ABEDUR RAHMAN Vs. HASIBUDDIN BARBHUIYA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. GC Phukan, learned counsel for the accused-petitioner, and Mr. FH Laskar, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor, appearing for the State respondent. None has appeared on behalf of the complainant- opposite party.

(2.) The complainant-opposite party instituted Corporation No. 2139/2000, in the Court of SDJM, Cachar, Silchar, his case being, in brief, thus: The complainant's father, late Mahibur Rahman, was a Class II contractor under the office of the Executive Engineer, PWD (Roads) Construction Division, Karimganj, and he was allotted certain works as mentioned in the complaint. On 15.12.1998, the father of the complainant died and son after his death, the complainant, his brothers and sister lodged a claim before the Executive Engineer concerned for payment of the unpaid dues of late Mahibur Rahman in respect of the said contract work, but no payment was made and in the meanwhile, before the claim was lodged, the accused Nos. 1 and 2, namely, Minora Begum Laskar and Abdul Munnaf Choudhury, who are not petitioners in the present revisions, claimed that the father of the complainant had executed a power of attorney in favour of the accused No. 1 and submitted the same to the office of the Executive Engineer and obtained payment of a sum of Rs. 9,97,700/-. The complainant and his family members were, however, unaware of the payments received by the accused Nos.1 and 2. When the repeated demands for payment raised by the complainant and his family members failed, they issued a notice, under Section 80 of CPC, to the State of Assam and others claiming payment of Rs. 9,97,700/-. When the claim was so lodged by the complainant and his family members, the accused No. 3, who is, now petitioner No. 1 in the present petition, requested the complainant to enter into an agreement for receiving some payments towards the said dues and when the complainant and his family members declined the offer, a sum of Rs. 2,35,000/- was paid, in cash, by the accused persons at the residence of accused No. 4 (i.e. the petitioner No. 2 in the present revision) but since thereafter, no payment has been made to the complainant and/or his family membeRs. The entire amount of Rs. 9,97,700/- aforementioned was withdrawn collusively by all the accused persons named in the said complaint including the present petitioner Nos. 3 and 4.

(3.) On lodging the complaint aforementioned, learned SDJM (Sadar) Silchar recorded the statement of the complainant and, then, held an enquiry in terms of Section 202 of Cr.P.C. and, on conclusion of the enquiry, passed an order, on 28.1.2002, taking cognizance of offences under Sections 120 B/409/468/471/109 IPC against all the accused and directing issuance of summons to them accordingly.