. Thereafter, the concerned Magistrate, Barisal sent all the relevant papers and charge-sheet to the Investigating Officer for obtaining sanction from the Anti-Corruption Commission. The Anti-corruption Commission instead of giving sanction to the charge-sheet being No. 348 dated 18-10-2006 under sections 406, 409 and 201 of the Penal Code on which cognizance had been taken by the Divisional Special Judge, Barisal, took decision for re-investigation of the case. On the decision of the Anti Corruption Commission, respondent No. 4, the Investigating Officer of Anti-Corruption Commission, Barisal Office on 8-9-2008 took up the matter for re-investigation and thereafter, on 5-8-2010 submitted ÒweKí Awf‡hvMcÎÓ (Alternative charge-sheet) being No. 348/Ka under section 409/477 (Ka)/1 09 of the Penal Code road with section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 on obtaining sanction from the concerned official of Anti-Corruption Commission. The petitioner has been implicated in the case through this ÒweKí Awf‡hvMcÎÓ (Alternative charge-sheet).
5. After submission of “Alternative charge-sheet” ÒweKí Awf‡hvMcÎÓ the case was renumbered, as Special Case No. 11 of 2010 dated 22-7-2010. The learned Senior Special Judge, Barisal further took cognizance of alleged offence on the strength of the said ÒweKí Awf‡hvMcÎÓ (Alternative charge-sheet) No. 238/Ka dated 5-820-10 without assignment of proper and cogent reasons.
6. Against the initiation and continuation,
of the proceedings of Special Case No.11 of 2010 arising out of Kotwali Police Station Case No.5 dated 2-7-2005 on the basis of alternative charge-sheet being No. 348/Ka dated 5-8-2010 under sections 409/477 (Ka)/l 09 of the Penal Code read with section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 on the basis of sanction vide Memo. No. `y`K/wm/10/2008 (Abyt I `ZšÍ-2)/ewit/14689, ZvwiLt2-8-2010Bs, the petitioner filed Writ Petition No. 8885 of 2010 before the High Court Division and obtained Rule and an order of stay.
7. In due course, after hearing both the parties by the impugned judgment and order the said Rule was discharged. Hence the petitioner has filed the instant civil petition for leave to appeal before this Division.
8. Mr Moudud Ahmed, learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that there is no provision either in the Code of Criminal Procedure or in the relevant special law for reinvestigation of any case after submission of a charge-sheet. There is also no provision for submitting an “alternative charge sheet” ÒweKí Awf‡hvMcÎÓ, and, as such prosecution of the petitioner, is without any lawful authority and hence the High Court Division erred in discharging the Rule. He submitted that there is a gulf of difference between reinvestigation (cybt Z`šÍ) and further investigation (AwaKZi Z`šÍ); the former is what was ordered in the instant case and is not contemplated by the law. He also submitted that further proceedings against the petitioner on the basis of an illegal alternative charge-sheet (ÒweKí Awf‡hvMcÎÓ) is illegal and hence the impugned judgment calls for interference by this Division.
9. Mr Md Khurshid Alam Khan, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the respondent No. 1-5 made submissions in support of the judgment and order of the High Court Division.
10. We have considered the submissions of the learned Advocates appearing on behalf of the respective parties and perused the impugned judgment of the High Court Division and other connected papers on record.
11. The Code of Criminal Procedure does not provide for reinvestigation of any case. Whether or not the investigation done in any case subsequent to the submission of a charge-sheet after the initial investigation is completed, is the result of a reinvestigation or a further investigation is a matter of semantics. We note from the order sheet of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Barisal, annexed to the additional paper book, that the subsequent investigation arid the consequent report has been variously referred to as Òc~Y©t Z`šÍ cÖwZ‡e`bÓ, ÒcyY© Z`šÍ cÖwZ‡e`bÓ, ÒcyY© Z`šÍ cÖwZ‡e`bÓ, and Ò AwaKZi Z`šÍÍ cÖwZ‡e`bÓ, . In the body of the report it is referred to as weKí Awf‡hvMcÎ. In the writ petition, the petitioner preferred to it as “supplementary charge-sheet”. The validity and legality of the subsequent investigation termed as “reinvestigation” and the report termed as “alternative charge-sheet” was challenged by way of a supplementary affidavit on behalf of the petitioner. The question that may be posed is whether or not there would be any prejudice caused if instead of calling it “reinvestigation”, the second investigation was termed “further investigation”, which is allowed by the law, i.e. the terms were simply transposed. Under normal circumstances, if on the basis of fresh evidence a supplementary charge-sheet is submitted, for example by adding name of accused person (s) who had not been included in the initial charge sheet, there would be no questioning the legality of the supplementary charge-sheet. That clearly is the purpose of Section 173(3B) of the Code.
12. In support of his submissions, Mr Moudud Ahmed referred to the case of 66 DLR (AD) 286; Afia Khatoon vs Ali reported in 1995 BLT (AD) 74 = 47 DLR (AD) 62, where this Division upheld the judgment and order of the High Court Division which held that the second charge-sheet appeared to be a result not of a further investigation but of reinvestigation in the name of further investigation, which is barred by law. The principle that reinvestigation is barred is established. However, the facts of the case mentioned above are somewhat peculiar, inasmuch as, in that case it was found that the subsequent investigation by the CID effectively exonerated the accused against whom prima facie case was found in the course of the initial investigation, by establishing an alibi for him. The High Court Division had found that the reinvestigation by the CID was malafide, observing that by implicating the informant and other witnesses in the same case which was done by the ASP, CID in collusion with the main accused thereby cleverly creating a situation such that the trial against the first accused and others could not proceed.
13. Similarly, in another recent unreported case, this Division found that the second investigation and charge-sheet was malafide and done with the ulterior motive to exonerate the accused in the first charge-sheet against whom a prima facie case had been found. The second charge sheet reportedly did not find any evidence against those accused persons. (Criminal Petition for Leave to Appeal No. 456 of 2011, judgment delivered on 11-9-2014). In that case we observed as follows:
“We would again reiterate that section 173 (38) of the Code allows for further investigation and submission of a further report with further evidence, oral or documentary in respect of an offence, even after a report had been forwarded to the Magistrate under section 173(1) of the Code. Hence, in this case, if it is felt necessary, a further investigation may be carried out and any other person could be implicated as an accused in the offence if prima facie evidence is found against him/her/them.”
14. However, in the facts of the instant case, it appears that although the initial charge-sheet was submitted against only one accused person, upon finding prim a facie evidence against him, he still remains an accused in spite of the so called “reinvestigation” of the case whereby the petitioner before us has been additionally named an accused, prima facie evidence having been found against him in the subsequent investigation. We do not find any indication of malafide in the conduct of the subsequent investigation.
15. It is unfortunate that various terminologies have been used which do not reflect the relevant terminology used in the statutes. We would strongly urge that the learned Magistrates, Judges, investigating agencies and others who deal with such terminologies, should ensure that the terms they use are accurate and in accordance with the terminology used in the law.
16. We also note, incidentally that the subsequent charge-sheet was numbered as 348 Ka, whereas the first charge-sheet was numbered as 348. In a way, this indicates that the second charge-sheet is indeed a supplementary of the first.
17. The High Court Division observed that under Section 173(3B) of the Code the Investigating Officer does not require any permission from the court concerned for further investigation and hence after completion of further investigation filing of supplementary charge-sheet does not suffer from any illegality. The High Court Division has treated the subsequent investigation as a further investigation and the report as a supplementary charge-sheet.
18. In view of our discussion, above, we do not, find any illegality or infirmity in the impugned judgment and order and accordingly the civil petition for leave to appeal is dismissed.
(Civil)
Nazmun Ara Sultana J
Syed Mahmud Hossain J
Md Imman Ali J
Chowdhury Mohidul Haque………..Petitioner
vs
Anti-Corruption Commission and others…….
…………Respondents*
Judgment
October 21st, 2014.
Code of Criminal Procedure (V of 1898)
Section 173(3B)
Although the initial charge-sheet was submitted against only one accused person, upon finding prima facie evidence against him, he still remains an accused in spite of the so called “reinvestigation” of the case whereby the petitioner before us has been additionally named an accused, prima facie evidence having been found against him in the subsequent investigation. . … (14)
Section 173(3B)
Under normal circumstances, if on the basis of fresh evidence a supplementary charge-sheet is submitted, for example by adding name of accused person (s) who had not been included in the initial charge-sheet, there would be no questioning the legality of the supplementary charge-sheet. …….(11)
Section 173(3B)
The investigating officer does not require any permission from the court concerned for further investigation and hence after completion of further investigation filing of supplementary charge-sheet does not suffer from any illegality. . .. (17)
Abul Bashar Chowkidar vs Abdul Mannan, 66 DLR (AD) 286 = Crl PLA 456 of 2011 relied.
Afia Khatoon vs Ali, 1995 BLT (AD) 74 = 47 DLR (AD) 62 ref.
Moudud Ahmed, Senior Advocate instructed by Sufia Khatun, Advocate-on-Record-For the Petitioner.
Md Khurshid Alam Khan, Advocate, instructed by Mahmuda Begum Advocate-on-Record-For Respondent Nos. 1-5.
Judgment
Md Imman Ali J: This civil petition for leave to appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 25-10-2011 passed by a Division Bench of the High Court Division in Writ Petition No. 8886 of 2010 discharging the Rule.
2. The facts of the case, in brief, are that the petitioner, Chowdhury Mohidul Haque, is one of the Senior Executive Directors of the Bangladesh Bank. He was General Manager of Barisal Office of Bangladesh Bank during 2002-2004. During his tenure in Barisal Office, he played active role in constructing own Building of the Bank and eventually foundation of the new office building of Barisal Office was given and much of the construction work had been completed and foundation stone was laid by the then Prime Minister of the Country in January, 2004. Thereafter, Bangladesh Bank, Barisal Office found prima facie case through internal audit and inspection report conducted by Head Office of Bangladesh Bank that the Assistant Director of the Bank’s Sanchay Patra section one Abul Kalam Azad misappropriated Taka 30,29,459.50. Thereafter, said Abul Kalam Azad was suspended.
Bangladesh Bank conducted thorough investigation of the case by internal Audit Team and found Abul Kalam Azad guilty for misappropriation of the fund of Sanchay Patra section of the Bank. A First Information Report (FIR) was lodged by the Deputy Director, Bangladesh Bank, Barisal with Kotwali Police Station, Barisal on 2-7-2005 wherein allegation was made that offence was committed during the period 21-11-2002 to 29-10-2003, and on the basis of the FIR, Barisal Police Station Case No. 5/404 dated 2-7-2005 under sections 406 and 409 of the Penal Code was started. The FIR named accused Abul Kalam Azad was dismissed from his service by Bangladesh Bank under Bangladesh Bank Staff Regulations, 2003. Furthermore, Money Suit No. 3 of 2007 was instituted in the Court of Joint District Judge, Barisal for recovery of the said misappropriated money and the said suit was decreed ex-parte on 20-7-2011 for an amount of Taka 46,49,008.95 with interest till recovery.
3. After investigation, the Investigating Officer found prima facie case against the FIR named sole accused Abul Kalam Azad and submitted charge-sheet being No. 348 dated 18-10-2006 under sections 406/409 and 201 of the Penal Code. In the charge-sheet the petitioner was shown as Prosecution Witness No. 11.
4. On 24-12-2006 the learned Magistrate, Barisal accepted the charge-sheet and sent the case record to the Court of Sessions Judge, Barisal for trial. On 23-1-2007 the learned Senior Special Judge, Barisal received the Case Record and on 18-2-2007 cognizance was taken under section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 and date was fixed on 14-3-2007 for framing charge, and then he transmitted the case record to the Divisional Special Judge, Barisal. On transfer, the case was renumbered as Special case No.2 of 2007. On 9-5-2007 the prosecution prayed for reinvestigation of the case, but the learned Divisional Special Judge, Barisal did not pass any order rather he postponed process of framing of charge and sent the case record to the Senior Special Judge, Barisal for obtaining sanction and taking necessary steps regarding the charge-sheet No. 348 under section 32(1) of the Anti-Corruption Commission Act, 2004 from respondent No.1. On 21-5-2007, the learned Senior Special Judge, Barisal sent the case record of Special Case No. 2 of 2007 to the concerned Magistrate for taking step under section 32(1) of Anti-Corruption Commission Act, 2004. Thereafter, the concerned Magistrate, Barisal sent all the relevant papers and charge-sheet to the Investigating Officer for obtaining sanction from the Anti-Corruption Commission. The Anti-corruption Commission instead of giving sanction to the charge-sheet being No. 348 dated 18-10-2006 under sections 406, 409 and 201 of the Penal Code on which cognizance had been taken by the Divisional Special Judge, Barisal, took decision for re-investigation of the case. On the decision of the Anti Corruption Commission, respondent No. 4, the Investigating Officer of Anti-Corruption Commission, Barisal Office on 8-9-2008 took up the matter for re-investigation and thereafter, on 5-8-2010 submitted ÒweKí Awf‡hvMcÎÓ (Alternative charge-sheet) being No. 348/Ka under section 409/477 (Ka)/1 09 of the Penal Code road with section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 on obtaining sanction from the concerned official of Anti-Corruption Commission. The petitioner has been implicated in the case through this ÒweKí Awf‡hvMcÎÓ (Alternative charge-sheet).
5. After submission of “Alternative charge-sheet” ÒweKí Awf‡hvMcÎÓ the case was renumbered, as Special Case No. 11 of 2010 dated 22-7-2010. The learned Senior Special Judge, Barisal further took cognizance of alleged offence on the strength of the said ÒweKí Awf‡hvMcÎÓ (Alternative charge-sheet) No. 238/Ka dated 5-820-10 without assignment of proper and cogent reasons.
6. Against the initiation and continuation,
of the proceedings of Special Case No.11 of 2010 arising out of Kotwali Police Station Case No.5 dated 2-7-2005 on the basis of alternative charge-sheet being No. 348/Ka dated 5-8-2010 under sections 409/477 (Ka)/l 09 of the Penal Code read with section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 on the basis of sanction vide Memo. No. `y`K/wm/10/2008 (Abyt I `ZšÍ-2)/ewit/14689, ZvwiLt2-8-2010Bs, the petitioner filed Writ Petition No. 8885 of 2010 before the High Court Division and obtained Rule and an order of stay.
7. In due course, after hearing both the parties by the impugned judgment and order the said Rule was discharged. Hence the petitioner has filed the instant civil petition for leave to appeal before this Division.
8. Mr Moudud Ahmed, learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that there is no provision either in the Code of Criminal Procedure or in the relevant special law for reinvestigation of any case after submission of a charge-sheet. There is also no provision for submitting an “alternative charge sheet” ÒweKí Awf‡hvMcÎÓ, and, as such prosecution of the petitioner, is without any lawful authority and hence the High Court Division erred in discharging the Rule. He submitted that there is a gulf of difference between reinvestigation (cybt Z`šÍ) and further investigation (AwaKZi Z`šÍ); the former is what was ordered in the instant case and is not contemplated by the law. He also submitted that further proceedings against the petitioner on the basis of an illegal alternative charge-sheet (ÒweKí Awf‡hvMcÎÓ) is illegal and hence the impugned judgment calls for interference by this Division.
9. Mr Md Khurshid Alam Khan, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the respondent No. 1-5 made submissions in support of the judgment and order of the High Court Division.
10. We have considered the submissions of the learned Advocates appearing on behalf of the respective parties and perused the impugned judgment of the High Court Division and other connected papers on record.
11. The Code of Criminal Procedure does not provide for reinvestigation of any case. Whether or not the investigation done in any case subsequent to the submission of a charge-sheet after the initial investigation is completed, is the result of a reinvestigation or a further investigation is a matter of semantics. We note from the order sheet of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Barisal, annexed to the additional paper book, that the subsequent investigation arid the consequent report has been variously referred to as Òc~Y©t Z`šÍ cÖwZ‡e`bÓ, ÒcyY© Z`šÍ cÖwZ‡e`bÓ, ÒcyY© Z`šÍ cÖwZ‡e`bÓ, and Ò AwaKZi Z`šÍÍ cÖwZ‡e`bÓ, . In the body of the report it is referred to as weKí Awf‡hvMcÎ. In the writ petition, the petitioner preferred to it as “supplementary charge-sheet”. The validity and legality of the subsequent investigation termed as “reinvestigation” and the report termed as “alternative charge-sheet” was challenged by way of a supplementary affidavit on behalf of the petitioner. The question that may be posed is whether or not there would be any prejudice caused if instead of calling it “reinvestigation”, the second investigation was termed “further investigation”, which is allowed by the law, i.e. the terms were simply transposed. Under normal circumstances, if on the basis of fresh evidence a supplementary charge-sheet is submitted, for example by adding name of accused person (s) who had not been included in the initial charge sheet, there would be no questioning the legality of the supplementary charge-sheet. That clearly is the purpose of Section 173(3B) of the Code.
12. In support of his submissions, Mr Moudud Ahmed referred to the case of 66 DLR (AD) 286; Afia Khatoon vs Ali reported in 1995 BLT (AD) 74 = 47 DLR (AD) 62, where this Division upheld the judgment and order of the High Court Division which held that the second charge-sheet appeared to be a result not of a further investigation but of reinvestigation in the name of further investigation, which is barred by law. The principle that reinvestigation is barred is established. However, the facts of the case mentioned above are somewhat peculiar, inasmuch as, in that case it was found that the subsequent investigation by the CID effectively exonerated the accused against whom prima facie case was found in the course of the initial investigation, by establishing an alibi for him. The High Court Division had found that the reinvestigation by the CID was malafide, observing that by implicating the informant and other witnesses in the same case which was done by the ASP, CID in collusion with the main accused thereby cleverly creating a situation such that the trial against the first accused and others could not proceed.
13. Similarly, in another recent unreported case, this Division found that the second investigation and charge-sheet was malafide and done with the ulterior motive to exonerate the accused in the first charge-sheet against whom a prima facie case had been found. The second charge sheet reportedly did not find any evidence against those accused persons. (Criminal Petition for Leave to Appeal No. 456 of 2011, judgment delivered on 11-9-2014). In that case we observed as follows:
“We would again reiterate that section 173 (38) of the Code allows for further investigation and submission of a further report with further evidence, oral or documentary in respect of an offence, even after a report had been forwarded to the Magistrate under section 173(1) of the Code. Hence, in this case, if it is felt necessary, a further investigation may be carried out and any other person could be implicated as an accused in the offence if prima facie evidence is found against him/her/them.”
14. However, in the facts of the instant case, it appears that although the initial charge-sheet was submitted against only one accused person, upon finding prim a facie evidence against him, he still remains an accused in spite of the so called “reinvestigation” of the case whereby the petitioner before us has been additionally named an accused, prima facie evidence having been found against him in the subsequent investigation. We do not find any indication of malafide in the conduct of the subsequent investigation.
15. It is unfortunate that various terminologies have been used which do not reflect the relevant terminology used in the statutes. We would strongly urge that the learned Magistrates, Judges, investigating agencies and others who deal with such terminologies, should ensure that the terms they use are accurate and in accordance with the terminology used in the law.
16. We also note, incidentally that the subsequent charge-sheet was numbered as 348 Ka, whereas the first charge-sheet was numbered as 348. In a way, this indicates that the second charge-sheet is indeed a supplementary of the first.
17. The High Court Division observed that under Section 173(3B) of the Code the Investigating Officer does not require any permission from the court concerned for further investigation and hence after completion of further investigation filing of supplementary charge-sheet does not suffer from any illegality. The High Court Division has treated the subsequent investigation as a further investigation and the report as a supplementary charge-sheet.
18. In view of our discussion, above, we do not, find any illegality or infirmity in the impugned judgment and order and accordingly the civil petition for leave to appeal is dismissed.
