The New Nation - Internet Edition

Conviction on the basis of ocular evidence

Appellate Division

(Criminal)

Md Ruhul Amin J }

MM Ruhul Amin J

Md Tafazzul Islam J }

Rakhal Chandra Naha

……………Petitioner

vs

State …………,

…………………Respondent""

Judgment February 22nd, 2007

Code of Criminal Procedure (V of 1898) Section 509A

Evidence Act (1 of 1872)

Section 45

In this case the post-mortem examination report of the dead body of the deceased was used in evidence as per provisions of section 509A of the Code of Criminal Procedure. It appears that the requirements of section 509A of the Code of Criminal Procedure were not complied with and, as such, the use of the same under section 509A of the Code of Criminal Procedure was not proper by the trial Court.

The trial Court and the High Court Division relied on the evidence of two eye-witnesses namely PWs 2 and 4 who are most natural and probable witnesses of the case being inmates of the place of occurrence house and also considering the fact that the occurrence took place in the early morning at 7-00 AM on the day of occurrence at the courtyard of their dwelling house and at that time no outsider was supposed to remain present at the place of occurrence. Therefore, the trial Court and the High Court Division rightly placed reliance on the evidence of those two eyewitnesses although they are son and wife respectively of the deceased.

In the absence of post-mortem examination report, the ocular evidence of PWs 2 and 4 regarding the injuries caused on the person of the deceased by the condemned prisoner can be safely relied upon. Medical evidence is only corroborative in nature and the ocular evidence of the eye-witnesses which substantially corroborates the major injuries on the person of the deceased must be accepted. Therefore, in the absence of post-mortem examination report: on the basis of ocular evidence of PWs 2 and 4, the conviction of the' condemned prisoner-petitioner can be sustained. The High Court Division upon correct assessment of the materials on record arrived at a correct decision. There is no cogent reason to interfere with the same.

tt (11,12,13 & 15)

Abdul Quddus vs State 43 DLR (AD) 243 ref.

Sarwar Ahmed, Advocate-For the Petitioner.

Md Abdur Rouf, Deputy Attorney-General-For the State.

Judgment

MM Ruhul Amin J: This petition for leave to appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 9-11-2004 passed by a Division Bench of the High Court Division it Death Reference No.7 of 2003 with Jail Appeal No. 61 of 2003 accepting the death reference and dismissing the jail appeal preferred by the condemned prisoner Rakhal Chandra Naha.

2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that condemned-prisoner Rakhal Chandra Naha and Nepal Chandra Naha (absconding), both sons of Akkhay Chandra Naha had enmity with the 'deceased over landed properties. The deceased Dinesh Chandra Dutta married the mother of the informant and used to live in the house of his father-in-law as domesticated son-in-law and the condemned prisoners being cosharers of the father-in-law of the deceased developed enmity over landed properties over which there were several salish, but the matter was not settled. On, 26-2-1999 at 7-00 AM when the deceased was going to wash his face and hinds in a nearby pond, the condemned prioners Rakhat Chandra Naha and Nepal Chandra Naha caught hold of him (deceased) on his way and took him towards the dwelling hut' of Rakhal and Nepal caught hold of the deceased and Rakhal dealt a dao blow on the head of the deceased in order to kill him and as a result, the latter fell down on the ground. Sumita Bala, Dutta, wife of the deceased and Shanjit Chandra Dutta, the youngest son of the deceased rushed there on hearing alarm and they were also beaten by the condemned prisoners. The further case is that neighbours Jagadish Chandra Das, Shudhangshu Bhushan Das, Swapan Chandra Nandi, Aujit Chandra Dhar, Khitish Chandra Das and others came to the place of occurrence on hearing hue and cry raised by Sumita and Shanjit and they saw and heard narration of the occurrence. The deceased was then taken to local Debidwar Hospital wherefrom he was taken to Comilla Medical College Hospital for better treatment. The deceased, however, died at 1120 hours at Comilla Medical College Hospital due to injuries sustained by him during the occurrence.

3. The police on completion of investigation submitted charge sheet under sections 302/34 of the Penal Code against the condemned prisoners.

4. The trial Court framed charge against condemned prisoners under sections 302/34 of the Penal Code The charge was read over to the condemned prisoners who pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5. The defence plea is one of denial. The further defence plea is that a dacoity was committed in the bedroom of the deceased on the previous night and the deceased sustained injuries at the hands of the dacoits but the condemned prisoners have been falsely implicated in this case out of enmity and grudge.

6. The prosecution in this case has examined as many as 10 witnesses and the defence did not examine any DW.

7. The trial Court on consideration of the materials on record found the condemned prisoners guilty under sections 302/34 of the Penal Code and sentenced each of them to death.

8. We have heard Mr Sarwar Ahmed, the learned Advocate for the petitioner and Mr Md Abdul' Rouf, the learned Deputy AttorneyGeneral for the State and perused the judgment of the High Court Division and other connected papers.

9. PW 1, informant of the case, is not an eye-witness to the occurrence. He heard narration of the occurrence from others, PW 2, Shanjit Chandra Dutta, son of the deceased, is an eye-witness to the occurrence. He stated that on 26-2-1999 at about 7-00 AM the deceased woke up from sleep and was going to the nearby pond to wash his hands and mouth. At that time he heard cries of his father and he and his mother (PW 4) Sumita Bala Dutta went to the courtyard of the house (place of occurrence) and found that condemned prisoners, Rakhal Chandra and Nepal Chandra caught hold of the deceased and were taking the deceased towards the dwelling hut of Rakhal. He then stated that condemned prisoner Nepal Chandra caught hold of his father and condemned prisoner Rakhal Chandra dealt a dao blow on the head of the deceased who fell down on the ground. He raised hue and cry and the condemned prisoners assaulted him and his mother also. On hearing their hue and cry, neighbours Jagadish Chandra Das, Shudhangshu Bhushan Das, Swapan Chandra Nandi, Aujit Chandra Dhar, Khitish Chandra Das and others came to the place of occurrence and saw and heard narration of the occurrence. He further stated that his father was admitted to local Debidwar Hospital for treatment and for better treatment he was taken to Comilla Medical College Hospital where he succumbed to his injuries. PW 3 Sodesh Chandra Das is another eye-witness to the occurrence. His dwelling house is at distance of 100 yards from the place of occurrence. He stated the occurrence took place on 26-2-1999 at about 7-00 AM at the courtyard in front of the dwelling hut of Rakhal. He also stated that Nepal Chandra caught hold of the deceased and Rakhal gave a dao blow on the head of the deceased who fell down on the ground. He also stated that PWs 2 and 4 were present at the time of occurrence. He further stated that PWs 2 and 4 raised hue and cry and neighbours Jagadish and others came to the place of occurrence. PW 4 Sumita Bala, wife of the deceased, is another eyewitness of the occurrence. She stated on the date of occurrence at about 7-00 AM her husband woke up from sleep and was going to the nearby pond to wash his hands and mouth. At that time condemned prisoners, Nepal and Rakhal caught hold of her husband and was taking him towards their hut. She further stated that she and her son Shanjit Chandra Dutta, (PW 2) went to the place of occurrence and saw condemned prisoner Nepal catching hold of the deceased and condemned prisoner Rakhal giving a dao blow on the head of the deceased who fell down on the ground. PW 5 Jagadish went to the place of occurrence on hearing hue and cry raised by son and wife of the deceased and saw the deceased lying with bleeding injuries on the head at the courtyard of the dwelling house and also saw condemned prisoners at the place of occurrence. PW 6, Khitish Chandra Das went to the place of occurrence immediately after the occurrence and saw the deceased lying with bleeding injury at the courtyard, of the dwelling house and also heard .narration of the occurrence from the son and wife (PWs 2 and 4) of the deceased. PW 8, Amrita Lal Dhar also stated that he saw the deceased with bleeding injury at the courtyard of the dwelling house and heard narration of the occurrence from PWs 2 and 4. PW 9, Sudangshu Bhusan Das also stated the same thing, PW 10, Behar Kumar Shil, investigating officer of the case, is a formal witness. The doctor who held postmortem examination over the dead pody of the deceased has nat been examined by the prosecution in this case.

10. Thus we find PWs 2, 3 and 4 are eyewitnesses to the occurrence, PW 5 saw the condemned prisoner running away from the place of occurrence. Others heard narration of the occurrence from PWs 2, 3 and 4 as we have discussed above, PW 3 was not cross examined by the learned lawyer engaged for condemned prisoner Rakhal Chandra Naha as learned Advocate was absent in the Court. But the learned State defence lawyer for condemned prisoner Nepal Chandra Naha duly cross-examined the witness. The learned Advocate for the petitioner submits that the evidence of the PW 3 should be left out of consideration as· in a case involving capital punishment it was the duty of the trial Court to engage a lawyer as per provisions of Legal Remembrancer's Manual to defend the accused. For argument's sake, if we concede that the evidence of PW 3 should be left out of consideration, then also we have the evidence of two eyewitnesses namely PW 2 and 4.

11. In this case the post-mortem examination report of the dead body of the deceased was used in evidence as per provisions of section 509A of the Code of Criminal Procedure. It appears that the requirements of section 509A of the Code of Criminal Procedure were not complied with and, as such, the use of the same under section 509 A of the Code of Criminal Procedure was not proper by the trial Court.

12. The trial Court and, the High Court Division relied on the evidence of two eyewitnesses namely PWs 2 and 4 who are most natural and probable witnesses of the case being inmates of the place of occurrence house and also considering the fact that the occurrence took place in the early morning at 7-00 AM on the day of occurrence at the courtyard of their dwelling house and at that time no outsider was supposed to remain present at the place of occurrence. Therefore, the trial Court and the High Court Division rightly placed reliance on the evidence of those two eye-witnesses, although they are son and wife respectively of the deceased.

13. In the absence of post-mortem examination report, the ocular evidence of PWs 2 and 4 regarding the injuries caused on the person of the deceased by the condemned prisoner can be safely relied upon. In the case of Abdul Quddus vs State reported in 43 DLR (AD) 243 it was held that medical evidence is only corroborative in nature and the ocular evidence of the eye-witnesses which substantially corroborates the major injuries on the person of the deceased must be accepted. Therefore, in the absence of post-mortem examination report, on the basis of ocular evidence of PWs 2 and 4, the conviction of the condemned-prisoner-petitioner can be sustained.

14. The learned Advocate for the petitioner submitted that during examination of the condemned prisoner-petitioner under section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the evidence of the prosecution witnesses appearing against him were not explained in detail and as a result he has been prejudiced. It is true that the trial Court ought to have explained the evidence appearing against the condemned prisoner-petitioner in detail during his examination under section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure but the condemned prisoner-petitioner Rakhal Chandra Naha was very much present in the Court while prosecution witnesses were examined and cross-examined and, as such, in our view, he was not prejudiced in this respect.

15. Therefore, in the facts and circumstances of the case and in view of the discussion above, we are of the view that the High Court Division upon correct assessment of the materials on record arrived at a correct decision. There is no cogent reason to interfere with the same.

Accordingly, the Jail Petition is dismissed.

True judicial confession as basis of conviction

Appellate Division

(Criminal)

Md Ruhul Amin J

MM Ruhul Amin J

Md Tafazzul Islam J

Judgment

February 5th, 2007

Islamuddin (Md) @

Din Islam t. Petitioner

vs

State ………

…………..Respondent”

Code of Criminal Procedure (V of 1898) Section 164

Evidence Act (I of 1872)

Section 24

It is now the settled principle of law that judicial confession if it is found to be true and voluntary can form the sole basis of conviction as against the maker of the same. The High Court Division has rightly found the judicial confession of the condemned prisoner true and voluntary and considering the same, the extra judicial confession and, circumslances of the case, found the condemned prisoner guilty and accordingly imposed the sentence of death upon him. .. t. (8)

Code of Criminal Procedure (V of 1898) Section 376

The High Court Division considered the argument of the learned Counsel for the condemned prisoner that the condemned prisoner being a young man of 33 years, the ends of justice would be met if the sentence of imprisonment for life was awarded on him instead of death sentence. But the High Court Division opined that in the facts and circumstances of the case and the heinous nature of offence, the condemned prisoner deserved punishment as has been imposed upon him by the trial Court.

The High Court Division upon correct assessment of the materials on record accepted the death reference and dismissed the jail appeal. There is no cogent reason to interfere with the same. .. t. (9-10)

Sarwar Ahmed, Advocate-For the Petitioner.

Fahima Nazrin, Deputy Attorney-General-For the State.

Judgment

MM Ruhul Amin J: This petition for leave to appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 27-7-2004. passed by a Division Bench of the High Court Division in Death Reference No. 31 of 2003 (heard with Jail Appeal No. 205 of 2003) accepting the death reference and dismissing the jail appeal.

2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that the informant 'PW 1 Md Gousuddin lodged FIR stating that deceased Md Abu Salem Shablu who was a student of Class-VI of local Darul Ulum Kowmi Madrasah, used to say his prayers regularly in the local mosque of the village. The condemned prisoner Md Islamuddin @ Din Islam, an employee of an Ice Cream Factory belonging to Abdul Gafur, also used to say his prayers in the same mosque. On 4-10-2002 at about 5-00 AM when the deceased was proceeding towards the mosque for saying Fazar prayer, the condemned prisoner in a preplanned way forcibly took him inside the Ice Cream Factory, Abdul Gafur, the owner of the Ice Cream Factory, found his factory under lock and key on the same date at about 6-00/6-30 AM and he called the condemned prisoner who used to stay inside the factory but did not get any response. Abdul Gafur then peeped through the window of the Ice Cream Factory and found his nephew deceased Md Abu Salem Shablu lying on the floor with bleeding injuries. On getting such information, the informant went to the place of occurrence and after breaking open the door, entered inside the Ice Cream Factory and found the dead body of the deceased with grievous injuries on his neck and also found wooden stick in the rectum of the deceased. The neck of deceased was tied with a napkin and the condemned prisoner was found missing from the Ice Cream Factory. The informant along with the villagers then started searching for the condemned prisoner Md Islamuddin alias Din Islam. Ultimately, they apprehended him from Maizgaon Railway Station under Fenchugonj Police Station. The condemned prisoner was then brought to the place of occurrence where he confessed his guilt of murdering the deceased in presence of witnesses present. The condemned prisoner was then handed over to the police. On the basis of the information received from the informant, GD Entry No. 110 dated 4-10-2002 was recorded and SI Rupok Kumar Saha went to the place of occurrence and prepared the inquest report on the dead body of the deceased and sent the same to the morgue for postmortem examination. He also seized alamats under proper seizure list. Subsequently SI Rupok Kumar Saha also took up investigation of the case. During investigation he also visited the place of occurrence, recorded the statements of the witnesses under section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The condemned prisoner also made judicial confession, which was recorded by a competent Magistrate. On completion of investigation police submitted charge sheet.

3. The plea of the concerned prisoner is that he was innocent and he has been falsely implicated in this case.

4. We have heard the learned Advocate for the petitioner and perused the judgment of the High Court Division and other connected papers.

5. During trial the prosecution has examined as many as 24 witnesses and the defence did not examine any witness. Of them PW 1 Md Gousuddin the informant of the case provided the FIR Exhibit 1. He stated that the condemned prisoner killed the deceased. He also stated that one piece of wooden stick was found introduced into anus i.e. rectum of the deceased. He also stated that the condemned prisoner was found missing from the Ice Cream Factory where he used to stay and he was apprehended from Maizgaon Railway Station after the occurrence. He also stated that the deceased confessed his guilt of murdering the deceased in presence of the witnesses. PW 2 Billal Uddin also stated that the deceased was found inside the Ice Cream Factory with injuries at the neck. He also stated that the condemned prisoner was found missing from the Ice Cream Factory where he used to stay and was apprehended from Maizgaon Railway Station and he admitted guilt in his presence of the witnesses. PW 3 Shahab Uddin, PW 4 Ruhul Quddus PW 5 Abdul Jabbar, PW 6 Helal Uddin and PW 8 Md Abdul Gafur owner of the lee Cream Factory, PW 9 Asod Ali Member, PW 13 Abdul Ahad also stated that they saw the dead body of .the deceased inside the Ice Cream Factory and the condemned prisoner was missing and was apprehended from Maizgaon Railway Station and he confessed his guilt in their presence, PW 18 Shoaib Ahmed Khan is the Magistrate who recorded the confessional statement of the condemned prisoner Islam Uddin @ Din Islam.

He stated that he recorded the confessional statement, Exhibit-6, of the condemned prisoner after observing all formalities as required under sections 164 and, 364 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and, in his opinion, the confessional statement is true and voluntary. He further stated that the confessional statement after being recorded was read over to the condemned prisoner who after knowing the contents thereof put his LTI admitting the same to be correct PW 19 Constable Nil Moni Pal and PW 20 Constable Belayet Hossain carried the dead body of deceased to the morgue for post-mortem examination and identified the same before the Medical Officer on duty. PW 23 SI Rupok Kumar Saha is the Investigating Officer of the case PW 24 Dr SA Shahid of Forensic Medicine Department of Sylhet MAG Osmani Medical College Hospital held the post-mortem examination on the dead body of deceased and found one cut throat wound on the front of the neck measuring 6” x 2” x cervical vertebra with ante mortem clotted blood on the wound region including face. One wooden stick introduced into the anus. In his opinion, the death of the deceased was due to haemorrhage and shock as a result of cut throat which is ante mortem and homicidal in nature.

6. Thus it is clear that the prosecution witnesses who are inhabitants of the locality in one voice stated that the condemned prisoner made extra judicial confession in their presence that he killed the deceased. Coupled with this extra judicial confession, we have the judicial confession of the condemned prisoner recorded by PW 18 Shoaib Ahmed. For ready reference, let us reproduce below the confessional statement of condemned prisoner:

Avwg weMZ cÖvq 20 eQi KwigMÄ wQjvg| MZ wZb eQi hveZ †MvjvcMÄ _vbvi Pb`icyi MÖv‡g _vwK| Avwg Lvivc gvbyl wQjvg| MZ cÖvq `yeQi Av‡M Avgvi g‡b cwieZ©b Av‡m| kvejy bv‡g gv`ªvmvq covqv GKwU †Q‡j‡K Avwg Lye Av`i †mœn Ki‡Z _v‡K| Avgvi ¯¿x I †Q‡j mšÍvb bv _vKvq Avgvi Avq n‡Z wKQy UvKv kvejy‡K w`Zvg| Avwg GK wmR‡b ev`v‡gi e¨emv I Ab¨ wmR‡b AvBmµx‡gi e¨emv KiZvg| AvR †_‡K eQi Lv‡bK Av‡M ïwb Avgvi †mœ‡ni kvejy Lvivc †Q‡j‡`i mv‡Z wg‡k Lvivc c‡_ cv evov‡”Q| Avwg ïb‡Z cvB `yRb †Q‡j kvejy‡K ejrKvi K‡i| Avwg kvej~‡K wRÄvmv Ki‡j †m GKR‡bi mv‡_ Lvivc Kv‡Ri K_v ¯^xKvi K‡i Ab¨ R‡bi mv‡_ Lvivc Kv‡Ri K_v A¯^xKvi K‡i| Avgvi cwiwPZ kvnAvjg Rvbvq kvejy Zvi mv‡_ Lvivc Kv‡R wjß| kvn Avjvg AvBmµx‡gi d¨v±ix‡Z KvR KiZ Ges AvBmµx‡gi †jvf †`wL‡q Zvi mv‡_ Lvivc KvR KiZ| Avwg `yw`b NUbv cÖZ¨¶ K‡iwQ| GKw`b K¨v‡givq QweI Zz‡jwQ| kveyj‡K Lvivc KvR Kwi‡Z weiZ ivLvi †Póv K‡i e¨_© nB| Avwg Zv‡K gvivi wm×všÍ ‡bB| 4-10-2002 (A‡±vei, 4, 2002) Avwg dR‡ii bvgv‡Ri Rb¨ Ni †_‡K †ei nB| kvejy‡K, bvgv‡R †h‡Z †`wL| Zv‡K WvwK| †m Avgv‡K Pvqbv| Avwg Zv‡K bv‡K gy‡L a‡i Avgvi N‡i wb‡q Avwm| Zvi bvK w`qv i³ †ei nq| Avwg Zv‡K Lvivc KvR n‡Z weiZ _vKvi Rb¨ ewj| †m mvov kã †`q bv| cv‡k¦© Zvi gv‡qi kã ïwb| Zvi gv †Ui †c‡Z cv‡i †Q‡ji wPrKvi ïb‡Z cv‡i ZvB kvejy‡K AveviI gyL Kvco w`‡q †eu‡a †dwj Ges cvqLvbvi iv¯Ív w`‡q evu‡ki LyuwU XyKvB †m AÁvb n‡q c‡o| aviv‡jv `v w`‡q Zvi Mjv †K‡U †dwj| Avwg kvejy‡K †g‡i cvjv‡bvi †Póv Kwi ¯’vbxq †jvKRb gvBSMuvI †ij‡ókb †_‡K Avgv‡K AvUK K‡i cywjk †mvc`© K‡i|

7. It is true there is no eye-witnesses to the occurrence. The High Court Division it appears, considering the circumstantial evidence of the case, the extra- judicial confession and judicial confession of the condemned prisoner, found the condemned prisoner guilty. The High Court Division upon consideration found judicial confession of condemned prisoner to be true and voluntary. The judicial confession of the condemned prisoner was not retracted at any stage.

8. It is now the settled principle of law that judicial confession if it is found to be true and voluntary can form the sole basis of conviction as against the maker, of the same. The High Court Division as noticed earlier found the judicial confession of the condemned prisoner true and voluntary and, considering the same, the extra- judicial confession and circumstances of the case, found the condemned prisoner· guilty and accordingly, imposed the sentence of death upon him.

9. It further appears that the High Court Division also considered the argument of the learned Counsel for the condemned prisoner that the condemned prisoner being a young man of 33 years, the ends of justice would be met if the sentence of imprisonment for life was awarded on him instead of death sentence. But the High Court Division opined that in the facts and circumstances of the case and the heinous nature of offence, the condemned prisoner deserved punishment as has been imposed upon him by the trial Court.

10. In view of the discussion made above, we are of the view that the High Court Division upon correct assessment of the materials on record accepted the death reference and dismissed the jail appeal. There is no cogent reason to interfere with the same.

Accordingly, the jail petition is dismissed.

Challenge to proceedings of money execution case

(To be continued)

3. The High Court Division, after hearing, : discharged the Rule. :

4. We have heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and perused the records.

5. As it appears the High Court Division discharged the Rule holding that the provisions of sub-section (2) of section 12 of Ain 2003 do not apply to instant suit because no property of the company or the respondent No.8 was in possession and control of the bank by way of 1ien or mortgage; further sub-section (3) of section 12 provided that if any financial institution advances loan to the debtor by taking mortgage of immovable property or by way of hypothecation of movable property and if power of attorney is given to the financial institution at the time of mortgaging or hypothecating the property then, instead of selling the property and adjusting the sale proceeds against the loan amount, no suit can be filed by any financial institution before the Artha Rin Adalat and sub - section (1) of section 12 of Ain 2003 provided that if any financ1al institution does not follow the provisions as laid down in the proviso of the above sub-section (2) and (3) of section 12 of Ain 2003, the Court, on its own initiative or on the written application of the debtor, shall pass a decree deducting the value, if any shown by the financial institution and if the, valuation has not been shown, the Court may evaluate its price on the basis of report of the local Sub Registrar and pass decree deducting such an amount as claimed in the suit but in the suit in hand the provisions of sub-section (6) of section 12 of A in 2003 are not applicable as the instant suit being filed on 4.11.1999 there was no scope for compliance with the provisions of sub-section (3) of section 12 of the Ain, 2003 which came into force on 10.3.2003 and further the contents of the order daten 16.5.2003 passed in the instant suit reveals that the petitioner, though filed an application under section 49 of the Ain of 2003 praying for allowing him to repay the outstanding dues by installments but did not file any application before the Aliha Rin Adalat praying for selling the mortgaged property in terms of sub-section (3) of section 12 of Ain 2003 and now in the writ petition the petitioner, for the first time, tried to make out a case that the Artha Rin Adalat should have complied with the provision of sub-section (6) of section 12 of Ain, 2003.

6. It also appears, the High Court Division while discharging the Rule also relied on the case of Zahirul Islam vs. National Bank Limited 46 DLR(AD) 191, wherein this Division held that the question as to whether the suit against the debtor was barred by limitation or not may be agitated in appeal and not in writ jurisdiction.

7. Regarding the case of M.A. Hai vs. Trading Corporation of Bangladesh reported in 40 DLR(AD) 206 as referred to by the learned Counsel for the petitioner, the High Court Division found that in the above case, which arose out of a writ petition filed in relation to a criminal proceeding, this Division held that availability of alternative remedy by way of appeal or revision will not stand in the way of invoking writ jurisdiction raising purely question of law or interpretation of statute but the case in hand arose out of an Arth Rin Case and moreover, subsequently this Division in the case of Gazi M. Towfic vs. Agrani Bank and others, 54 DLR(AD)6 which arose out of Artha Rin case, held that as special provision for appeal has been provided against the judgment ad decree passed in Aliha Rin cases no application under Article 120 lies against such judgment and decree.

8. We are of the view that the High Court Division on due consideration of the materials on record and the law involved discharged the Rule. The learned Counsel for the petihoner could also not point out any infirmity of any kind calling for interference by this Division.

9. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed.

(Concluded)