[ad_1]
A virtual high court of Judge FR Nazmul Ahsan and Judge KM Kamrul Quader approved the order on Wednesday.
BRAC Bank has been told that Jahalam will have to pay the 15 lakh rupees within a month of receiving the copy of the verdict. It must be informed in writing to the Secretary General of the Supreme Court within one week of 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 the investigating officers forgot and instead of Salek, they arrested Jahlam of Tangail. Two BRAC Bank officials identified him as ‘Abu Salek’. That is why BRAC Bank has been asked to pay this penalty.
The court said they were not fined for finding no fault with Sonali Bank in the incident.
However, the High Court has warned the ACC to prevent such incidents from happening again in the future.
The High Court has ordered to re-investigate the 33 cases in which Jahlam was arrested and to speed up the trial.
Jahlam, a jute factory worker, had to spend three years in jail without being charged
Prothom Alo published a report on this incident titled “Sir, I am ignorant, not Salek.” Lawyer Amit Das Gupta brought this to the attention of the High Court of Judges FRM Nazmul Ahsan and Judge Kamrul Quader.
Then, on January 26 last year, the Superior Court tribunal summoned four people, including the appointed representative of the chairman of the commission, to seek the ACC’s explanation on the matter.
A freewill rule was also issued asking why Jahlam, the “wrong” defendant in jail, should not be released, why his release should not be ordered, and why he should not be released. order him to pay adequate compensation.
Iqbal Mahmood, chairman of the Anti-Corruption Commission, later expressed his regret and promised to take action against those responsible for the mistake.
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 for Jahlam, a worker from Jhelum.
However, the explanation given by the ACC in High Court was that liability was imposed on other banks, including the Bangladesh Bank, saying that ACC investigating officers had submitted the charge sheet based on the report’s data bank research.
Dissatisfied with the ACC’s explanation, the Superior Court summoned all documents, including Preliminary Information Details (FIR) and Charge Sheets (CS) in 33 cases. Expressing anger at the ACC’s activities, the judge said, “If you can’t catch a rat, you don’t need that cat.”
The High Court court had ordered lawyer Amit Das Gupta to bring Jahalam to court to find out how he was and how he was living. According to him, Jahalam also appeared in court on April 17 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 next hearing date for May 2. Furthermore, the High Court wants a report from the ACC to see who is responsible for Jahlam’s incarceration 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.
[ad_2]
