Titas Gas Case
Show cause on IO for discharging 2 accused
Court Correspondent
A Dhaka court yesterday issued a notice upon an investigation officer (IO) asking him to explain why a legal action would not be taken against him for discharging two accused in a case filed for causing loss of Tk 26 lakh to the Titas Gas Limited.Judge Mohammad Azizul Haq of Metropolitan Sessions Judge's Court, Dhaka passed the order, as Sub-Inspector Shafuqul Islam, who is also the IO of the case, submitted a final report (FRT) appealing to the court for discharging the two accused from the charges. The court also directed him to submit a supplementary probe report by July 31 and reply to the show cause notice issued upon him for his negligence in investigating the case. According to the prosecution, Shahidul Haq Dakua, manager of Titas Gas Transmission and Distribution Limited, alleged that Nazrul Islam, proprietor of Rahee Steel Products at Tejgaon in the city, and his relative Babu took an approval for using a one burner at their company. But they had used four burners without permission from the Titas Gas authorities that caused a loss of Tk 26,20,266 to the Titas Gas Company. Following the incident, a cheating case was filed against Nazrul and Babu with Tejgaon Police Station on June 25 last year. The IO submitted the final report to the court of Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Dhaka on December 30 last year and prayed to the court for discharging them. In his FRT, the IO said he tried to arrest them but failed to do so. Moreover, the charges brought against them were found to be false, fabricated and concocted. Moreover, the IO did not take approval from the Public Prosecutor (PP) for submitting the FRT. On the other hand, the IO collected some documents from the accused during the investigation and he submitted those to the trial court. After scrutinising the case dockets and other relevant documents, the trial court asked the IO to appear before the court on Wednesday to explain why he discharged them, even though specific allegations were found against them. But the IO did not give satisfactory reply to the court questions about it. So, the court issued show cause upon him and directed to investigate the matter again. The court also rejected the FRT.
|