Appellate Division
(Criminal)
Nazmun Ara Sultana, J
Syed Mahmud Hossain J
Md Anwarul Hoque J
Abdul Wahed Gaffar ………………..Petitioner
vs
State and another ……….
……… Respondents
Judgment
April 6th, 2014
Code of Criminal Procedure (V of 1898)
Section 561A
Special Powers Act (XIV of 1974)
Section 25A
Mere physical possession of the counterfeit notes is not an offence punishable under section 25A of the Act but the intention as it transpires from the FIR, facts, circumstances on record and the other evidence it has become clear to us that criminal proceeding cannot be quashed at this stage of hearing because it needs evidence to be recorded by the court during the course of trial to establish the intention of keeping huge quantity of counterfeit note in the apartment. ………….(6)
Md Zainul Abedin, Advocate-on-Record-For the Petitioner.
Not Represented -For Respondent.
Judgment
Md Anwarul Haque J : This criminal petition for leave to appeal is directed against the judgment and order passed by the High Court Division in Criminal Miscellaneous Case No. 13078 of 2005 passed on 6-6-2010 discharging the rule issued under section 561A of the Code of Criminal Procedure in order to quash the proceeding of Metro Special Tribunal Case No. 413 of 2005 arising out of Ramna PS Case No. 40 dated 14-11-2004 corresponding to GR No.1081 of 2004 pending before the Metropolitan Special Tribunal Court No. 12, Dhaka for committing the offence punishable under section 25A of the Special Powers Act, 1974.
2. In short, the case of the prosecution for the purpose of disposal of the criminal petition for leave to appeal is as follows:
On the date of occurrence on 14-11-2004 Informant with other members of law enforcing agency conducted raid in the apartment No. 8A, Karnaphuli Garden City. Shantinagar belonging to the accused petitioner and recovered huge number of counterfeit notes from the apartment who used to deal with counterfeit notes for long time. Ultimately FIR was lodged and on investigation police submitted a report with a recommendation to stand trial of the accused petitioner for commission of the offence punishable under section 25A of the Special Powers Act but accused petitioner filed an application under section 56I A of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashment of the proceeding since mere possession of such counterfeit notes is not an offence unless it is sold or used, knowing or having reason to believe the same to be counterfeit.
4. Considering the case of the prosecution the High Court Division made the following observation in discharging the rule:
“We have seen from the plain reading of the FIR and Charge-Sheet that there is clear disclosure of facts attracting offence of keeping possession of huge counterfeit currency notes of different denomination with the intention of making use of those as genuine. Therefore, we do not find any cogent ground for the purpose of quashment of the impugned proceeding at this stage.”
5. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and decision the accused petitioner filed this criminal petition for leave to appeal alleging that mere possession’ of counterfeit notes is not an offence which has already been established by a series of decisions; as such the very trial conducted by the Metropolitan Special Tribunal will be surely abuse of the process of the court which should be initially quashed of secure the ends of justice.
6. On such submission, we have gone through the FIR, police report as well the impugned judgment given by the High Court Division meticulously. It is fact that mere physical possession of the counterfeit notes is not an offence punishable under section 25A of the Special Powers Act but the intention as it transpires from the FIR, facts, circumstances on record and the other evidence it has become clear to us that this criminal proceeding cannot be quashed at this stage of hearing because it needs evidence to be recorded by the court during the course of trial to establish the intention of keeping huge quantity of counterfeit note in the apartment.
In such view of the matter we find neither any illegality nor infirmity in the impugned judgment passed by the High Court Division and accordingly this petition for leave to appeal is dismissed.
