[ad_1]
Anisul Hasan, a lawyer for the bank, said the request was filed last week at the corresponding branch of the Appeals Division.
He told bdnews24.com: “A request has been made to stay the High Court verdict to pay Jahalam Tk 15 lakh as compensation. If the court becomes aware of the request, there will be a hearing, I don’t know when it will take place. “.
A virtual higher court consisting of Judge FR Nazmul Ahsan and Judge KM Kamrul Quader rendered the verdict on September 30, declaring that the rule on compensation was appropriate.
Jahalam was asked to pay the 15 lakh rupees within a month of receiving the copy of the verdict. An execution report in the form of an affidavit was also requested to be submitted to the office of the Secretary General of the Supreme Court within one week after payment.
In April 2012, the ACC filed 33 cases against Sonali Bank for embezzlement of Tk 16 crore. According to the ACC investigation, the scammers wrote 108 checks from the accounts of three people, including Abu Salek, at the cantonment branch of Sonali Bank.
The checks were deposited in 13 of the 18 banks through offsetting and embezzlement of Tk 16 crore 46 lakh. BRAC Bank is one of 18 banks.
But forgetting the investigating officers, Jahlam of Tangail was arrested instead of Salek. Two BRAC Bank officials identified him as ‘Abu Salek’. That is why BRAC Bank was asked to pay this compensation.
Jahalam was released from Kashimpur jail in Gazipur on the night of February 3 last year by court order.
The ACC has set up a committee to investigate whether investigating officers were negligent in the three-year prison case of Jahlam, a worker from Jhelum.
However, the explanation given by the ACC in High Court was that the liability was imposed on other banks, including the Bangladesh Bank, saying that ACC investigating officers had submitted the charge sheet based on the data from the report of bank investigation.
Dissatisfied with the ACC’s explanation, the Superior Court summoned all documents, including the Preliminary Information Statement (FIR) and Charge Sheet (CS) of 33 cases. Expressing anger at the ACC’s activities, the judge said: “There is no need that the cat cannot catch the rat.”
The High Court court ordered lawyer Amit Das Gupta to bring Jahalam to court to find out how he was doing. According to him, Jahalam also appeared in court on April 16 last year.
But since the ACC was unable to produce the documents for even a month, the court asked them to submit the documents for 33 cases and the ACC report within that time, leaving the hearing date for May 2. Furthermore, the High Court wants a report from the ACC to see who is responsible for Jahlam’s imprisonment even though he is not a defendant.
On the same day, the court said that the High Court would hear Jahalam’s statement only if the ACC presented its report on May 2. The ACC then went to court on April 21, challenging the jurisdiction of that Superior Court court.
The ACC argued that there was a special court in the Superior Court to hear the ACC’s case. The bank that issued the rule does not have jurisdiction to hear the ACC’s case. But the Appeals Division rejected the ACC’s request.
The court awaited the verdict on February 12 after the final hearing on the rule issued on the question of Jahlam’s compensation.
The Superior Court rendered its verdict on September 30.
[ad_2]
