Act/Law wise: Judgment of Supreme Court of Bangladesh

ALL A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z



Narcotics Control Act [XX of 1990]/ Madok Drabba Niontran Ain/ মাদকদ্রব্য নিয়ন্ত্রণ আইন
Section/Order/Article/Rule/Regulation Head Note
Sections 2(Kha), 9 and 10(Ga)

There is absolutely no truth as to the allegation of the limit of use of alcohol or rectified spirit as a raw material in the preparation and formation of the Homeopathic medicine under the provisions of Drugs Act, 1940 or the Drugs (Control) Ordinance, 1982 or no such right of use has been taken away by the Narcotics Control Act, 1990. Bangladesh Homeopathic Medicine Manufacturers Associa­tion vs Bangladesh 11 BLC (AD) 26. ....View Full Judgment

Section 11

To grant license in favour of the writ petitioner No.1 under Section 11 of the Narcotics Control Act, 1990 to manufacture, process, carry, transport, export, supply, sell, hold, preserve, warehousing and exhibit of products– It appears that the appellants admitted before the High Court Division about the issuance of license for manufacturing various alcoholic drinks and the High Court Division observed as under:- “It is not denied by the respondents that there are commercial concerns in the country which are manufacturing various alcoholic drinks under license. It is also not denied that there are also licensed dealers in the country dealing in such drinks and accordingly they buy such drinks from those licensed manufactures in the country.”
The operative portion of the judgment of the High Court Division in respect of the direction to issue license needs modification and accordingly this appeal is dismissed with direction upon the appellant who were the respondent in the High Court Division and the direction is modified in the following terms:-
The respondent who are the appellants here are directed to consider and dispose of the application of the writ petitioner’s praying for license under Section 11 of the Narcotics Control Act, 1990 in accordance with law in the light of the judgment delivered by the High Court Division in Writ Petition No.6818 of 2004 affirmed hereby this Court with above modification. …Department of Narcotics Control Dhaka=VS=Crown Beverage Ltd., (Civil), 2020 (1) [8 LM (AD) 94] ....View Full Judgment

Section 19

As the respondent was carrying surreptitiously 3 kg 27 grams of powder the whole stuff is to be treated as heroin for the purpose of the Act intending to punish the carrier of the narcotic irrespective of whether it is in the purest form or not. It is not necessary for the prosecution to prove the “actual and real heroin content” for the purpose of a conviction under clause 1(a) of the table of section 19 of the Act. The view taken by the High Court Division expressing that the purpose of the law is only to punish the preparation, carrying and dealing, etc. of laboratory heroin’ and not the stuff is wrong. State vs Miss Eliadah McCord 2 BLC (AD) 1. ....View Full Judgment

Section 19

While considering the sentence to be passed upon the respondent under clause 1(a) of section 19 of the Act the High Court Division was wrong in relying upon a statement made by the respondent recorded in connection with the Miscellaneous case started on a suo inotu Rule as that statement was not part of the record of the appeal and thus irrelevant as far as the appeal was concerned. State vs Miss Eliadah McCord 2 BLC (AD) 1. ....View Full Judgment

Section 19

As there is no scope for altering the conviction from one under clause 1(b) to clause 1(a) of the table of section 19 of the Act reducing the sentence on compassionate ground considering the age of the respondent who may approach the Government or the President, if so advised, for any relief that she may choose to pray. State vs Miss Eliadah McCord 2 (AD) BLC 1. ....View Full Judgment

Section 19

Heroin-When mixed—
When mixed with, the entire stuff has to be considered as Heroin for the purpose of conviction and sentence. When law is stringent no consideration either humanitarian or otherwise can serve the purpose of reducing the sentence than prescribed by law. The hands of court are tied. The power of remission, commutation etc. lies with the Government or the President under Chapter XXIX of the Cr. PC. and Article 49 of the Constitution. The State Vs. Ms. Eliadah Me Cord— 1, MLR (1996) (AD) 238. ....View Full Judgment

Section 19(1) (ka)

Conviction for possession of herion—
There is no ground to interfere with the conviction and sentence when possession of herion is admittedly proved. Section 16 applies to the officers of the Narcotics department and it does not cast any responsibility upon the court to send the heroin addict convict to curing centre. Shahid Hussain Chowdhury @ Bakul Vs. the State— 2, MLR(1997) (AD) 164. ....View Full Judgment

Section 22 (Ga)

We have gone through the judgments of both the trial court and the appellate court below and found that both the courts, on careful examination and consideration of evidence adduced by the prosecution found the charge against both the accused-persons proved beyond all reasonable doubt. We find no wrong in these concurrent findings and decision of the trial court and the appellate court below. Rather we, in agreement with the trial court and the appellate court below, find that the charges framed against both these accused-petitioners were proved beyond all reasonable doubt by sufficient convincing evidence and in the circumstances this criminal petition for leave to appeal has no merit. .....Md. Hosen Ali & another =VS= The State, (Criminal), 2016-[1 LM (AD) 481] ....View Full Judgment

Sections 31, 39 and 44

Section 31 of the Act has made the offence committed under this Act cognizable. Section 39(i) of the Act has given power of an Officer--in charge of a Police Station to the Directorate to investigate into an offence under this Act. Sub-section (2) of section 39 empowers the Government to confer power of an Officer-in-charge of a Police Station to an officer subordinate to the Director General of the Narcotics Directorate by a gazette notification to investigate into any offence under this Act. It is thus evident that the power of the Director General of the Narcotics Directorate is not in derogation of the power of the Officer-in-charge of the concerned Police Station. Under section 5(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Section 44--Section 44 of the Act shows that on a written request by the Director General of the Directorate of Narcotics, the investigating agency may hand over charge of investigation of a case. It is thus clear that besides the Director General of the Directorate of Narcotics an officer subordinate to him specially empowered by the Government, investigation of an offence under this Act may also be done by any designated member of the law enforcing agency competent to investigate the case. The power of the Director General of the Directorate of Narcotics to investigate a case under this Act is neither exclusive nor absolute.
The State-Vs.- Amin Huda 2 ALR (2013)(AD) 177 ....View Full Judgment

Section 44

Section 44 of the Act shows that on a written request by the Director General of the Directorate of Narcotics, the investigating agency may hand over charge of investigation of a case. It is thus clear that besides the Director General of the Directorate of Narcotics an officer subordinate to him specially empowered by the Government, investigation of an offence under this Act may also be done by any designated member of the law enforcing agency competent to investigate the case.The power of the Director General of the Directorate of Narcotics to investigate a case under this Act is neither exclusive nor absolute.
The State-Vs.- Amin Huda 2 ALR (2013)(AD) 177 ....View Full Judgment