Case Law

Yunus vs State (2015) 67 DLR

Facts of Yunus vs State Case

The case involves an application filed by the accused petitioner under Section 561A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, seeking to quash the impugned proceedings of Special Case No. 13 of 2002. The case arises from an FIR lodged against the accused petitioner and two others for alleged criminal breach of trust, misuse of public funds, and corruption related to the construction of a building.

Issues of the Case:

Whether the present proceeding under Section 561A of the Code of Criminal Procedure is maintainable after framing of charge.
Whether the prosecution materials on record disclose a prima facie offense against the accused petitioner under sections 409/109 of the Penal Code.
Whether the accused petitioner, as a contractor, can be considered an agent of the Roads and Highways department.
Whether the impugned proceeding is triable by a Special Judge in the absence of public servants involved in the case.

Decision

The Court decided against the accused petitioner.

Justification

The accused-petitioner claims that the impugned proceeding should be quashed as it is not maintainable under Section 561A of the Code of Criminal Procedure after framing the charge. However, the prosecution argues that the proceeding is maintainable, and a prima facie case has been disclosed against the accused petitioner under sections 409/109 of the Penal Code.

The court finds that the proceeding under Section 561A of the Code of Criminal Procedure is maintainable even after the framing of the charge. After reviewing the prosecution materials, the court determines that a prima facie case has been disclosed against the accused petitioner under sections 409/109 of the Penal Code, which is triable under the Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1958.

Regarding whether the accused petitioner is an agent of the Roads and Highways department, the court finds that he received the work order for construction and was entrusted with the property, making him obligated to complete the work.

As for the issue of whether the impugned proceeding is triable by a Special Judge in the absence of public servants involved, the court holds that the accused petitioner’s status as a contractor and agent of the department makes the proceeding maintainable under section 409 of the Penal Code, which is a scheduled offense under the Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1958, and the Durnithi Daman Commission Act, 2004.

Based on these findings, the court rejects the accused-petitioner’s application to quash the impugned proceeding and allows the case to proceed to trial.