Act/Law wise: Judgment of Supreme Court of Bangladesh


Arms Act, 1878
Section/Order/Article/Rule/Regulation Head Note
Sections 16 & 18

Appellant was neither given any notice of enquiry nor was he given any hearing before cancellation of arms—Enquiry undertaken on a sprawling private complaint made by the local upazila Chairman. No emergency or any other compelling situation preventing giving of notice of enquiry lo the appellant—Nothing on record to show that any specific case was started against the appellant involving alleged misuse of revolver —Inquisitorial nature of enquiry aggravating the degree of unfairness—Principles of natural justice to be observed in proceedings affecting "the person or property or other right of parties concerned "—court adds a rider to the observance of the principle of natural justice that so far as exercise of power under section 18 of the Arms Act is concerned, the absence of a prior notice or hearing may not always invalidate the order passed thereunder if the security of the public peace is involved.
Sk. Ali Ahmed Vs. Secretary, Home Affairs 40 DLR (AD) 170. ....View Full Judgment

Section 18

Cancellation and suspension of license for arms—The necessity of recording reasons by the appropriate authority in writing for the cancellation of the license to be emphasized as a general rule—If the appropriate authority chooses not to make its order a speaking one and merely relies on the materials on record, its order stands a greater risk of being struck down.
Sk. Ali Ahmed Vs. Secretary Home Affairs 40 (AD) 170. ....View Full Judgment

Section 19A

The Arms Act, 1878
Section 19A read with
Evidence Act [I of 1872]
Section 27
Whether on the admitted facts the High Court Division is justified in maintaining the appellant’s conviction under section 19A of the Arms Act–
The Appellate Division held that whatever allegations made in the FIR and the statements made by P.Ws.1-4 are the result of the investigation and therefore, those statements are hit by section 162 of the Code. The appellant was not an accused on 13.12.2004 and the recovery of fire arm as per his statement is a doubtful story to believe on. After recovery of the fire arm, the police officer in course of investigation found that the appellant planted the fire arm in the hayrick of Abdul Hoque. This statement is not admissible under section 27 of the Evidence Act. The High Court Division has totally misconstrued section 27 of the Evidence Act and illegally held that the recovery of the fire arm was on the basis of the statement made by the appellant with a sketch map ‘pointing to an arm which is sufficient to have a knowledge, possession and control by himself and nobody else, even not Abdul Hoque’. This conclusion arrived at is based on misconception of law. There is no legal evidence to prove the recovery of he firearm from the exclusive control or knowledge of the appellant. .....Md. Tofajjal Hussain =VS= The State, (Criminal), 2016-[1 LM (AD) 483] ....View Full Judgment

Section 19(f)

Seizure list witnesses were not examined as such alleged recovery of seized ammunitions from the possession of the accused-appellant not proved–
The Appellate Division observed that the High Court Division pointed out that the person-who prepared the seizure list was not examined before the court although he was cited as a witness in the charge sheet and that both the seizure list witnesses were declared hostile. the place wherefrom the seized ammunitions were allegedly recovered was a shop in public place located besides the road and was accessible to the public at large and that in that situation it could not be said that the accused-appellants had exclusive control and possession over the place of occurrence. The High Court Division commented also that in that circumstances the possibility of false implication by business rival, as has been suggested by the learned Counsel for the accused-appellants, could not be brushed aside. .....The State =VS= Asif Khan Riyad & another, (Criminal), 2016-[1 LM (AD) 534] ....View Full Judgment

Sections 19A/19(f)

Recovery of the arms consequent upon confession made by the accused-petitioner and which he himself brought out of his straw store located within his homestead–
After consideration of the evidence and materials on record the Special Tribunal No.1, Narail by its judgement and order dated 14.06.2011 convicted the accused under sections 19(f)/19A of the Arms Act sentencing him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for life for the offence under section 19A and 7(seven) years for the offence under section 19(f) of the Arms Act.
No appeal was preferred against the judgement and order of the trial Court. However, being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the judgement and order of conviction and sentence dated 14.06.2011, the convict-petitioner preferred Criminal Miscellaneous Case No.6610 of 2012 under section 561A of the Code of Criminal Procedure and obtained Rule, which upon hearing was discharged.
We are of the view that the ends of justice would be sufficiently met if the sentence of the convict-petitioner imposed for the offence under section 19A of the Arms Act is reduced to rigorous imprisonment for 10(ten) years. Both the sentences shall run concurrently. Any period that the convict-petitioner suffered in custody during the course of the trial shall be deducted from the period of his sentence. ...Abdur Rab Munshi =VS= The State, (Criminal), 2019 (1) [6 LM (AD) 95] ....View Full Judgment

Section 26

Section 26 of the Arms Act does not empower the Deputy Commissioner to issue such an order for seizure of arms. Only the Government is empowered to seize arms of any person and to detain the same for such time as it thinks necessary for the public safety.
Golam Ambia Vs. Deputy Commissioner & Ors 12 BLT (AD)-63 ....View Full Judgment