“carat “ie fra; yalfoces fanta Mat In the Supreme Court of Bangladesh High Court Division (Special Original Jurisdiction) of 2017 moto Rute Nu Government of Bangladesh, represented by the Seeretary,, Ministry of Home AtTairs aind others Petitioners -Versus- Yusuf’ Ali, Chairman, Char Martin Union Parishad, Lakshmipur . Respondent Mr. Syed Md. Rezaul Kavim with Ms, Sharmin Akler, Advocate jw for the Intervener Mr. Abdur Rab Chaudhury, Advoc for the respondent Nos.7 & 8 Mr. A.S.M, Nazmul Haque, DAG. for the petitioner No.1 Mr, Justice Gobinda Chandra Tagore and Mr. Justice A.KM, Shahidul ftuq Heard on: 14.02.17, 22.02.17, 05.03.17, 09.03.17 3.17, 05.04.17, 06.04.17, 09.04.17, 12.04.17, 16.04.17, 09.05.17, 24, 17 and lament on: 04, Gobind Chandra Tagore, In exereise of our power ninder section 25 af the Code of der Articles 101 and 102 of the Criminal Procedure as well as. Constitution, we issued Suo-moto Rule in the following terms: ”Let a Suo Moto Rule be issued calling upon the (1) Government of Bangladesh, represented by the Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs, (2) the Secretary, Ministry of Local Government aal'of Police, (4) the inl Rural Development, (3) the Inspector Ger Deputy Commissioner, Lakshmipur, (5) the Superintendent of Kam Police, Lskshipur, (6) the Upaziky Nirbahi Otlieer, ws Lakshmipur, (7) the Officer-in-Charge, Kamalnagar Police Station, and (8) Yusuf Ali, Chairman of Char Martin Union Parishad under Police Station Kamalnaget, Distriet-Lakshmipur to show eause as to why the respondent Nos.1-7 shall not be directed to take appropriate egal aetion agains! Vasu Ali, Chairman of Char Martin Union jet-Lakshmipur and Parishad under Police Station Kamalnagar, others for taking law in their own hands and imposing, extra judicial ment on a man and a girl purportedly the sister-in-law of the poi man and why departmental as well as legal aetion should not be taken against the Oflicer-in-Charge of Kamalnagar Police Station namely, Atul alias Aku Chandra Biswas for failing to discharge his official as well as statutory duty against the perpetrators, who took law in their own hands and executed extea judicial punishment in violation of the fundamental rights of the citizens of the country as have been guaranteed under Articles 27, 31, 32, 35(5) and 43 of the Constitution and/or why such other or further order or orders as to this Court may seem fit and proper, should not be passed. bt roe fami fra”& By the same order, the Offieer-in-Charge of Kamalnagar Station under District-Lakshmipur was also directed to appear before this Court along with Yusu! Ali, Chairman of Char Martin Union Parishad in person on 22.02.2017 at “10.30 A.M. and to tions stated explain their conduets with regard to the facts and allega therein ‘The Officer-in-Charge was further directed to find out the vietim man and the girl and furnish their particulars before this Court. ‘The Officer-in-Charge was also directed to submit a report as to whether Yusuf Ali had any siecomplices in committing, the offence and if'any, he was to submit their particulars, ‘The Superintendent of Police, Lakshmipur was also directed to provide proper security to the said man and girl, who were victim of physical torture by Yusuf Ali and others. ‘The Superintendent of Police, Lakshmipur was also directed to ensure the appearance of Atul alias Akul Chandra Biswas, Officer- in-charge of Kamalnagar Police Station under District Lakshmipur and Yusuf Ali, Chairman of Char Martin Union Parishad before this Court on 22.02.2017. The facts which led to issuance of the Rule, in brief, are as“craic ete) fra, Syed Md. Rezaul Karim along with Ms. Sharmin Akter, eamed Advocate of this Court drew the attention of this Court to the hard copy under the heading, “Union council chairman beats man, fiom the website of the tration, video goes viral” tak hdnews 24.com and submitted that one Yusuf Ali, Chairman of Char Martin Union Parishad was scen kicking a man on the floor in the name of arbitration following the allegation that the man eloped with @ girl, who was said to be his sister-in-law, ‘The hard copy also so similarly beat up the girl and speaks that the Chairman tater thereby the Chairman being a public representative took up law in his own hand and executed extra judicial Punishment which is not permitted under the Constitution as well as the relevant law. The mischief as has been done by the Chairman is a cognizable offence. Therefore, the Chairman should be brought to book. ther submitted that the matter was The leamed Advocate brought to the notice of the Officer-in-Charge of the local Police Station namely, Kamalnagar Police Station under District- Lakshmipur, but he escaped his duty saying that if someone would register a complaint over the ineident proper step would be taken and thereby, the Officer-in-Charge named Atul alias Akul Chandra Biswas not only failed but also avoided to discharge his duty deliberately as because, the information as has been brought to his a First J notice, though orally, he ought to teat the sameInformation Report and accordingly, this Court may take the matter into the judicial notice and issue a Suo Moto Rule so that such Perpetrators cannot escape from justice and are brought to book. AL this stage, Mr. A.S.M. Nazmul Haque, leamed Deputy Attorney General submitted that prima facie the reports discloses cognizable offence purportedly committed by Yusul Ali, Chairman of Char Martin Union Parishad under Police Station Kamalnagar, District-Lakshmipur and the Olficer-in-Charge, Kamalnagar Police Station also failed to discharge his statutory duties and therefore, the matter should be taken into judicial notice by this Court as had been placed by the learned Advocate, Having considered the report and heard Mr. Syed Md, Rezaul Karim, leamed Advocate and Mr. A.S.M. Nazmul Haque, learned Deputy Atomey General, we were inclined to, issue the Suo Moto Rule in exercise of our power under section 25 of the Code of ' ninal Procedure as well as under Articles 101 and 102 of the Constitution of the People’s Republic of Bangladesh, After issuance of the Rule, Bangladesh Legal Aid and Services Trust (BLAST), represented by its Legal Advisor, Mr. S.M. Revaul Karim filed an application for addition of party as an lntervener Having considered the application and heard the learned Advocate, the application was allowed and accordingly, Bangladesh ~ i “crmicaicaa «Wig fa, yatfoces fante fra”“orecetcaa “Ate fra, Yelifer Legal Aid and Services Trust (BILAST) was added as an Intervener to the proceeding In compliance with the interim order, the Officer-i ‘harge of Kamalnagi Police Station and the respondent, No.8 appeared before this Court through their leamed Advocate with the relevant documents, From the documents, it appears that on the date of issuance of the Rule, Kamalnagar Police Station started Kamainagar Police Station Case No. 04 dated 14.042017 under section 143/323/324/325/354/500 of the Penal Code against the respondent No.8 and the respondent No.8 also obtained buil in the case on 20.02.2017 and the police could not arrest the Sespondent No.8 as he was not available in his office as well as in the locality, In order to examine whether the respondent No.8 was available in the offive or in the locality, we passed several orders as to whether he made any Monitory transaction on behall of the Union Parishad or he performed any funetion of the Chairman between the period rom 14.02.2017 to 20.02.2017, In this regard, we also called for the Bank Statements as well as Ledger Books of the coneemed branches of Sonali Bank and Krishi Bank. We also called for a report from the Upazila Nirbahi Officer. From all the reports, it is found that the respondent No.8 during the periad from 14.02.2017 t 20.02.2017 did not perform ty function as the Chairman, However, the respondent No.8 also filed some medical documents relating to they c meattreatment of his father in Shohrawardi Medical College and Hospital, Dhaka from which it appears that the respondent No.8 did not candidly stated the facts to be true. In order to further examine as to whether the petitioner made any monitory: transaction, we also directed the Secretary of the Union Parishad namely, Abduz Zaher to submit the Account Regist ~The Secretary in compliance with our order appeared before this Court along with six Account Registers In course of close examination of those Account Registers, the Secretary confessed that some of the signatures of the former Chairman namely, Ali Ahmed were put in the Register by himself Thereby, he tied to show that some amount of nioney were expent Guring the period of the former Chairman, But he also said that he ut the signature at the instruction of the former Chairman, In order ‘0 verify his submission, we also directed the former Chairman namely, Ali Ahmed to appear before this Court. He initially denied {hat he instructed the Seeretary to put his signature, but at one stage, hhe said that he was not sure whether he gave such instruction However, he did not deny that those amount of money were expent during his tenure. In such facts and circumstances, we also directed the Secretary to show cause as to why a proper legal action should ot be taken aainst him, In reply to the show eause notice, he filed an application through his leamed Advocate praying for mercy of this Court with an undertaking that he would not repeat “y “ceca ig fra, yaifoce faere frA”z “or irregularities in future. In the backdrop of facts, we took up the matter for hearing, Mr. Syed Md. Rezaul Karim, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the Intervener also submitted an Affidavit annexing thereto a judgment and order dated 08.07.2010 passed in Writ Petition No.5863 of 2009 with Writ Petition No.754 of 2010 and Writ Petition No.4275 of 2010 wherein a Division Bench of this Court, whereto myself was a party, passed five directions on the respondents therein including the Ministry of Local Government, Ministry of Education and others. Having referred to the said judgment and order, Mr. Syed Md Rezaul Karim, learned Advocate for the Intervener submits thiit the respondents therein including the Government in the Ministry of Local Government have not taken any effective step for creating awareness among the people including the Chairmen and Members of the Union Parishads and thus, the said judgment and order as well as the directions have yet not been implemented in its entirety and that is why the respondent No.8 committed further offence of imposing extra judicial punishment and as such, a further directions ‘may be passed on the respondents so that the earlier directions are implemented in order to create awareness among the people in general particularly, among the peoples’ representatives of the local Government i2 ~” On the other hand, Mr. Abdur Rab Chaudhury, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of fesenea No.8 submits that for ‘he alleged offence, the local Police Station has already instituted @ case under the relevant sections of the Penal Code, which has brought to the notice of this Court, there is no necessity for issuance of the Rule and accor Hy. the Rule may he discharged as'being infructuous as the ‘case was filed on the same date of issuance of the Rule. ‘The leamed Advocate forthe respondent No.8 further submits ‘hat had the earlier judgment and directions. been brought to the notice of the Tocal representatives, they might have been cautious about mitigating the village disputes as well as conducting the Village arbitration Mr. Mohammed Ismail. Hossai learned Advocate appearing for Abduz Zaher, Secretary of Char Martin Union Parishad submits that the Sceretary certainly has not done the right inputting the signature of the former Chairman, even at his instruction and therefore, there vas an irregularity and thereby, the Sceretary has not been personally wronglully gained and accordingly, the acts of ‘regularities as have been done or committed by his client do not Samy offence namely, forgery inasmuch as by putting, such Sienature, his client did not cause any damage to the former\o “oricaicra “ie fa, Chairman of the Union Parishad and as such, he may be excused for ring the ends of The leaned Advocate appearing for the Secretary of Char Martin Union Parishad further submits thatthe Secretary is sincerely remorse as well as he sincerely undertakes not to repeat such irregularity or mischief in future inasmuch as he has been taught much upon issuance of the Rule and accordingly, his prayer for unconditional apology and merey may be accepted and he may be exonerated from the allegation, We have perused the various reports and documents as well as the Affidavits submitted on behalf of the contesting parties and also ym all the sides, heard the learned Advocates The purpose of issuance of the Rule was to bring the perpetrator to book. But from the documents as have been submitted by the OF n-Charge of Kamalnagar Polive Station that on that very date, the. police station started a criminal case against the respondent No.8 on the selfsame incident and thus, it appears that the perpetrators have been brought {0 book arid the allegation will be disposed of in the said criminal ease in accordance with law. However, it has already been Found that with regard te the treatment of his father, the respondent No.8 made some untrue statement before this Court, Being a public representative, he should be more isno defence. responsible and cautious inasmuch as ignorance ofe craic “1g Fa, yalifoce Therefore, having token over the charge of the Chairman of the Union Parishad, he ought to have learnt about the relevant law, Moreover, it js a matter of common prudence that nobody ean take the Inw in his own hand. It was his duty to hand over the matter to ‘he local police station through his Chovkider or others, but instead oF doing s0, he took law in his own hand, beat the persons, and tortured him seriously and thereby committed cognizable offence, But the Union Parishad has no jurisdi ion to award any extra Judicial punishment beyond the Union Parishad Ain, 1 herefore, since he has violated the law which attracts some offence, he should be rightly dealt with inthe criminal case filed against him On the other hand, the Seer fed serious ly comm misconduet before. this Court. He is a public servant and he must have to know that putting any signature on behalf of any other body "snot only irregularity but sometimes it may attructs certain offence, Therefore, he also should be cautioned and the local Government authority shall also be at liberty to take appropriate proceed against him in accordance with law, However, so far it relates to offence of forgery, we have examined the materials on record and also heard the former Chairman namely, Ali Ahmed, He though denied that he instructed the Chairman to put his signature, he did not deny that he cause the Money spent as have been shown to have heen spent during his ra fra\a period and thereby. he did not illege that thereby he has been personally injured or incurred any damage. It is well settled that cach and every act of forging any document may not attract the offence of forgery under section 46 of the Penal Code unless ad uni by the act of forging the concerned person or the people in general incurred any damage or injury or the perpetrator is wrongtillly gained, Therefore, the offence of forgery has not been committed by the Secretary. However, i his already heen Goma that the act af Faajings the signature of the Former Cha is a serious ineguburity and professional misconduet for which he should be dealt with by the Local Government authority in accordance with fiw During hearing it has been brought 10 our notice that the earlier judgment and order containing five directions have yet not been implemented in its entirety. ‘The Secretary has been in the same serviee since long. before the said! judgment and order was passed, {ut he his yet mot been served any copy theyeut se thal he could distribute the same among the Chairmen and Members of the concerned Union Parishads. ‘Therefore, it appears that the Local Government authority have yet not taken any step in order te ereste awareness among the Chairman and Member of the Union Parishad \econdingly, the Local Government authority tailed to diseharye their duty under Article 111 and 112 of the Constitution, b¥ “crac *ae fa, wtifooe fie firs five directions in order to STeMe avvareness among the Mayors, Chaiemen, Councilors and the Members of the Loc: is disposed of, Accordingly, the Account FS we viven back to the 'Y and the Chairman, The Secretary is exonerated fom the charge and proceeding However. there would be no ‘ondlers.as to costs... | Gobinda Chandra Tagore AK. Shahidul Huq, Lagree. A.K.M. Shahidul Huq Typed by: Sno, a ase Read by: oe ot j Exam. by: Sanh or Readied by: Ee Ke Biel Goove ons Gated. SERRE! Hag erie wed Superi