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.

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.

Penal Code, 1860
Sections 302/34 r/w
Arms Act, 1878
Sections 19A and 19(F)
From scanning of the entire prosecution evidence, Appellate Division is constrained to hold that the High Court Division was totally wrong both in law and fact holding that the prosecution has not been able to prove the charge brought against Munna and Jhalak. The judgment and order of the High Court Division, so far as it relates to the acquittal of Munna and Jhalak calls for interference by this Division. However, the findings and conclusion recorded by the High Court Division so far as it relates to Russel and Robin are based on the correct appreciation of evidence and do not suffer from any error and as such the impugned judgment and order so far as it relates to Russel and Robin does not warrant interference by this Division.
In the result, the Criminal Appeals and Criminal Petitions for Leave to Appeal are disposed of in the following terms:
1. The Criminal Appeal No.45 of 2018 is redundant.
2. The Criminal Appeal No.03 of 2019 is dismissed.
3. The Criminal Petition for Leave to Appeal No.1511 of 2018 is disposed of. The impugned judgment and order dated 07.05.2018 passed by the High Court Division regarding Mohammad Ali Munna son of late Jowher Ali @ Jabor Ali is set aside. His conviction under sections 302/34 of the Penal Code as given by the trial Court is maintained. However, he is sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life with a fine of Tk. 50,000/-, in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 6(six) months more. The convict-respondent Mohammad Ali Munna is directed to surrender before the trial Court within 30 (thirty) days from date, failing which, the concerned Court is directed to take steps to secure his arrest.
4. The Criminal Petition for Leave to Appeal No.1542 of 2018 is disposed of. The impugned judgment and order dated 07.05.2018 passed by the High Court Division regarding Iftekhar Begh Jhalak son of Ismail Begh is set aside. His conviction under sections 302/34 of the Penal Code as given by the trial Court is maintained. However, he is sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life which denotes his whole life meaning that he will be inside the jail till his natural death.
The convict-respondent Iftekhar Begh Jhalak is directed to surrender before the trial Court within 30(thirty) days from date, failing which, the concerned Court is directed to take steps to secure his arrest. .....Md. Manjurul Abedin alias Russel =VS= The State, (Criminal), 2025(1) [18 LM (AD) 348] ....View Full Judgment

Constitution of Bangladesh, 1972
Article 102 r/w
Arms Act, 1878
Section 19(l)(f) r/w
Special Powers Act 1974
Dismissed from service— The Departmental proceeding was initiated in relation to the same issue in respect of which criminal proceeding was initiated— The writ petitioner-respondent by filing an application under Article 102 of the Constitution of People’s Republic of Bangladesh has challenged the judgment and order passed by the Administrative Tribunal, Bogura in Administrative Tribunal Case No. 60 of 1994 dismissing the case along with the other reliefs. The writ petitioner-respondent did not prefer any appeal before the Administrative Appellate Tribunal against the said judgment and order passed by the Administrative Tribunal.
It is the Appellate Division’s considered view that the writ petition was not maintainable before the High Court Division against an order passed by the Administrative Tribunal. The Appellate Division is inclined to dispose of this civil petition for leave to appeal without granting any leave to avoid further delay in disposing of the case. Accordingly, the civil petition for leave to appeal is disposed of. The judgment passed by the High Court Division in writ petition No. 10203 of 2015 is hereby set-aside. .....Government of Bangladesh =VS= Md. Rostom Ali Pramanik, (Civil), 2024(2) [17 LM (AD) 573] ....View Full Judgment

The Explosive Substances Act, 1908
Sections 4/6 r/w
The Arms Act, 1878
Section 19A
Pending any prohibitory order from the Apex Court–– The court has knowledge of the order it is bound to obey it and if it does not, it not only acts illegally, and all proceedings taken after the knowledge of the order but also all proceedings taken even without knowledge too would be a nullity in toto. ––The order of the High Court Division for dismissing the criminal appeal no. 7403 of 2021 allowing the petition for non-prosecution on 27.06.2022 is set aside and the Criminal Appeal no.7403 of 2021 is hereby restored to its original file and number and in the category of Rule hearing. The order of stay granted by this Division to be continued till disposal of the Rule. ––The High Court Division is further directed to dispose of the Rule on merit. The copy of this judgment be communicated to the Judges of the criminal Benches of the High Court Division at once for further reference and steps. .....The State =VS= Omit Hasan @ Azmir, (Criminal), 2022(2) [13 LM (AD) 588] ....View Full Judgment

The Arms Act, 1878
Section 19A r/w
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

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

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 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