Act/Law wise: Judgment of Supreme Court of Bangladesh (AD)
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 (Cr.PC) (BD) | |||
---|---|---|---|
Section/Order/ Article/Rule/ Regulation | Head Note | Parties Name | Reference/Citation |
Section 1(2) & 339C |
Applicability of the Code to proceedings before Special Tribunals: The Act provides that the provisions of the code shall apply to a case under the Act if they are not inconsistent with its own provisions. Section 339C of the Code being not inconsistent with any provisions of the Act shall apply to the proceedings before Special Tribunals constituted under the Act. Section 339C is intended for expeditious trial; the special statute is intended for “more speedy trial”. If the provision for speedy trial is not applied to trial under the Act, it will bring a situation not intended by the law-makers. Kamruzzaman vs State 42 DLR (AD) 219. |
Kamruzzaman vs State | 42 DLR (AD) 219 |
Sections 1(2) and 339C — |
Applicability of the Code of Criminal Procedure to the proceedings under
the Special Powers Act and the Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1958. Section
1(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure says "in the absence of any specific
provision to the contrary, nothing herein contained shall affect any
special law now in force". Similarly Section 2, theSpecial Powers Act
provides that provisions of the Code shall apply tc case under the Act if
they are not ino sistent with any provision of the said i — The Tribunal
in view of this enabl provision will apply the provisions of Code in the
trial before it.
|
Kamruzzaman Vs. The State | 10 BLD (AD) 190 |
Section 3(h) |
Complaint—Complaint by an Attorney
|
Tamizul Haque Vs. Anisul Haque | 16 BLD (AD) 206 |
Section 4(1)(q) |
The meaning assigned to the word “public” strongly indicates that a particular case may also be tried in a place other than the normal place where the sitting of the Court of Sessions takes place. Sayeed Farook Rahman vs Sessions Judge of the Court of Sessions, Dhaka 49 DLR (AD) 157. |
Sayeed Farook Rahman vs Sessions Judge of the Court of Sessions, Dhaka | 49 DLR (AD) 157 |
Section 4 (l)(m) — |
"Judicial proceedings include any proceeding in the court of which evidence
is or may be lega taken on oath "
|
Dr. Jamsk Bakht Vs. Ameenur Rashid Chowdhury | 1 BLD (AD) 314 |
Section 4(1 )(h) |
Definitions of the term 'complaint' requires that in order to constitute a complaint an allegation regarding the commission of an offence by known or unknown persons must be made either orally or in writing to a Magistrate — It does not say that such an allegation to a Magistrate would be channelled through a police officer On the contrary, the definition expressly mentions that it does not include the report of the police officer The State Vs. Aynuzzaman 7 BLD (AD) 100. |
The State Vs. Aynuzzaman | 7 BLD (AD) 100 |
Section 5 |
The urge of the petitioners to get their matter disposed of by the High Court Division or by this Division through Islamic law has got no leg to stand in view of the aforesaid provisions. Under Article 152 of the Constitution, the word “law” means any Act, Ordinance, etc. having the force of law in Bangladesh. The urge of the petitioners for trying their cases in accordance with Islamic law is nothing but an imaginary dream. Iftekhar Hasan (Md) @ Al Mamun vs State 59 DLR (AD) 36. |
Iftekhar Hasan (Md) @ Al Mamun vs State | 59 DLR (AD) 36 |
Sections 5(2) & 339D |
Where the charge has been framed under section 409 of the Penal Code and section 5(2) of Act II of 1947, and in the absence of any provision for revival of the case on the expiry of the period of 2 years provided in section 8(a) of the Criminal Law Amendment (Amendment) Act there was no legal authority to revive the case under the provision of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Nur Israil Talukder vs State 52 DLR (A D) 51. |
Nur Israil Talukder vs State | 52 DLR (AD) 51 |
Section 5(2) |
The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898
|
Security & Exchange Commission =VS= Md. Sayadur Rahman | 6 LM (AD) 78 |
Sections 6 & 7 |
The new Act has effected a change in the procedural law but it has not
affected any vested right of the accused and the prosecution, because the
accused had not, in fact, any absolute and vested right of stoppage and
release.
|
Abdul Wadud vs State | 48 DLR (AD) 6 |
Section 7 |
Jurisdiction and function of a Sessions Judge and a Special Judge is quite
distinguishable and one cannot exercise the jurisdiction of other though
sometimes judge may be the same person:
|
Minaz Ahmed and another Vs. Arif Motahar and others | 16 SCOB [2022] AD 89 |
Section 8 |
Extension of time limit for pending cases — Ordinance No 37 of 1983 extended the period for conclusion of trial of the cases pending on the date of its commencement on 8.8.83 — Charge sheet in the present case was submitted on 16.6.1983 and the case record was in due course forwarded to the Sessions Judge for trial. As such the trial of the case was pending within the meaning of Ordinance No. 37 of 1983 which was intended to save such trials which could not be completed within the time limit specified in Section 339C of the Code of Criminal Procedure The State Vs. Modhu Mirdha 8 BLD (AD) 123. |
The State Vs. Modhu Mirdha | 8 BLD (AD) 123 |
Sections 9(3), 31(A) and 290 |
An Assistant Sessions Judge deemed to be an Additional Sessions Judge-its
legal incidences.
|
Tajul Islam and others -Vs.- Mr. Bill al Hossain | 2 ALR (AD) 205 |
Section 9(2) |
A special order cannot be restricted to mean a particular situation according to a pre set formula. Sayeed Farook Rahman vs Sessions Judge of the Court of Sessions, Dhaka 49 DLR (AD) 157. |
Sayeed Farook Rahman vs Sessions Judge of the Court of Sessions, Dhaka | 49 DLR (AD) 157 |
Sections 9(3), 29C, 31(4), 409 |
An Assistant Sessions Judge deemed to be appointed as Additional Sessions Judge has the limited power of passing higher sentences except a Death Sentence in those sessions cases which are now triable by him by deeming and treating him to be an Additional Sessions Judge, consequent upon the changes brought. He shall not be deemed to be an Additional Sessions Judge for all the purposes under the Code, e.g. for hearing appeals, revisions, reference and reviews if they are made over or transferred to him by the Sessions Judge. Under section 409 the Sessions Judge can transfer the hearing of an appeal only to an Additional Sessions Judge and not to an Assistant Sessions Judge deemed to have been appointed as an Additional Sessions Judge. The dismissal in the instant appeal by the Assistant Sessions Judge and refusal of interference by the High Court Division in revision are therefore illegal. The appeal against conviction is therefore allowed and it is directed that the Sessions Judge may himself dispose of the appeal or transfer it to an Additional Sessions Judge for disposal. Abul Kashem vs State 43 DLR (AD) 77. |
Abul Kashem vs State | 43 DLR (AD) 77 |
Section 9(2) |
Place of sitting of the Court of Sessions—To be directed and notified—
|
Syeed Farrok Rahman Vs. Sessions Judge Dhaka and others | 2 MLR (AD) 212 |
Sections 10 and 11 |
Authentication of Publication — Whether authentication by the Additional District Magistrate is valid in law — Having reference to the definition of District Magistrate provided by law. if not in the Act concerned but elsewhere having general application, the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure provide that the Additional District Magistrate may perform the functions of the District Magistrate — Printing Press and Publications (Declaration and Registration) Act, 1973, Ss. 12, 23 and 24 — General Clauses Act (X of 1897) S 19 Waliul Bari Chowdhury Vs. District Magistrate, Kushtia and others 6 BLD (AD) 284.Ref. AIR 1948 (All) 129; (1956) 3 All ER 939. |
Waliul Bari Chowdhury Vs. District Magistrate, Kushtia and others | 6 BLD (AD) 284 |
Section 18(2) |
Appointment of Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrates
|
Government of Bangladesh Vs. Shah Alam | 15 BLD (AD) 108 |
Sections 26 , 283 and 307 |
read with
|
Mr. S.M. Rezaul Karim -Vs.- Syed Ahmed Chowdhury and others | 11 ALR (AD) 84-88 |
Section 31 |
As a matter of principle, it is not proper that by installments the
question of sentence should be considered once in the High Court Division
and again in the Appellate Division.
|
Mawlana Abdul Hye vs State, Hatem Ali Howlader vs State | 51 DLR (AD) 65 |
Sections 33(1) and 386(1) |
Whether a Magistrate can order for imprisonment in default of payment of fine when the offence is punishable with fine only — Section 33(1) authorises the Magistrate to award such terms of imprisonment in default of payment of fine as is authorized by law in case of such defautl — Where the offence is punishable with imprisonment as well as fine and where the offence is punishable only with fine, the imprisonment in default of payment of fine shall be simple and the maximum term is six months — All courts including the court of the Magistrate got power to direct recovery of fine when the offence is punishable only with fine by any of the three methods, such as by issuing distress warrants or by referring the matter to the Collector or by committing the offender to the prison The State Vs. Abul Kashem 5 BLD (AD) 166 |
The State Vs. Abul Kashem | 5 BLD (AD) 166 |
Section 35A |
Nari O Shishu Nirjatan Daman Ain, 2000
|
Noor Mohammad @Kalu @Kalu Chor @Kalo Dakat =VS= The State | 12 LM (AD) 401 |
Section 35(A) |
Commuted to imprisonment for life and get the benefit of section 35(A) of the Cr.PC.– It appears that the appellants Sentu, Mamun and Azanur are in the condemned cell for more then 12(twelve) years suffering the pangs of death. It was held in the case of Nazrul Islam (Md) vs. State reported in [66 DLR (AD) 199] that, ”Lastly with regard to the period of time spent by the accused in the condemned cell, there are numerous decisions of this Division which shed light on this aspect. In general terms, it may be stated that the length of period spent by a convict in the condemned cell is not necessarily a ground for commutation of the sentence of death. However, where the period spent in the condemned cell is not due to any fault of the convict and where the period spent there is inordinately long, it may be considered as an extenuating ground sufficient for commutation of sentence of death.” In view of the decision cited above as well as the circumstances of this case, Appellate Division is of the view that justice would be sufficiently met if the sentence of death of the appellants Sentu, Mamun and Azanur be commuted to one of imprisonment for life. ...Shukur Ali(Md.) =VS= The State, (Criminal), 2021(2) [11 LM (AD) 128] ....View Full Judgment |
Shukur Ali(Md.) =VS= The State | 11 LM (AD) 128 |
Section 35(A) |
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898
|
Anowar Hossain =VS= The State | 11 LM (AD) 150 |
Section 35(A) |
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898
|
Mofazzal Hossain Khan @ Mofa =VS= The State | 11 LM (AD) 167 |
Section 35(A) |
Modification of sentence with benefit of section 35(A) of the Cr.PC– When
the matter was heard by the High Court Division the convict had been in the
condemned cell for less than 7(seven) years, and hence the plea of
commutation was rejected. However, the convicts have now been in the
condemned cell for more than a decade and suffered due to no fault of them.
Thus, the length of period by now can be taken as a circumstance. Such
being the case, Appellate Division is of the view that justice would be met
if we commute the sentence to life imprisonment instead of death.
|
Runzu Sarder =VS= The State | 11 LM (AD) 180 |
Section 35(A) |
Sentence of death is commuted to imprisonment for life with will get the benefit of section 35A of the Cr.PC– The appellant’s two wives came face to face for the first time which led to an explosive atmosphere. The second wife left the fight which then continued into the night between the appellant and his first wife. There is no evidence that the appellant is otherwise a violent person or a threat to society. There is no previous record of any criminal activity. Appellate Division is of the view that ends of justice would be best served if the sentence of death is commuted to one of imprisonment for life and also to pay a fine of Tk.5,000/-(five thousand), in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 15 (fifteen) days more. He will get the benefit of section 35A of the Code of Criminal Procedure in the calculation of his sentence. ...Sree Swapan Kumar Biswas =VS= The State, (Criminal), 2021(2) [11 LM (AD) 211] ....View Full Judgment |
Sree Swapan Kumar Biswas =VS= The State | 11 LM (AD) 211 |
Section 35(A) |
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898
|
Samaul Haque Lalon =VS= The State | 11 LM (AD) 315 |
Section 35A |
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898
|
Alaich Mahmud@Ear Mahmud@Mohammad Mia =VS= State | 11 LM (AD) 323 |
Section 35A |
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898
|
Masum Billah =VS= The State | 11 LM (AD) 395 |
Section 35A |
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898
|
Nazrul Islam(Md.) =VS= Deputy Commissioner(DC), Dhaka | 11 LM (AD) 403 |
Section 35A |
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898
|
Fazlul Haque Talukder =VS= Deputy Commissioner(DC), Barishal | 11 LM (AD) 418 |
Section 35A |
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898
|
Golam Rabbani(Md.) =VS= The State | 11 LM (AD) 422 |
Section 35A |
The Penal Code, 1860
|
Monir Ahmed =VS= The State | 12 LM (AD) 413 |
Section 35A |
The appellant was rightly found guilty by both the Courts below but we think that justice would be met if the sentence of death is commuted into imprisonment for life as the appellant is in pang of death since pronouncement of the trial Court and subsequent affirmation by the High Court Division and as such the sentence of death is commuted into imprisonment for life with a fine of Tk. Tk.10,000/-, in default, to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 3(three) months more. The appellant will get the benefit of section 35A of the Code of Criminal Procedure. ...Ariful Islam Shimul =VS= The State, (Criminal), 2021(2) [11 LM (AD) 577] ....View Full Judgment |
Ariful Islam Shimul =VS= The State | 11 LM (AD) 577 |
Section 35(A) |
The Penal Code, 1860
|
Mohammad Ali @ Sakil =VS= The State | 12 LM (AD) 444 |
Section 35A |
The Penal Code, 1860
|
Rafiqul Islam(Md.) alias Rafique =VS= The State | 12 LM (AD) 448 |
Section 35A |
The Penal Code, 1860
|
Abdul Gafur(Md.) alias Milon =VS= The State | 12 LM (AD) 461 |
Section 35(d) |
Transitory Provisions, purpose of—Investigation pending immediately before commencement of the Ordinance—Magistrate did not accept the Final Report and directed further investigation—Police on further investigation submitted charge-sheet far beyond the “specified period” of 60 days as stated in section 167(5) and also of 90 days as stated in section 35(d) of the Transitory Provision—Charge-sheet was submitted one year after the Magistrate’s order for further investigation—Accused-respondents, whether entitled to be released—Provision in section 3 5(d) of the Ordinance is not mandatory and intended to save an investigation which had started at the time when there was no time limit for its conclusion—Investigation on which the Police submitted charge-sheet, not governed by section 167, and the charge-sheet not hit by section 167(7)-Consequently the charge-sheet stands. Kazi Abdul Jalil vs Jashem Munshi 43 DLR (AD) 116. |
Kazi Abdul Jalil vs Jashem Munshi | 43 DLR (AD) 116 |
Section 35A |
The Penal Code, 1860
|
Al-Amin(Md.) @Badsha @Khalek =VS= The State | 12 LM (AD) 470 |
Section 35(A) |
The Penal Code, 1860
|
Rafiqul Islam Sheikh =VS= The State | 12 LM (AD) 484 |
Section 35A |
Nari-O-Shishu Nirjatan Daman Ain, 2000 (as amended in 2003)
|
Anwar Sheikh(Md.) =VS= The State | 11 LM (AD) 344 |
Sections 35A & 401 |
The Constitution of Bangladesh, 1972
|
Ataur Mridha =VS= The State | 3 LM (AD) 513 |
Section 35A |
The Penal Code, 1860
|
Ataur Mridha =VS= The State | 10 LM (AD) 527 |
Section 35A |
Nari-O-Shishu Nirjatan Daman Ain-2000 (Amended in 2003)
|
Md. Mamun@ Mamun Ar Rashid =VS= The State | 15 LM (AD) 180 |
Section 35A |
Acid Aparadh Damon Ain, 2002
|
Md. Akbar Ali alias Jelhaque Mondal =VS= The State | 16 LM (AD) 17 |
Section 35A |
Nari-O-Shishu Nirjatan Daman (Bishes Bidhan) Ain, 1995
|
Raju Ahmed @ Raja Mia =VS= The State | 16 LM (AD) 643 |
Section 35A |
The Evidence Act, 1872
|
Anowar Hossain(Md.) =VS= The State | 13 LM (AD) 316 |
Section 35A |
Having gone through substituted section 35A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, it appears that there is no scope to say that the power conferred on the Court is a discretionary power. The language used in amended section 35A is clear and unambiguous and that the Court cannot disregard the intention of the legislature expressed in plain language and is to deduct the period of actual detention from imprisonment for life prior to his conviction. (Majority view) (Per Mr. Justice Syed Mahmud Hossain, CJ) …Ataur Mridha alias Ataur Vs. The State, (Criminal), 15 SCOB [2021] AD 1 ....View Full Judgment |
Ataur Mridha alias Ataur Vs. The State | 15 SCOB [2021] AD 1 |
Section 35A |
Section 35A of the Code of Criminal Procedure is applicable to convict
sentenced to life imprisonment:
|
Ataur Mridha alias Ataur Vs. The State | 15 SCOB [2021] AD 1 |
Section 35A |
A whole life order can be imposed in serious case:
|
Ataur Mridha alias Ataur Vs. The State | 15 SCOB [2021] AD 1 |
Section 35A |
A convict sentenced to imprisonment for life also gets benefit of section
35A of CrPC:
|
Ataur Mridha alias Ataur Vs. The State | 15 SCOB [2021] AD 1 |
Section 35A |
The Evidence Act, 1872
|
Dawlat Fakir(Md.) =VS= The State | 13 LM (AD) 413 |
Section 35A |
The Penal Code, 1860
|
The State =VS= Tajel Sheikh @ Md. Tajul Sheikh | 13 LM (AD) 306 |
Section 35A |
The Penal Code, 1860
|
Mujib Ali =VS= The State | 13 LM (AD) 406 |
Section 35A |
The Penal Code, 1860
|
Raju(Md.) =VS= The State | 13 LM (AD) 421 |
Section 35A |
The Penal Code, 1860
|
Gias =VS= The State | 13 LM (AD) 446 |
Sections 35A & 401 |
The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898
|
Ataur Mridha =VS= The State | 3 LM (AD) 513 |
Section 35A |
Nari-o-Shishu Nirjatan Daman Ain, 2000
|
Shamim @ Shamim Reza (Md) =VS= State | 14 LM (AD) 260 |
Section 35A |
Nari-O-Shishu Nirjatan Daman Ain, 2000
|
Anowar Talukder =VS= Deputy Commissioner, Madaripur | 14 LM (AD) 321 |
Section 35A |
The Penal Code, 1860
|
Mamun @ Mamun Ar Rashid (Md) =VS= State | 14 LM (AD) 264 |
Sections 35A and 397 |
Penal Code
|
Ataur Mridha alias Ataur Vs. The State | 15 SCOB [2021] AD 1 |
Sections 35A |
In view of the facts and circumstances, the discussion made above the
review petition is disposed of with the following observations and
directions:
|
Ataur Mridha alias Ataur Vs. The State | 15 SCOB [2021] AD 1 |
Section 35A |
The Penal Code, 1860
|
Mehedi Hasan(Md.) alias Rajib =VS= The State | 14 LM (AD) 397 |
Section 35A |
The Penal Code, 1860
|
Montu Rahman(Md.) =VS= The State | 14 LM (AD) 413 |
Section 35A |
Meaning of life sentence:
|
Rokia Begum Vs. The State | 4 SCOB [2015] AD 20 |
Section 54 |
In clause ‘Firstly’ of section 54 the words ‘credible information’
and ‘reasonable suspicion’ have been used relying upon which an arrest
can be made by a police officer. These two expressions are so vague that
there is chance for misuse of the power by a police officer, and
accordingly, we hold the view that a police officer while exercising such
power, his satisfaction must be based upon definite facts and materials
placed before him and basing upon which the officer must consider for
himself before he takes any action. It will not be enough for him to arrest
a person under this clause that there is likelihood of cognizable offence
being committed. Before arresting a person out of suspicion the police
officer must carry out investigation on the basis of the facts and
materials placed before him without unnecessary delay. If any police
officer produces any suspected person in exercise of the powers conferred
by this clause, the Magistrate is required to be watchful that the police
officer has arrested the person following the directions given below by
this court and if the Magistrate finds that the police officer has abused
his power, he shall at once release the accused person on bail. In case of
arresting of a female person in exercise of this power, the police officer
shall make all efforts to keep a lady constable present. …Bangladesh &
ors Vs. BLAST & ors, (Civil), 8 SCOB [2016] AD 1
|
Bangladesh & ors Vs. BLAST & ors | 8 SCOB [2016] AD 1 |
Section 54 and 167 |
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898
|
Bangladesh & ors Vs. BLAST & ors | 8 SCOB [2016] AD 1 |
Section 54 |
The Foreigners Act, 1946
|
Abdul Gaffar (OC, Tejgaon PS) =VS= Md. Mohammad Ali | 12 LM (AD) 51 |
Sections 54, 167 |
Recommendation to amend sections 54, 167–
|
Ministry of Law, Justice & Parl. Afrs. =VS= BLAST | 3 LM (AD) 274 |
Sections 54 and 167 |
The first question to be considered is whether the High Court Division has illegally presumed the misuse of power by the police while using the power under sections 54 and 167 of the Code. .....Ministry of Law, Justice & Parl. Afrs. =VS= BLAST, (Civil), 2017 (2)– [3 LM (AD) 274] ....View Full Judgment |
Ministry of Law, Justice & Parl. Afrs. =VS= BLAST | 3 LM (AD) 274 |
Section-54, 60, 61, 167 and 176 |
Sections 54, 60, 61, 167 and 176 of the Code are relevant for our
consideration which read as follows:
|
Ministry of Law, Justice & Parl. Afrs. =VS= BLAST | 3 LM (AD) 274 |
Section 60 |
Section 60 of the Code states that a police-officer making an arrest without warrant shall, without unnecessary delay and subject to the provisions herein contained as to bail, take or send the person arrested before a Magistrate having jurisdiction in the case, or before the officer in charge of a police-station. .....Ministry of Law, Justice & Parl. Afrs. =VS= BLAST, (Civil), 2017 (2)– [3 LM (AD) 274] ....View Full Judgment |
Ministry of Law, Justice & Parl. Afrs. =VS= BLAST | 3 LM (AD) 274 |
Section 61, 167 |
Police officer is bound to transmit to the nearest Magistrate –
|
Ministry of Law, Justice & Parl. Afrs. =VS= BLAST | 3 LM (AD) 274 |
Section 61 |
Section 61 of the Code states that no police-officer shall detain in custody a person arrested without warrant for a longer period than under all the circumstances of the case is reasonable, and such period shall not, in the absence of a special order of a Magistrate under section 167, exceed twenty-four hours exclusive of the time necessary for the journey from the place of arrest to the Magistrate's Court. .....Ministry of Law, Justice & Parl. Afrs. =VS= BLAST, (Civil), 2017 (2)– [3 LM (AD) 274] ....View Full Judgment |
Ministry of Law, Justice & Parl. Afrs. =VS= BLAST | 3 LM (AD) 274 |
Sections 94 and 160 |
The contention that action of notice by the respondent No. 3 was violative of Article 35(4) of the Constitution is of no substance since the same were issued in connection with an enquiry as regards the information received against the petitioners. The petitioners are not accused of any offence and, as such, protection under Article 35(4) is not available to them. Abu Siddique vs Ministry of Defence 54 DLR (AD) 154. |
Abu Siddique vs Ministry of Defence | 54 DLR (AD) 154 |
Sections 94 and 160 |
The officers of the Anti-Corruption Bureau in connection with investigation of a complaint to ascertain the truth thereof are authorised to issue notice under section 160 CrPC. Abu Siddique vs Ministry of Defence 54 DLR (AD) 154. |
Abu Siddique vs Ministry of Defence | 54 DLR (AD) 154 |
Section 94 |
Summons to produce document or other thing
|
Messers Hamidia Oil Mills Vs. District Anti Corruption Officer, Chittagong | 16 BLD (AD) 220 |
Section 96 |
The submission that by search and seizure no fundamental right of the petitioner is violated is misconceived on the facts of the instant case. Government of Bangladesh vs Husssain Mohammad Ershad 52 DLR (AD) 162. |
Government of Bangladesh vs Husssain Mohammad Ershad | 52 DLR (AD) 162 |
Section 96(1)(3) |
Appeals disposed of on a petition of compromise—High Court Division later
vacated the order and restored the two appeals on the allegation of the
respondents that the petition of compromise was forged and collusively
created.
|
Abdul Gafur vs State | 41 DLR (AD) 127 |
Section 99A(1)(c) |
To forfeit a publication the government is only required to state by notification in the official Gazette the grounds of its opinion, not its satisfaction for formation of opinion. Sadaruddin Ahmed Chisty vs Bangladesh 50 DLR (AD) 119. |
Sadaruddin Ahmed Chisty vs Bangladesh | 50 DLR (AD) 119 |
Section 99 A(l) |
Forfeiture of Publications containing objectionable matters—
|
Sadaruddin Ahmed Chisty Vs. Bangladesh and others | 3 MLR (AD) 258 |
Section 102 |
Seizure of blood stained cloth of a witness— Whether indispensably
necessary—
|
Mohmudul Islam alias Raton Vs. The State | 5 MLR (AD) 334 |
Section 103 |
If the seizure list witnesses do not corroborate the police officers, and the tribunal is satisfied that the seizure of the contraband goods has been made following the procedures prescribed in section 103 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, a conviction can be given relying upon them. The conviction of the accused person in such circumstances cannot be said to be illegal. .....Md. Akram =VS= The State, (Criminal), 2016-[1 LM (AD) 581] ....View Full Judgment |
Md. Akram =VS= The State | 1 LM (AD) 581 |
Section 103 |
Illegal search of the house of accused — Its effect when search is conducted in an irregular manner — Respectability of a witness is of no importance when a search is not made in accordance with law — Any self-respecting person would not be a party to the kind of search made in the case — Irregularities in a search conducted by an authorised officer may not ordinarily affect the legality of a proceeding and it may only affect the weight of the evidence Search, recovery and seizure of alleged incriminating articles not by a Magistrate or opolice officer but by members of the public are illegal — Arms Act (XI of 1878) S 25. Tamijuddin Ahmed Vs. The State 7 BLD (AD) 22 |
Tamijuddin Ahmed Vs. The State | 7 BLD (AD) 22 |
Sections 107, 112 and 145 |
Criminal proceeding for restraining a person from entering into the
disputed land — It is different and independent from a proceeding for
executing a bond for keeping the peace — An order restraining a person
from entering into a land is not contemplated in a proceeding for
executing a bond to keep peace — To meet a situation arising out of a
dispute over land the Magistrate is required to proceed under Section 145
Cr.P.C. — In the course of such a proceeding a Magistrate is competent to
proceed under Section 107 Cr.P.C. to prevent the breach of the peace.
|
Sultan Ahmed, Advocate and others Vs. Haji Sultan Ahmed and others | 2 BLD (AD) 156 |
Sections 144 and 145 |
When the Magistrate initiates a proceeding under section 145 Cr,P.C. on the
basis of a police report, which was called for in connection with an
application filed under section 144 Cr.P.C., it is to be held that there
was materials before the Magistrate to Act upon and no exception can be
taken against it as being beyond 60 days after the passing of the first
order under section 144 Cr.P.C.
|
Md. Esrail and others Vs. Md. Ali Ashgar and others | 15 BLD (AD) 117 |
Section 145 |
A proceeding under section 145 CrPC is not a criminal matter. As to proceedings under section 145 CrPC it is erroneous to designate the complainant as an informant, having regard to the provisions of that section. Once an information is brought to the notice of the Magistrate he has to be satisfied that a dispute as to immovable property is likely to cause a breach of the peace. Further proceedings which he starts are not proceedings in the interest of any private party but in the interest of public peace. (See Babu vs Shyam, ILR 1950 All 543). It is, therefore, highly doubtful if a proceeding under section 145 CrPC can properly be termed as a “criminal matter”. Jobeda Khatun vs Momtoz Begum 45 DLR (AD) 31. |
Jobeda Khatun vs Momtoz Begum | 45 DLR (AD) 31 |
Section 145 |
The jurisdiction of the Magistrate under section 145 CrPC is ousted when the civil Court is seized with the subject matter of dispute. Jobeda Khatun vs Momtaz Begum 45 DLR (AD) 31. |
Jobeda Khatun vs Momtaz Begum | 45 DLR (AD) 31 |
Section 145 |
A Magistrate making an inquiry under section 145 CrPC is to decide the fact of ‘actual possession’ without reference to the merits or the claims of any of the parties of a right to possess the subject of dispute. Aminul Islam vs Mujibar Rahman 44 DLR (AD) 56. |
Aminul Islam vs Mujibar Rahman | 44 DLR (AD) 56 |
Sections 145, 439A and 561A |
The revisional jurisdiction at the instance of the second party respondents under section 561A of the Code of Criminal Procedure does not lie as it is a device of invoking a second revision under the garb of an application under section 561A of the Code of Criminal Procedure which is not maintainable. Shamsuddin alias Shamsuddoha vs Mvi Amjad Ali 56 DLR (AD) 59. |
Shamsuddin alias Shamsuddoha vs Mvi Amjad Ali | 56 DLR (AD) 59 |
Sections 145 & 146 |
Dispute as to possession of land—Attachment to continue until civil Court’s decision on title—The parties are litigating their title, as also possession in a Title Suit. It is for them to raise all the questions therein. All comments, observations and findings of the Magistrate in the proceedings under section 145 CrPC and of the High Court Division while disposing of the application under section 561A CrPC with regard to the title and possession of the disputed property (the subject matter of the proceeding under section 145 CrPC) will be ignored by the civil Court while deciding the title suit. It will be fit and proper, in the facts and circumstances of the case, to keep the Magistrate’s order directing the receiver to hand over possession of the case land to the 1st party of section 145 proceeding in abeyance for .the present and it is so ordered. It is further ordered that pending disposal of the title suit the disputed land will remain under attachment and the 1st party is to hand over possession thereof to the receiver. On receipt of judgment in the title suit, the Magistrate shall dispose of the proceeding before him in conformity with the decision of the civil Court. Samirun Nessa vs Kamaluddin 43 DLR (AD) 175. |
Samirun Nessa vs Kamaluddin | 43 DLR (AD) 175 |
Sections 145 and 146 |
The Criminal Court exercising the limited summary jurisdiction could regulate the possession of the disputed property. On the failure of the learned Magistrate to ascertain factum of possession in favour of either party direct the parties under section 146 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to go to the Court of competent civil jurisdiction. Shamsuddin vs Mvi Amjad Ali 56 DLR (AD) 59. |
Shamsuddin vs Mvi Amjad Ali | 56 DLR (AD) 59 |
Sections 145 & 146 |
Order under section 146 could have been passed only after being satisfied on evidence in the proceeding under section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure that neither party could prove his possession in the subject matter of the proceeding and therefore the order passed by the learned magistrate was misconceived and beyond the authority under section 146 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Bangladesh Co-operative Book Society Ltd vs Md Dastagirul Huq 61 DLR (AD) 62. |
Bangladesh Co-operative Book Society Ltd vs Md Dastagirul Huq | 61 DLR (AD) 62 |
Sections 145 and 561A |
As the order of the Civil Court was passed earlier there could not be any proceeding under section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in respect of that property. Abdul Alim vs State 53 DLR (AD) 64. |
Abdul Alim vs State | 53 DLR (AD) 64 |
Sections 145 and 561A |
When the Civil Court is already seized with the question of regulating possession of the land between the same parties, the Magistrate acted without jurisdiction in initiating the impugned proceeding under section 145 CrPC. Abul Bashar vs Hasanuddin Ahmed 51 DLR (AD) 14. |
Abul Bashar vs Hasanuddin Ahmed | 51 DLR (AD) 14 |
Section 145 |
Specific Relief Act, 1877
|
Rezia Begum =VS= Hafez Ahmed | 14 LM (AD) 77 |
Section 145 |
Proceedings not tenable— When civil court procedings are there—
|
Abul Bashar (Haji) Vs. Hasanuddin Ahmed and others | 3 MLR (AD) 162 |
Section 145 |
The basic requirement for drawing a proceeding under section 145 Cr.P.C. is
a dispute over a land likely to cause breach of the peace. If the
Magistrate is satisfied that there is an apprehension of breach of the
peace and accordingly he draws the proceeding, no civil Court shall
interfere with
|
Monir Ahmed Vs. Md. Mohan alias Fazle Elahi | 14 BLD (AD) 246 |
Section 145 |
Breach of peace over possession– The Magistrate must bear in mind that
the jurisdiction under this provision is emergency in nature and therefore,
he need not wait for a police report but he must act with caution in
drawing up such proceeding. Acceptance of the police report or any
suggestions given by such report may sometime negate the purpose for which
the power. is given upon the Magistrate under section 145. The Magistrate
should not act as a routine work relying upon the said report.
|
Omar Faruque Majumder =VS= Borhanuddin (Bacchu) | 9 LM (AD) 378 |
Section 145 |
On the complaint of one Abdul Latif the police started a regular case for
violation of Cinematography Act and Excise Act and submitted chargesheet
against the accused respondent. Under purported exercise of power under
section 145(1) of Cr.P.C. the learned Magistrate directed the police to
seal the cinema hail in question. After hearing the contending parties the
learned Magistrate passed an order for keeping the cinema hail under
attachment till title in respect of the said cinema hail is decided by a
competent civil Court.
|
Md. Mobarak Hossain (Ratna) Vs. Abdul Quddus and another | 15 BLD (AD) 157 |
Section 145 |
Proceeding under Section 145 Cr.P C. — Transfer application under Section 528(2) Cr PC filed — S. D M. called for records and fixed date of hearing — No stay order — Magistrate having received intimation of the S. D. M'.s order is not competent to dispose of the proceeding under Section 145 Cr.P C finally before the transfer the application was heard Md Mofazzalur Rahman Vs. Abdus Salam and others 1 BLD (AD) 213. |
Md Mofazzalur Rahman Vs. Abdus Salam and others | 1 BLD (AD) 213 |
Sections 145 and 146 |
Property attached under Section 145 or 146 Cr. PC. is in custodia legis — Suit for declaration of title without a prayer for recovery of possession in respect of such property is maintainable and the civil court is competent to appoint a receiver in such a suit Specific Relief Act (1 of 1877) S 42. Jogendra Kumar Dutta Vs. Nur Mohammad and others 1 BLD (AD) 248.Ref. AIR 1943 (PC) 94; AIR 1938 (PC) 73 and AIR 1966 (SC ) 359. |
Jogendra Kumar Dutta Vs. Nur Mohammad and others | 1 BLD (AD) 248 |
Section 145 |
lurisdiction of the Magistrate when a civil court is already seized of the subject-matter of dispute — There is no legal provision which empowers a Magistrate to physically oust a person in possession of the disputed premises during the pendency of such proceeding Professor Md Shahabul Huda Vs. Md Shaft 4 BLD (AD) 165.Ref. 23 DLR(SC) 14. |
Professor Md Shahabul Huda Vs. Md Shaft | 4 BLD (AD) 165 |
Sections 145, 439, 439A and 561A_ |
Whether the Sessions Judge in exercise of his revisional powers can quash a proceeding under Section 145 Cr.P.C — Once a proceeding under Section 145 Cr.P.C. has been started with the preliminary order it must be followed up by enquiry and end with final order — There is no question of stopping in the middle unless the Miagistrate is satisfied that breach of peace does not exist — A revisional court can stop such a proceeding only in exceptional circumstances — Sessions Judge acting under Section 439A Cr PC. cannot exercise inherent powers as are available to the High Court Division under Section 561A _The Sessions Judge has no power to quash a proceeding under Section 145 Cr.P.C. initiated by the Magistrate. Md. Shahjahan Sheikh and others Vs. The Sessions Judge, Pirojpur and others 6 BLD (AD) 261. |
Md. Shahjahan Sheikh and others Vs. The Sessions Judge, Pirojpur and others | 6 BLD (AD) 261 |
Section 154 |
A FIR may be lodged by any person for, it is meant just to set the machinery of law in action. Shah Alam vs State 42 DLR (AD) 31. |
Shah Alam vs State | 42 DLR (AD) 31 |
Section 154 |
FIR can be used only to corroborate or contradict the maker thereof. There is neither any law nor any principle on the basis of which the testimony of another witness can be ignored or rejected, because the informant had made an omission to mention about the fact which the witness stated in his deposition. State vs Abdus Sattar 43 DLR (AD) 44. |
State vs Abdus Sattar | 43 DLR (AD) 44 |
Section 154 |
The filing of the first information report by the victim’s father that she died after taking poison was no bar to file a second first information report if subsequently it transpires that the death was homicidal in nature. Abdul Khaleque vs State 53 DLR (AD) 102. |
Abdul Khaleque vs State | 53 DLR (AD) 102 |
Section 154 |
FIR—Delay—Mere delay in lodging a case is not a ground for disbelieving a prosecution case, for there are various circumstances in which lodging any case as to the commission of offence may be delayed. (Per SK Sinha J) Major BazIul Huda vs State 62 DLR (AD) 1. |
Major BazIul Huda vs State | 62 DLR (AD) 1 |
Section 154 |
Words ‘মামলা দায়ের’ means institution of a case by
submission of a charge- sheet by an officer of the Commission, before the
concerned Court and certainly not an first information report as envisaged
under section 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure or a complaint
|
Anti-Corruption Commission vs Dr Mohiuddin Khan Alamgir | 62 DLR (AD) 290 |
Sections 154 & 161 |
The written information that was handed over by PW Ito the SI (PW 12) of the Sonargaon PS and Investigating Officer at 19-45 hours of 4th March, 1987 and on receipt whereof PW 12 started Sonargaon PS.Case No. 2 dated 4th March, 1987, is in the eye of law not a FIR but a statement in writing by PW 1, whoh heard from PW 2 about the incident, to the Investigating Officer, subsequent to commencement of the investigation and, as such, the same is a statement under section 161 of the CrPC (38 DLR (AD) 311). Ansar (Md) Chan Mia vs State 53 DLR (AD) 115. |
Ansar (Md) Chan Mia vs State | 53 DLR (AD) 115 |
Sections 154-173, 173(3B) |
We are of the view that the investigation of crime is carried out dehors the mandate contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure containing sections 154-173 of the Code and that the further investigation is a statutory right of the investigating agency under section 173(3B). The High Court Division rightly allowed the investigating agency of holding further investigation even after submission of the police report and after acceptance of the same. The facts, circumstances and law related thereto, we do not find any wrong in the decision of the High Court Division which calls for any interference by this Division. .....Monjur Morshed Khan =VS= Durnity Daman Commission, (Criminal), 2018 (2) [5 LM (AD) 241] ....View Full Judgment |
Monjur Morshed Khan =VS= Durnity Daman Commission | 5 LM (AD) 241 |
Section 154 |
First Information Report — Meaning of — Information about the occurrence, which is carried to the police at the earliest opportunity after the occurrence is the First Information Report and all subsequent information fall within the purview of Section 161 Cr.P.C. Muslimuddin and others Vs. The State 7 BLD (AD) 1. |
Muslimuddin and others Vs. The State | 7 BLD (AD) 1 |
Section 154 |
First Information Report __Its value in case of apparent omission of fact — FIR. is not a piece of substantive evidence but it may be used for corroborating or contradicting its maker only — The attention of the witness having not been drawn to his omissions in his cross-examination under Section 145 of the Evidence Act, the defence cannot take advantage of the contradictions. Dipok Kumar Sarkar Vs. The State 8 BLD (AD) 109. |
Dipok Kumar Sarkar Vs. The State | 8 BLD (AD) 109 |
Sections 155, 190 & 195 |
There is nothing in the law to prevent a police officer from making a complaint when some facts come to his knowledge even if he cannot investigate them. Abul Hossain vs State 55 DLR (AD) 125. |
Abul Hossain vs State | 55 DLR (AD) 125 |
Section 155 |
For of an offence under the Drug Ordinance special procedure has been proviuol for investigation of the offence by a designated class of officers and a special Court has been set up for the prupose — Such a case can only be tried by a Drug Court situated at Dhaka and not by the UpazilaMagistrate — The case is accordingly transferred to the Drug Court at Dhaka for trial — Drug (Control) Ordinnace (VIII of 1982) S 22 — The Drug Act (XXIII to 1940) S 22. Kalipada Shaha Vs. The State 5 BLD (AD) 279. Ref. AIR 1965 (SC) 1; AIR 1962 (SC) 63; AIR 1929 (Mad) 604. |
Kalipada Shaha Vs. The State | 5 BLD (AD) 279 |
Sections 156(3) & 200 |
There is nothing wrong in the procedure adopted by the Magistrate directing the police to hold investigation treating the petition of complaint as a First Information Report Cases reported in 6 DLR (WP) 205 and 54 Cal 305 are not applicable in the facts of the present case. Yakub Ali vs State 47 DLR (AD) 94. |
Yakub Ali vs State | 47 DLR (AD) 94 |
Section 157 |
First Information Report— FIR cannot be substituted for evidence given on oath and when there is no other evidence the facts mentioned in the information could not be relied upon as proof of the offence alleged. Babul vs State 42 DLR (AD) 186. |
Babul vs State | 42 DLR (AD) 186 |
Section 161 |
The right of cross-examination on the basis of witnesses’ previous statements under section 161 CrPC having not been available, prejudice to the defence could not be ruled out. The right given to the accused of getting copies of the statements under section 161 CrPC is a valuable right. End of justice requires setting aside the conviction. State vs Zahir 45 DLR (AD) 163. |
State vs Zahir | 45 DLR (AD) 163 |
Section 161 |
Judges are competent to take judicial notice of the fact about the present condition of law and order situation in the country and, as such, it is not unlikely that a witness will hesitate to tell the truth for fear of his life. Mahmudul Islam vs State 53 DLR (AD) 1. |
Mahmudul Islam vs State | 53 DLR (AD) 1 |
Sections 161 and 162 |
An omission from the statement recorded in a boiled form does not amount to contradiction and the alleged contradiction sought to be taken from the omission of the statement cannot, in a particular case, be proved under section 162 of the Code to hold that contradiction in accordance with the provision of section 162 has been established. Abul Kalam Azad alias Ripon vs State 58 DLR (AD) 26. |
Abul Kalam Azad alias Ripon vs State | 58 DLR (AD) 26 |
Sections 161 and 162 |
When witness is contradicted by a statement recorded by the Police in the course of investigation the only effect that it can have is to reduce the evidentiary value of his testimony in Court and make the witness unreliable on the point on which he is so contradicted. Abul Kalam Azad alias Ripon (Md) vs State 58 DLR (AD) 26. |
Abul Kalam Azad alias Ripon (Md) vs State | 58 DLR (AD) 26 |
Section 161, 162 |
The Evidence Act, 1872
|
Allama Delwar Hossain Sayedee =VS= Government of Bangladesh | 2 LM (AD) 76 |
Section 161 |
The Penal Code, 1860
|
Abul Hasem =VS= State | 13 LM (AD) 358 |
Section 161 |
“Heads (iii) and (iv) shall be noted regarding the particulars of the
house searched made with the names of witnesses in whose presence search
was made (section 103 of the Code) by whom, at what hour, and in what place
arrests were made; in what place property was found, and of what
description; the facts ascertained; on what points further evidence is
necessary, and what further steps are being taken with a view to completing
the investigation. The diary shall mention every clue obtained even though
at the time it seems unprofitable, and every step taken by the
investigating officer, but it shall be as concise as possible. It shall
also contain the statements of witnesses recorded under section 161 of the
Code.”
|
Ministry of Law, Justice & Parl. Afrs. =VS= BLAST | 3 LM (AD) 274 |
Section 161 |
Nari-O-Shishu Nirjatan Daman, 2000
|
State =VS= Md. Rezaul Islam Gazi alias Rezaul Islam | 14 LM (AD) 451 |
Section 161 |
Right giving to the accused for getting copies of-statements recorded under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is a valuable right — Failure to supply to the accused such copies caused prejudice to the accused and vitiated the trial. Government of the People's Republic of Bangladesh Vs. Zahir and others 1 BLD (AD) 296. |
Government of the People's Republic of Bangladesh Vs. Zahir and others | 1 BLD (AD) 296 |
Section 162(2) |
Evidence Act 1872,
|
Md. Mehedi Hasan @ Rajib and anr Vs. The State | 16 SCOB [2022] AD 17 |
Section 162 |
Section 162 of the Code of Criminal Procedure states that no statement made
by any person to a police officer in course of investigation under Chapter
XIV shall be used for any purpose at any inquiry or trial in respect of any
offence under investigation at the time when such statement was made
whether it was signed by the person making it or it was reduced into
writing.
|
Md. Tofajjal Hussain =VS= The State | 1 LM (AD) 483 |
Sections 164 and 364 |
Recording the confessional statement before the learned Magistrate– It is
settled principle of law that before recording the confessional statements,
caution must be given to the accused according to the provision of law so
that he can understand that he is not bound to make confessional statement.
Even then, if he is willing to make the confessional statement, it is the
duty of the learned Magistrate before whom the accused is produced for
recording confessional statement to ascertain whether the same is voluntary
and true without any threat or coercion from any external factor.
Thereafter, the learned Magistrate must be administered caution that if he
does so it might be used against him as evidence. Moreso, the Magistrate
must give sufficient time to the accused for relax and thinking about the
confession. If, thereafter, the Magistrate satisfies himself that no
pressure and force is used and the accused is willing to make the
confessional statement voluntarily, he, then can record the confessional
statement.
|
Runzu Sarder =VS= The State | 11 LM (AD) 180 |
Sections 164 and 364 |
Duty of the Magistrate recording the confessional statement of an accused– The provisions of sections 164 and 364 of the Code of Criminal Procedure emphasise an inquiry by the Magistrate to ascertain the voluntary nature of confession. This inquiry appears to be the most significant and an important part of the duty of the Magistrate recording the confessional statement of an accused. Before proceeding to record the confessional statement, a searching enquiry must be made from the accused as to the custody from which he was produced and the treatment he had been receiving in such custody in order to ensure that there is no scope for doubt of any sort of extraneous influence proceeding from a source interested in the prosecution still lurking in the mind of an accused. From the confessional statement it appears that the confessional statement recording Magistrate put questions to the appellant that he is Magistrate not Police, the appellant is not bound to make confession and the confession could be used against him in future. ...Mahbubur Rahman Titu(Md.) =VS= The State, (Criminal), 2021(2) [11 LM (AD) 232] ....View Full Judgment |
Mahbubur Rahman Titu(Md.) =VS= The State | 11 LM (AD) 232 |
Section 164 |
Confessional statement of appellant Dablu runs counter to the prosecution
case.
|
Mizazal Islam vs State | 41 DLR (AD) 157 |
Section 164 |
Previous statement, use of—The statement of a witness made u/s 164 CrPC is meant for binding him down to the statement made during investigation. The defence may use it to contradict the witness, whereas the prosecution may use it to corroborate him when he gives evidence in Court (per Shahabuddin Ahmed CJ concurred by MH Rahman & ATM Afzal JJ). Abu Taher Chowdhury vs State 42 DLR (AD) 253. |
Abu Taher Chowdhury vs State | 42 DLR (AD) 253 |
Sections 164 & 342 |
The witnesses deposed disclosing involvement of petitioner Mamun in the meeting of conspiracy and the occurrence of bomb blast resulting in the murder of the two Judges—In his examination under section 342 CrPC he admitted to have committed the offence and he felt proud being able to kill the judges according to the premeditated plan of his leader—His confessional statement and admission before the Court coupled with evidence on record proved the case against him Per Amirul Kabir Chowdhury J dictating the Full Court Judgment. Iftekhar Hasan (Md) @ Al Mamun vs State 59 DLR (AD) 36. |
Iftekhar Hasan (Md) @ Al Mamun vs State | 59 DLR (AD) 36 |
Sections 164 & 364 |
Presumption as to confession—Even though provision is there for making certain presumption in respect of a confession by an accused person produced before a Court taken in accordance with law and purporting to be signed by a Magistrate, having regard to the facts of the case it was injudicious to rely upon such confession without calling the Magistrate as a witness. In respect of a confession the Court is required to see not only that the forms under sections 164 and 364 CrPC were complied with but the substance underneath the law was equally adhered to—There must not be any reason for doubt as to the truth of the statements, be it circumstantial or proved otherwise. In this particular case it is difficult to deny accused appellants an opportunity to cross-examine the Magistrate who allegedly recorded their statements. Babul vs State 42 DLR (AD) 186. |
Babul vs State | 42 DLR (AD) 186 |
Section 164(2) |
The act of recording confession is a very solemn act and in discharging his duties, the Magistrate must take care to see that the requirements of sub-section (2) of Section 164 are fully satisfied. State vs Babul Miah 63 DLR (AD) 10. |
State vs Babul Miah | 63 DLR (AD) 10 |
Section 164(3) |
It is a mandatory requirement that after recording a confessional statement the recording Magistrate is required to make a memorandum to the confession containing a clause to the effect that he had warned the accused that he was no bound to make a confession, that if he makes a confession, it would be used against him, that the statement was true and voluntary, that it was recorded as per version of the maker and that it was read over to the maker after his statement was recorded which was the true and correct version and it contained a full and true account of statement made by the maker. State vs Babul Miah 63 DLR (AD) 10. |
State vs Babul Miah | 63 DLR (AD) 10 |
Section 164(3) |
The provisions of sub section (3) of section 164 is mandatory and therefore he is required to fill up Column 7 of the form for recording confession which is a column for recording a brief statement of the Magistrate’s reason for believing that the statement was voluntarily made. State vs Babul Miah 63 DLR (AD) 10. |
State vs Babul Miah | 63 DLR (AD) 10 |
Section 164 |
Confessional statement– When a Magistrate records confessional statement
of an accused under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure he must
observe some legal formalities (i) he must give statutory warning and
caution the accused that he is not bound to make a confession; (ii) the
Magistrate must be satisfied on questioning the accused that the statement
has been made voluntarily. After completion of recording the statement, the
Magistrate must add a memorandum at the end of the confession relating to
his action. If the Magistrate observes all the legal formalities in
recording the confessional statement of an accused generally the confession
should be treated as voluntary and true.
|
Abdul Mannan(Md.) =VS= The State | 10 LM (AD) 223 |
Section 164 |
The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898
|
Alamgir Hossain =VS= The State | 10 LM (AD) 466 |
Section 164 |
The Penal Code
|
State =VS= Fazlur Rahman alias Badal | 7 LM (AD) 269 |
Section 164 |
If a confessional statement does not pass the test of voluntariness, it
cannot be taken into consideration even if it is true:
|
Dr. Miah Md. Mohiuddin & ors Vs. The State & ors | 17 SCOB [2023] AD 1 |
Section 164 |
It appears to us that the confessional statements pertaining to assault by knife substantially fit the medical evidence. It is only when the medical evidence totally makes the ocular evidence improbable, then the court starts suspecting the veracity of the evidence and not otherwise. That the mare fact that doctor said that injury No.1 was an “incised looking injury”, not “incised injury”, is too trifling aspect and there is no noticeable variance. The opinion of the doctor cannot be said to be the last word on what he deposes or meant for implicit acceptance. He has some experience and training in the nature of the functions discharged by him. After Zahangir inflicted the knife blow in the occipital region of victim Professor Taher, the other accused pressed down a pillow in his face to ensure his death. After confirming the victim’s death, the accused persons took the dead body to the back side of the house on a dark night and the appellant Mohiuddin ushered them the way with the torchlight of his mobile. They then put the dead body inside the manhole. In doing so the accused had to carry the dead body to a considerable distance and during that time the dead body might have fallen from their grip causing crushing of hair bulbs in the already injured occipital scalp and rendering the incised wound look like ‘incised looking’ wound. …Dr. Miah Md. Mohiuddin & ors Vs. The State & ors, (Criminal), 17 SCOB [2023] AD 1 ....View Full Judgment |
Dr. Miah Md. Mohiuddin & ors Vs. The State & ors | 17 SCOB [2023] AD 1 |
Section 164 |
Confessions are considered highly reliable because no rational person would make an admission against his interest unless prompted by his conscience to tell the truth. Deliberate and voluntary confessions of guilt, if clearly proved are among the most effectual proofs in law “(vide Taylor’s Treaties on the Law of Evidence)”. Confession possesses a high probative force because it emanates directly from the person committing the offence, and on that count, it is a valuable piece of evidence. It is a settled principle of law that the conviction can be awarded solely on the basis of confessional statements of the accused if the same is found to be made voluntarily. …Dr. Miah Md. Mohiuddin & ors Vs. The State & ors, (Criminal), 17 SCOB [2023] AD 1 ....View Full Judgment |
Dr. Miah Md. Mohiuddin & ors Vs. The State & ors | 17 SCOB [2023] AD 1 |
Section 164 |
From a careful evaluation of the confessional statements, we are of the opinion that their statements are consistent with one another and corroborates the version given by each other. We are therefore, of the view that confessing accused were speaking the truth. …Dr. Miah Md. Mohiuddin & ors Vs. The State & ors, (Criminal), 17 SCOB [2023] AD 1 ....View Full Judgment |
Dr. Miah Md. Mohiuddin & ors Vs. The State & ors | 17 SCOB [2023] AD 1 |
Section 164, 342 and 364 |
There was no discrepancy pointed out in the evidence of the eye witnesses. A miscarriage of justice which may arise from acquittal of guilty is no less than from the conviction of an innocent. There is no embargo on the appellate Court reviewing the evidence upon which an order of acquittal is based. The High Court Division wrongly observed that there were inconsistencies in prosecution evidence adduced by the prosecution. Therefore, the decision of the High Court Division in respect of the accused persons is liable to be set aside. .....The State =VS= Md. Jamal @ Karati Jamal, (Criminal), 2022(2) [13 LM (AD) 331] ....View Full Judgment |
The State =VS= Md. Jamal @ Karati Jamal | 13 LM (AD) 331 |
Section 164 |
It is well settled that the confessional statement can be the sole basis of conviction if it is made voluntarily and it is true. In the instant case, the confessional statement of the appellant is voluntary and true and it was rightly found to be so by both the trial Court and the High Court Division. It is true that there is no eye witness in the instant case, but the inculpatroy, true, and voluntary confessional statement of the convict-appellant, and the circumstances are so well connected to indicate that those circumstances render no other hypothesis other than the involvement of the appellant in committing murder of the victim Rashed. …Monir Ahmed Vs. The State, (Criminal), 16 SCOB [2022] AD 51 ....View Full Judgment |
Monir Ahmed Vs. The State | 16 SCOB [2022] AD 51 |
Section 164 |
Code of Criminal Procedure
|
Md. Shukur Ali and others Vs. The State | 16 SCOB [2022] AD 62 |
Section 164 |
IF testimonies of prosecution witnesses and post-mortem report are inconsistent with the contents of the confessional statement it makes the confessional statementunreliable: To prove the charge brought under Section 302 of the Penal Code primarily on the basis of the confessional statement it is duty of the Court to ascertain as to whether the confession was made voluntarily, and if so as to whether the same was true and trustworthy. Satisfaction of the Court is a sine qua non for the admissibility in evidence. True and complete disclosure of the offence is the soul of true confessional statement. In this case, the testimonies of P.Ws.1, 2, 3 and 4 and post-mortem report are inconsistent with the contents of the confessional statement of the appellant which has made the confessional statement unreliable. In view of the evidence quoted above and the contents of the confessional statement, it is difficult for us to hold that the statements made in confession by the appellant are true and those were consistent with the prosecution case. It would be extremely unsafe to base conviction of the appellant on the basis of such confessional statement accepting the same as true. …Md. Humayun Kabir Vs. The State, (Criminal), 15 SCOB [2021] AD 76 ....View Full Judgment |
Md. Humayun Kabir Vs. The State | 15 SCOB [2021] AD 76 |
Sections 164 and 364 |
The Penal Code, 1860
|
Mizanur Rahman Mizan(Md.) =VS= The State | 13 LM (AD) 348 |
Section-164 |
The victim made a statement under section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure admitting that she voluntarily eloped with the accused Anowar and married him, her consent carries no value, inasmuch as, she was a minor girl. The High Court Division was correct in holding such view. A minor's consent is no con-sent in the eye of law. Since the victim was found minor on the day of occurrence, even if it is taken that she eloped with the accused Anowar. .....Hannan & others =VS= The State, (Criminal), 2016-[1 LM (AD) 585] ....View Full Judgment |
Hannan & others =VS= The State | 1 LM (AD) 585 |
Section 164 |
Nari-O-Shishu Nirjatan Daman (Bi-shesh Bidhan) Ain, 1995
|
Md. Rokibur @ Rokib @ Okibar -Vs.- The State | 2019 ALR (AD) Online 330 |
Section 164 |
It is a settled proposition that a confession, judicial or extra-judicial, whether retracted or not, can in law validly form the sole basis of conviction if the Court is satisfied and believes that it was true and voluntary and was not obtained by torture, coercion, or inducement. It is also settled that conviction on the basis of a confessional statement upon the maker can be very much based even if the confessional had been retracted at a later stage. .....Alamgir Kabir @Baitta Alamgir @Manik @Iqbal =VS= State, (Criminal), 2022(1) [12 LM (AD) 593] ....View Full Judgment |
Alamgir Kabir @Baitta Alamgir @Manik @Iqbal =VS= State | 12 LM (AD) 593 |
Section 164 |
Confession– It is now well settled that as against the maker himself his confession, judicial or extrajudicial, whether retracted or not retracted, can in law validly form the sole basis of his conviction, if the Court is satisfied and believes that it was true and voluntary and was not obtained by torture or coercion or inducement. (Per Md. Tafazzul Islam, J) ...Major Md. Bazlul Huda(Artillery)=VS=The State(Banga Bandhu Murder Case), (Criminal), 2020 [9 LM (AD) 386] ....View Full Judgment |
Major Md. Bazlul Huda(Artillery)=VS=The State(Banga Bandhu Murder Case) | 9 LM (AD) 386 |
Section 164 |
Statement of a witness recorded under Section 161 Cr.P C cannot be treated as substantive evidecne and conviction can not be based upon it — Even if a previous statement relates to a relevant fact it cannot be proved for the purpose of substantiating the existence of that fact — But when the witness is examined in Court the statement made by him before a Magistrate can be used to support or challenge the evidence given in Court by him Mahiruddin and others Vs. The State 6 BLD (AD) 318. Ref. 76 IA 147; AIR 1949 (PC) 257. |
Mahiruddin and others Vs. The State | 6 BLD (AD) 318 |
Section 164 |
Confession — Value of the objection that the Magistrate before recording
the confession did not inform the accused that he would not be remanded to
police custody even if he did not make any confession does not detract from
its value as there is no requirement the under law to inform the accused to
the avove effect — Of course, if the Magistrate has any reason to believe
that the accused is apprehensive of the police, he may assure him as above
but that is not to say that if it were not said, the voluntariness of the
confession would be in doubt.
|
Kumar Sarkar Vs. The State | 8 BLD (AD) 109 |
Section 164 |
Purpose of recording such statements — The statements of a witness recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. is meant for binding him down to the statement, and in the case of any glaring inconsistency amounting to purgery, the witness may be prosecuted for giving false evidence — The defence may use it to contradict the witness whereas the prosecution may use it to corroborate him when he gives evidence in the Court It is now well-settled that the statement of a witness recorded under Section 164 CfiP.C. is to be received by the Court with caution — If there are other circumstances on record which lend support to the truth of the evidence of such a witness, then his evidence can be relied upon Abu Taher Chowdhury and others Vs. The State 11 BLD (AD) 2. |
Abu Taher Chowdhury and others Vs. The State | 11 BLD (AD) 2 |
Sections 167 and 173 |
Charge-sheet validity of— The police validly submitted the charge-sheet as the power to make further investigation is always available to them and if there has been no order stop- ping the proceeding and releasing the accused after the expiry of the period of investigation — Secondly, the petitioner does not seem to have raised the question at any stage that the submission of the chargesheet was bad in law — It is held that charge sheet has been validly submitted. Shah Alam Chowdhury Vs. The State 9 BLD (AD) 127. |
Shah Alam Chowdhury Vs. The State | 9 BLD (AD) 127 |
Section 167 |
The provisions of section 167 CrPC being a procedural law, there being no express provisions for its prospective operation, shall operate retrospectively. AKM Azizul Islam vs State 9 DLR (AD) 115. |
AKM Azizul Islam vs State | 9 DLR (AD) 115 |
Sections 167 & 173 |
Charge-sheet submitted not upon the revival of the case under section 167 but following the further investigation under section 173 CrPC—The power to make further investigation is available to the police if there has been no order under 167 CrPC stopping the proceeding and releasing the accused after the expiry of the period of investigation under the said section. Shah Alam Chowdhury vs State 42 DLR (AD) 10. |
Shah Alam Chowdhury vs State | 42 DLR (AD) 10 |
Section 167(7) |
Transitory Provisions, purpose of—Investigation pending immediately before commencement of the Ordinance—Magistrate did not accept the Final Reported directed further investigation—Police on further investigation submitted charge-sheet for beyond the “specified period” of 60 days as stated in sec. 167(5) and also of 90 days as stated in section 35(d) of the Transitory Provision—Charge-sheet was submitted one year after the Magistrate’s order for further investigation—Accused respondents, whether entitled to be released— Provision in Section 35(d) of the Ordinance is not mandatory and intended to save an investigation which had started at the time when there was no time limit for its conclusion—Investigation on which the police submitted charge-sheet, not governed by section 167, and the charge-sheet not hit by section 167(7)—Consequently the charge- sheet stands. Kazi Abdul Jalil vs Jashem Munshi 43 DLR (AD) 116. |
Kazi Abdul Jalil vs Jashem Munshi | 43 DLR (AD) 116 |
Section 167(5) |
Amendment in procedural law—Retrospectivity—
|
Sree Sree Is war Kala Chan Jew represented by its Shebait Manager Kalipada Datta Vs Shubal Chandra Dev and another | 2 MLR (AD) 333 |
Section–167 |
Shown arrest–
|
Government of Bangladesh & others =VS= Mahmudur Rahman & another | 1 LM (AD) 100 |
Section 167(1) |
Section 167(1) of the Code provides that whenever any person is arrested
and detained in custody, and it appears that the investigation cannot be
completed within the period of twenty-four hours fixed by section 61, and
there are grounds for believing that the accusation or information is
well-founded, the officer in charge of the police-station or the
police-officer making the investigation if he is not below the rank of
sub-inspector shall forthwith transmit to the nearest Judicial Magistrate a
copy of the entries in the diary hereinafter prescribed relating to the
case, and shall at the same time forward the accused to such Magistrate.
|
Ministry of Law, Justice & Parl. Afrs. =VS= BLAST | 3 LM (AD) 274 |
Section 167, 169, 170 and 173 |
Accused–
|
Ministry of Law, Justice & Parl. Afrs. =VS= BLAST | 3 LM (AD) 274 |
Section 167 |
The Magistrate exercising his jurisdiction under section 167 performs judicial functions and not executive power, and therefore, the Magistrate should not make any order on the asking of the police officer. The object of requiring an accused to be produced before a Magistrate is to enable him to see that a police remand or a judicial remand is necessary and also to enable the accused to make a representation he may wish to make. Since a remand order is judicial order, the Magistrate has to exercise this power in accordance with the well settled norms of making a judicial order. The norms are that he is to see as to whether there is report of cognizable offence and whether there are allegations constituting the offence which is cognizable. Non-disclosure of the grounds of satisfaction by a police officer should not be accepted. Whenever, a person is arrested by a police during investigation he is required to ascertain his complicity in respect of an cognizable offence. .....Ministry of Law, Justice & Parl. Afrs. =VS= BLAST, (Civil), 2017 (2)– [3 LM (AD) 274] ....View Full Judgment |
Ministry of Law, Justice & Parl. Afrs. =VS= BLAST | 3 LM (AD) 274 |
Section 167 is supplementary to section 61 |
Section 167 is supplementary to section 61 of the Code. These provisions have been provided with the object to see that the arrested person is brought before a Magistrate within least possible delay in order to enable him to judge if such person has to be kept further in the police custody and also to enable such person to make representation in the matter. The section refers to the transmission of the case diary to the Magistrate along with the arrested person. The object of the production of the arrested person with a copy of the diary before a Magistrate within 24 hours fixed by section 61 when investigation cannot be completed within such period so that the Magistrate can take further course of action as contemplated under sub-section (2) of section 167. Secondly, the Magistrate is to see whether or not the arrest of the accused person has been made on the basis of a reasonable complaint or credible information has been received or a reasonable suspicion exist of the arrested persons having been concerned in any cognizable offence. Therefore, while making an order under sub-section (2) the Magistrate must be satisfied with the requirements of sections 54 and 61 have been complied with otherwise the Magistrate is not bound to forward the accused either in the judicial custody or in the police custody. .....Ministry of Law, Justice & Parl. Afrs. =VS= BLAST, (Civil), 2017 (2)– [3 LM (AD) 274] ....View Full Judgment |
Ministry of Law, Justice & Parl. Afrs. =VS= BLAST | 3 LM (AD) 274 |
Sections 167(1)/(2) & 54 |
The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898
|
Ministry of Law, Justice & Parl. Afrs. =VS= BLAST | 3 LM (AD) 274 |
Sections 167(2) and 169 |
Guidelines to the Magistrates, Judges and Tribunals having power to take
cognizance of an offence–
|
Ministry of Law, Justice & Parl. Afrs. =VS= BLAST | 3 LM (AD) 274 |
Section 167(3) |
Sub-section (3) of section 167 requires that when the Magistrate authorises detention in police custody, he should record his reasons for so doing. The object of this provision is to see that the Magistrate takes the trouble to study the police diaries and to ascertain the actual conditions under which such detention is asked for. The law is jealous of the liberty of the subject and does not allow detention unless there is a legal sanction for it. So in every case where a detention in police custody is ordered the Magistrate should state his reasons clearly. He should satisfy himself (a) that the accusation is well-founded, and (b) that the presence of the accused is necessary while the police investigation is being held. The mere fact that the police state that the presence of the accused is necessary to finish the investigation, is not sufficient to order detention. To order a detention of the accused in order to get from him a confessional statement or that he may be forced to give a clue to stolen property is not justified. Similarly it is improper to order detention in police custody on a mere expectation that time will show his guilt or for the reason that the accused promised to tell the truth or for verifying a confession recorded under section 164 or for the reason that though repeatedly asked the accused will not give any clue to the property. .....Ministry of Law, Justice & Parl. Afrs. =VS= BLAST, (Civil), 2017 (2)– [3 LM (AD) 274] ....View Full Judgment |
Ministry of Law, Justice & Parl. Afrs. =VS= BLAST | 3 LM (AD) 274 |
Section 169 |
Section 169 of the Code of has not given the Police Officer any power to judge the credibility of the witnesses and to decide the defence plea of alibi. Abdur Rouf vs Jalaluddin 51 DLR (AD) 22. |
Abdur Rouf vs Jalaluddin | 51 DLR (AD) 22 |
Section 169 |
The Investigating officer has no power to weigh evidence, judge credibility
of witness and submit final report on alibi—
|
Abdur Rouf and others Vs. Jalaladdin and another | 4 MLR (AD) 27 |
Section 169 |
The entries in the diary afford to the Magistrate the information upon which he can decide whether or not he should authorise the detention of the accused person in custody or upon which he can form an opinion as to whether or not further detention is necessary. The longest period for which an accused can be ordered to be detained in police custody by one or more such orders is only 15 days. Where even within the 15 days time allowed under this section the investigation is not completed, the police may release the accused under section 169. .....Ministry of Law, Justice & Parl. Afrs. =VS= BLAST, (Civil), 2017 (2)– [3 LM (AD) 274] ....View Full Judgment |
Ministry of Law, Justice & Parl. Afrs. =VS= BLAST | 3 LM (AD) 274 |
Section 172 |
The Case Diary of an Investigating Officer which is not a public document cannot be made public by swearing affidavit. Bangladesh vs Dr Shamima Sultana Rita 54 DLR (AD) 151. |
Bangladesh vs Dr Shamima Sultana Rita | 54 DLR (AD) 151 |
Section-172 |
The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898
|
Ministry of Law, Justice & Parl. Afrs. =VS= BLAST | 3 LM (AD) 274 |
Section 172 |
The object of use of special diary under section 172 of the Code has been well explained by Edge,CJ. in Mannu, ILR 19 All 390 “the early stages of investigation which follows on the commission of a crime must necessarily in the vast majority of cases to be left to the police and until the honesty, the capacity, the discretion and the judgment of the police can be thoroughly trusted, it is necessary for the protection of the public against criminals for the vindication of the law and for the protection of those who are charged with having committed a criminal offence that the Magistrate or Judge before whom the case is for investigation or for trial should have the means of ascertaining what was the information, true, false or misleading, which was obtained from day to day by the police officer who investigating the case and what were the lines of investigation upon which the police officer acted.’ .....Ministry of Law, Justice & Parl. Afrs. =VS= BLAST, (Civil), 2017 (2)– [3 LM (AD) 274] ....View Full Judgment |
Ministry of Law, Justice & Parl. Afrs. =VS= BLAST | 3 LM (AD) 274 |
Section 172 |
Section 172 relates to the police diary made in respect of a case under inquiry or trial by the court which calls for it. It is incumbent upon a police officer who investigates the case under Chapter XIV to keep a diary as provided by section 172 and the omission to keep the diary deprives the court of the very valuable assistance which such diary can give. .....Ministry of Law, Justice & Parl. Afrs. =VS= BLAST, (Civil), 2017 (2)– [3 LM (AD) 274] ....View Full Judgment |
Ministry of Law, Justice & Parl. Afrs. =VS= BLAST | 3 LM (AD) 274 |
Section-172 |
Diary without any apparent failure –
|
Ministry of Law, Justice & Parl. Afrs. =VS= BLAST | 3 LM (AD) 274 |
Section 172(1) |
Every detail in connection with the investigation into the offence must clearly be recorded without fail. It is to be noted that in section 172(1) of the Code the word “Shall” has been used which definitely indicates “mandatory”. So, a case diary must be recorded and all the details as mentioned in the section 172(1) of the Code must be recorded without any failure by the police officer in charge of investigation of an offence. .....Ministry of Law, Justice & Parl. Afrs. =VS= BLAST, (Civil), 2017 (2)– [3 LM (AD) 274] ....View Full Judgment |
Ministry of Law, Justice & Parl. Afrs. =VS= BLAST | 3 LM (AD) 274 |
Section 173 |
Nari-O-Shishu Nirjatan Daman Ain, 2000 (as amended in 2003)
|
Elina Ainun Nahar =VS= The State | 11 LM (AD) 486 |
Sections 173 & 439A |
So far as the direction by the Sessions Judge to hold further investigation
into the case is concerned, it is quite lawful; but his direction to submit
charge-sheet is clearly without jurisdiction.
|
Sher Ali vs State | 46 DLR (AD) 67 |
Section 173(3B) |
The Government’s decision to withdraw a case from the Criminal Investigation Department after withdrawing the earlier order for investigation by the CID is not illegal. Abu Talukder vs Bangladesh 49 DLR (AD) 56. |
Abu Talukder vs Bangladesh | 49 DLR (AD) 56 |
Section 173 |
Further investigation– The informant lodged an FIR making specific allegations against the accused persons and the case started on that FIR. The police investigated into those allegations and submitted final report, but the learned Magistrate, considering the application filed by the informant against that final report and the materials on record including the FIR, without accepting that final report, ordered for a further investigation by judicial Magistrate, which was not illegal at all. ...Mahmud Miah =VS= The State, (Criminal), 2021(1) [10 LM (AD) 430] ....View Full Judgment |
Mahmud Miah =VS= The State | 10 LM (AD) 430 |
Section 173 and 190 |
It is settled Principal of law that initiation of a criminal proceedings starts after taking cognizance of offence. Submission of charge sheet cannot be treated as finality of investigation until cognizance of the offence is taken by the appropriate court. ...Dr. Zubaida Rahman Vs. The State & anr, (Criminal), 17 SCOB [2023] AD 54 ....View Full Judgment |
Dr. Zubaida Rahman Vs. The State & anr | 17 SCOB [2023] AD 54 |
Section 173 |
Final Report— Naraji—a complaint—
|
Syed Azharul Kabir Vs. Syed Ehsan Kabir | 4 MLR (AD) 343 |
Section 173(3A) |
Police Report to accompany statements of witness— Supply of copy to
accused
|
Bazlul Hada (Major Retd.) and another Vs. The State | 5 MLR (AD) 276 |
Section 173 |
Re-investigation or a further investigation is a matter of semantics–
|
Abul Bashar Chowkidar =VS= Abdul Mannan & others | 1 LM (AD) 541 |
Section 173(3B) |
Further investigation–
|
Dr Khandaker Mosharraf Hossain =VS= State | 5 LM (AD) 238 |
Section 176 |
Section 176 of the Code enables a Magistrate to hold inquiry into a suspicious death. The language used in this section does not depend merely upon the opinion of the police officer but that there should be a further check by a Magistrate to hold an independent inquiry. The object of holding inquiry is to elucidate the facts of unnatural death before there is any reasonable suspicion of the commission of any offence and when such grounds exist, the inquiry comes under Ain of 2013. .....Ministry of Law, Justice & Parl. Afrs. =VS= BLAST, (Civil), 2017 (2)– [3 LM (AD) 274] ....View Full Judgment |
.Ministry of Law, Justice & Parl. Afrs. =VS= BLAST | 3 LM (AD) 274 |
Section 179(c) |
Since in the sequel of the criminal acts of accused Nos. 3 and 4 by way of obtaining signatures of the complainant in blank papers at Jeddah money was withdrawn in Bangladesh, a Criminal Court of competent jurisdiction in Bangladesh can take cognizance in the case in accordance with illustration (c) of section 179 of the Code. Abdus Sattar vs State 50 DLR (AD) 187. |
Abdus Sattar vs State | 50 DLR (AD) 187 |
Section- 179(C) |
Criminal Acts of accused Nos. 3 & 4 by way of obtaining signatures of the
complainant in papers at Jeddah money was withdrawn in Bangladesh- Criminal
Court in Bangladesh can take cognizance of the offences.
|
Abdus Sattar Vs. The State & Anr. | 6 BLT (AD) 144 |
Sections 190, 193, 435 and 561A |
Sessions Judge can call for the record of a proceeding pending before a Magistrate for purposes mentioned in Section 435 Cr.P.C. but. he has no power to take congizance of an offence as a Court of original jurisdiction and as such he is not competent to initiate a new proceeding — Sessions Judge started a Criminal Miscellaneous Case against a Magistrate upon a telegram containing allegations against the Magistrate in respect of a proceeding pending before the Magistrate — The Sessions Judge acted without jurisdiction and the Criminal Miscellaneous Case is quashed Haripada Biswas Vs. The State and another 2 BLD (AD) 13. |
Haripada Biswas Vs. The State and another | 2 BLD (AD) 13 |
Section 190(l)(b) |
Power of a Magistrate to take cognizance against an accused in whose favour the police has submitted the final report — Meaning of the words "Charge Sheet" and "final report" — Ordinarily a charge sheet means a police report in which the police recommends for the prosecution of the accused while a final report means a police report in which no accused is recommended to be prosecuted — If the Magistrate is satisfied that a particular person has been improperly excluded from the charge sheet he may take cognizance against such a person on the basis of a police report even though it is a final report Abdul Awal Vs. Abdul Mannan and another 6 BLD (AD) 328Ref. 19DLR(SC)426. |
Abdul Awal Vs. Abdul Mannan and another | 6 BLD (AD) 328 |
Sections 190, 195 and 196—198 |
Provisions in section 195 like the provisions in sections 196-198 CrPC are exceptions to the general and ordinary powers of a criminal Court to take cognizance of an offence under section 190 of the said Code. A private party may be the real victim of the commission of an offence, but he is debarred from making a complaint directly to the Court. Abdul Hai Khan vs State 40 DLR (AD) 226. |
Abdul Hai Khan vs State | 40 DLR (AD) 226 |
Section 190, 193 |
On reading section 190 along with section 193, there is no gainsaying that a Magistrate shall take cognizance of an offence as a court of original jurisdiction and unless he takes cognizance of the offence the accused cannot be committed to the court of session for trial. The word ‘committed’ has been deleted and in its place the word ‘send’ has been substituted. The object of the restriction imposed by section 193 is to secure the case of a person charged with a grave offence. The accused should have been given an opportunity to know the circumstances of the offence imputed to him and enabled him to make his defence. There was a provision for inquiry under Chapter XVIII of the Code and in such inquiry the accused could have taken his defence, but after the omission of the Chapter, no inquiry is held under the present provision of the Code. Even then the power of the Magistrate to take cognizance of the offence as a court of original jurisdiction has been retained. The Sessions Judge can take cognizance of any offence only after the case is sent to him for trial. .....Mufti Abdul Hannan Munshi =VS= The State, (Criminal), 2017 (2)– [3 LM (AD) 566] ....View Full Judgment |
Mufti Abdul Hannan Munshi =VS= The State | 3 LM (AD) 566 |
Section 193 |
Section 193 provides that except as otherwise expressly provided no Court of Sessions shall take cognizance of any offence as a Court of original jurisdiction unless the accused has been sent to it by a competent Magistrate. Bangladesh vs Yakub Sardar. 40 DLR (AD) 246. |
Bangladesh vs Yakub Sardar | 40 DLR (AD) 246 |
Section 193 |
Another point raised in the High Court Division is that the trial of the
accused Mufti Abdun Hannan is vitiated by reason of not taking cognizance
of the offence by the learned Sessions Judge. The High Court Division
relying upon the case of Dharmatar V. State of Horyana, (2014) 3 SCC 306,
RN Agarwal V. RC Bansal, (2015) 1 SCC 48, Haripada Biswas V. State, 6 BSCR
83 held that the trial of the accused has not been vitiated for this
reason. Section 193 of the Code of Criminal Procedure provides that:
|
Mufti Abdul Hannan Munshi =VS= The State | 3 LM (AD) 566 |
Sections 195, 476 and 561A |
A criminal prosecution launched by a party to a civil suit against the other party alleging offences alleged to have been committed in relation to a proceeding in the Civil Court is not maintainable in law in view of the bar imposed by Section 195(1) Cr.P.C — Only the Court concerned can lodge a complaint before a competent Court — Moreover, so long the decree passed by the Civil Court remains in force it provides a good defence for the accused appellants in the criminal prosecution — Such a proceeding should not be allowed to be continued and should be quashed. Mr. Mahiruddin Mia and others Vs. Rokeya Hossain 5 BLD (AD) 73. |
Mr. Mahiruddin Mia and others Vs. Rokeya Hossain | 5 BLD (AD) 73 |
Section 195(1)(C) |
Whether subsection 1 (c) of Section 195 Cr P C has been superseded by the
Criminal Law Amendment Act. 1958 —
|
Md. Muslim Khan Vs. The State | 6 BLD (AD) 164 |
Section 195 |
There is no legal impediment to file a criminal case even if a civil suit
is pending on the selfsame allegations provided the ingredients of the
offence are present–– It is a settled principle of law that if there
are criminal cases and civil suits between the same parties in respect of
the same properties, even then it cannot be a bar to the continuation of
the criminal proceeding i.e. the criminal proceeding will run in its own
way.
|
Mohammad Amir Ali Mostafa =VS= Shah Md. Nurul Alam | 11 LM (AD) 563 |
Sections 195 & 476 |
Section 476 is not independent of section 195 of the Code—Section 476 does not abridge or extend the scope of section 195(b) or (c). Abdul Hai Khan vs State 40 DLR (AD) 226. |
Abdul Hai Khan vs State | 40 DLR (AD) 226 |
Sections 195 & 476 |
When a fraudulent document is not produced in a proceeding before Court
private complaint is not barred.
|
Shamsuddin Ahmed Chowdhury vs State | 49 DLR (AD) 159 |
Section 195(1)(b) |
Proceeding in Court—In view of the decision that a Magistrate acts his judicial capacity while discharging an accused on the basis of a final report by the Police and the reasonings in the majority judgment in 1979 AIR (SC) 777, the offence under section 211 Penal Code was committed in relation to a proceeding in Court and, as such, the bar under section 195(1 )(b) is attracted. Seraj uddowla vs Abdul Kader 45 DLR (AD) 101. |
Seraj uddowla vs Abdul Kader | 45 DLR (AD) 101 |
Section 195(1)(c) |
The view taken in AIR 1943 Nagpur 327 “all the High Courts are now agreed that once a forged document is brought then private complaints subsequent to this are barred by section 195 even in respect of anterior forgeries—anterior, that is, to the litigation”—has been consistently followed in 20 DLR Dhaka 66 & other cases. Abdul Hai Khan vs State 40 DLR (AD) 226. |
Abdul Hai Khan vs State | 40 DLR (AD) 226 |
Section 195(1)(C) |
When a direct criminal case is barred—
|
Sadat Ali Talukder Md Vs. the State and another | 4 MLR (AD) 223 |
Section 195 |
Complaint against forged document-
|
Ali Aman and another Vs. The State and another | 5 MLR (AD) 343 |
Sections 195(1)(b) and 476(1) |
The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898
|
A. K. Azad @Baira Azad =VS= Md. Mostafizur Rahman | 12 LM (AD) 650 |
Section 195 (1)(c) |
The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898
|
Reza Bin Rahman =VS= A.T.G. Mortaza | 7 LM (AD) 8 |
Section 197 |
No court shall take cognizance of the offence against a public servant
under Section 25B(1) of the Special Powers Act, 1974 without the prior
sanction of the Government under Section 197 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, AIR 200 SC 2952 paragraphs 17-19): Section 197(1) of the Code
does not impose any absolute ban against taking cognizance of the offence,
but it only says that the sanction contemplated therein is a condition
precedent for taking such cognizance. It obviously is for preventing public
servants from being subjected to frivolous prosecutions for discharging
their official duties.
|
Md. Abdul Basit-Vs.-The State | 1 ALR (AD) 160 |
Section 197 |
If a public servant committed any offence or alleged to have been committed by him while acting or purporting to act, in the discharge of his official duty, no Court shall take cognizance of such offence except with the previous sanction of the Government– The cognizance taking the order of the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate dated 06.08.2019 in C.R. Case No.597 of 2019 against Shafiqul Azam, who is the Assistant Engineer, Zilla Parishad Kushtia, Md. Moniruzzaman, Surveyor of the Zilla Parishad, Kushtia and Md. Shanuzzaman Shahin, Administrative Officer of the Zilla Parishad Kushtia is set aside. The learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate is directed to take step to accord sanction for prosecuting them as per provision under section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure from the Government and, thereafter, to take necessary step in accordance with law. ...Shafiqul Azam =VS= Deputy Commissioner(DC), Kushtia, (Criminal), 2021(2) [11 LM (AD) 141] ....View Full Judgment |
Shafiqul Azam =VS= Deputy Commissioner(DC), Kushtia | 11 LM (AD) 141 |
Section 197 |
The evidence of the witness including the report of the inquiry held by a Magistrate leads to irresistible opinion that the offence alleged has not been committed by the accused in the discharge of their official duties and, as such, we do not find any force in the submission of the learned Advocate as to applicability of section 197 of the Code regarding the two petitioners. ASI Md Ayub Ali Sardar vs State 58 DLR (AD) 13. |
ASI Md Ayub Ali Sardar vs State | 58 DLR (AD) 13 |
Section 199 |
Offence U/S 497/498 — Section 199 Cr. P. C. provides for leave of the
Court to lodge complaint when any person other than the husband, having
care of the wife on behalf of the husband at the time when offences under
Section 497 and 498 P.C. was committed. Any such complaint without such
leave is to maintainable. There must be an application for leave to lodge
the complaint and material to show that it granted. Leave to lodge the
complaint cannot be presumed or implied. Reference in his regard may be
made to the decision in AIR 1933 Cal. 880.
|
Md. Mohsin Ali Khan Vs. Shams-F-Ara Binte Huda & Ors. | 11 BLT (AD) 10 |
Sections 200 and 202 |
Section 200 of the Code provides for examination of the complainant on oath
by the Magistrate before taking cognizance of an offence.
|
Muhammad Ismail-Vs.-Md. Rafiqul Islam and others | 2 ALR (AD) 218 |
Sections 200, 202, 204 and 205C |
Jurisdiction of the Magistrate in cases exclusively triable by a Court of Session. Whether the Sessions Judge has jurisdiction to direct the Magistrate to send the case to him after its dismissal by the Magistrate. Bangladesh vs Yakub Sardar 40 DLR (AD) 246. |
Bangladesh vs Yakub Sardar | 40 DLR (AD) 246 |
Sections 200 & 561A |
The purpose of examination of the complainant under section 200 CrPC is to see whether is sufficient ground for proceeding and not whether there here is sufficient ground for conviction. Whether the evidence is adequate for supporting conviction can only be determined at the trial and not at the stage of enquiry. Allegations made in the petition of complaint having made out a prima facie case of cheating against the accused-appellant, it is not a fit case to quash the proceeding at the present stage. SA Sultan vs State 44 DLR (AD) 139. |
SA Sultan vs State | 44 DLR (AD) 139 |
Section 200, 156(3), 561A |
Complaint and police investigation—Once cognizance is taken complaint can
not be sent for police investigation—
|
Yakub Ali Vs. The State | 1 MLR (AD) 58 |
Sections 202 and 203 |
Dismissal of a complaint — Its propriety — The main ground cited by the Magistrate for dismissal of the case is that the police submitted charge-sheet in the case arising from the same occurrence — This is palpably wrong — The Magistrate must)nfine himself to the evidence on record oduced before him and if on such evidence a prima facie case is made out he ill issue process Bangladesh Vs. Yakub irdar and others 8 BLD (AD) 180 |
Bangladesh Vs. Yakub irdar and others | 8 BLD (AD) 180 |
Sections 203 and 439A |
Whether the Sessions Judge has got power under section 439A, Criminal Procedure Code or any other provision of the Code to direct a Magistrate to send the case to him for trial when the Magistrate dismissed the complaint under section 203 of the Code. Bangladesh vs Yakub Sardar 40 DLR (AD) 246. |
Bangladesh vs Yakub Sardar | 40 DLR (AD) 246 |
Sections 203, 205(1) & 436 |
Neither the Sessions Judge nor the High Court Division is invested with any
power to direct any Magistrate to take cognizance of a case.
|
Yusuf A Hossain vs KM Rezaul Ferdous | 48 DLR (AD) 53 |
Sections 203, 205(1) and 436 |
Magistrate can not be directed to take cognizance—
|
Yusuf Hasan Vs. KM. Rezaul Ferdous | 1 MLR (AD) 102 |
Sections 204(3), 435 and 436 |
Provisions under which Courts are competent to direct the Magistrate.—The Sessions Judge and, for that purpose, the District Magistrate, Chief Metropolitan Magistrate and the High Court Division, got power under section 435 CrPC to call for the record of any case pending before any Magistrate and direct the Magistrate under section 436 to make further enquiry into any complaint which has been dismissed under section 203 or subsection (3) of section 204 CrPC. Bangladesh vs Yakub Sardar 40 DLR (AD) 246. |
Bangladesh vs Yakub Sardar | 40 DLR (AD) 246 |
Section 205D(3) |
Simultaneous trial of the accused persons in the complaint case and police case– The procedure to be followed in this case is that the Druta Bichar Tribunal No. 2 shall hold simultaneous trial of the accused persons in the complaint case and shall dispose of the cases in accordance with sub-section (3) of section 205D which is equally applicable to it. It shall conclude the trial of the police case first and postpone the delivery of the judgment till the trial of the complaint case is concluded and then it will decide which accused persons are involved in the killing of the victim and shall deliver judgment accordingly. If the court finds one set of accused persons or any one of them is involved in the killing it shall acquit the accused persons in the other case. The judgment of the learned Sessions Judge and the High Court Division are set-aside. We direct the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate to transmit the case record to the Druta Bichar Tribunal No.2 Dhaka for simultaneous trial of the case with Druta Bichar Tribunal Case No.2 of 2010. The Druta Bichar Tribunal shall use the post-mortem report and other alamats seized in the police case in this case also. .....Siddiqur Rahman (Md) =VS= SM Maola Reza, (Criminal), 2022(2) [13 LM (AD) 430] ....View Full Judgment |
Siddiqur Rahman (Md) =VS= SM Maola Reza | 13 LM (AD) 430 |
Section 205D |
Trial of cases instituted on complaint and on police report on the same
matter—
|
Mokhlesur Rahman Vs. Rabeya Parvin Chowdhury and others | 4 MLR (AD) 260 |
Section 205D |
Under section 205D Cr.P.C. both the cases, one instituted on police report and the other on complaint on the self-same occurrence, shall be tried by the Magistrate in the same trial treating both the cases as if instituted on a police report. .....Enayet Chowdhury(Md.) =VS= The State, (Criminal), 2017 (2)– [3 LM (AD) 554] ....View Full Judgment |
Enayet Chowdhury(Md.) =VS= The State | 3 LM (AD) 554 |
Sections 222(2) 234 |
Cr.PC
|
The State -Vs.- Md. Ibrahim Ali | 3 ALR (AD) 199 |
Section 227 |
Cr.PC
|
The State -Vs.- Md. Palash | 5 ALR (AD) 84 |
Sections 227, 228, 231, 232 and 537 |
Defect in framing of charge cannot be a ground for acquittal of the accused. The only time when any proceeding can be quashed for material error in the framing of charge is when the Court forms the opinion that the facts of the case are such that no valid charge could be framed against the accused in respect of the facts proved. Section 232 of the Code of Criminal Procedure provides that even where an accused convicted of an offence was misled in his defence by absence of a charge or by an error in the charge, the Appellate Court or the Revisional Court shall direct a new trial to be held upon a charge framed in whatever manner it thinks fit. Thus, if ingredients of an offence are disclosed the charge may be altered at any time or a new charge may be framed at any time up to the pronouncement of judgement, giving opportunity to the accused to put in his defence against the new or altered charge. But in no way can he be acquitted if the evidence against him proved his guilt in commission of an offence. ...The State =VS= Ibrahim Ali(Md.), (Criminal), 2021(1) [10 LM (AD) 385] ....View Full Judgment |
The State =VS= Ibrahim Ali(Md.) | 10 LM (AD) 385 |
Section 227 |
Nari-O-Shishu Nirjatan Daman Ain, 2000
|
The State Vs. Nurul Amin Baitha and anr | 18 SCOB [2023] AD 1 |
Section—227 |
The Court may at any time alter or amend any charge during the trial in accordance with section 227 Cr.P.C. Hussain Mohammad Ershad Vs.The State, 14 BLD (AD) 161 |
Hussain Mohammad Ershad Vs.The State | 14 BLD (AD) 161 |
Section 228 |
The Court can proceed with the trial even on the day of amending the charge
or adding any new charge if it would not prejudice the accused in his
defence.
|
The State -Vs.- Md. Ibrahim Ali | 3 ALR (AD) 199 |
Section 231 |
As per provision of section 231 of the Code of Criminal Procedure if the charge is altered or added after the commencement of the trial, the prosecutor and the accused shall be allowed to recall or resummon the witnesses and examine them with reference to such alteration or addition. The accused has a right to make prayer to recall prosecution witnesses after the alteration of the charge. It is true that Court is authorised to reject the prayer for recalling addition of the charges not beyond that witness if it considers that prayer is made only to delay disposal of the case but in this case, the charge has been altered and two of the accused persons were made approvers and they are examined as PWs. In such circumstances, it was reasonable to allow the accused petitioner to re-examine the witnesses. This petition is disposed of. The prayer of the petitioner so far the same relates to recalling the PWs 1 to 5 and 8 are allowed. The prayer in respect of direction to Public Prosecutor to issue certificate regarding the evidence of approvers is rejected. .....Gias Uddin al-Mamun (Md) =VS= State, (Criminal), 2018 (2) [5 LM (AD) 244] ....View Full Judgment |
Gias Uddin al-Mamun (Md) =VS= State | 5 LM (AD) 244 |
Section 232 |
If ingredients of an offence are disclosed the charge may be altered at any
time or a new charge may be framed at any time up to the pronouncement of
judgement, giving opportunity to the accused to put in his defence against
the new or altered charge. But in no way can he be acquitted if the
evidence against him proved his guilt in commission of an offence.
|
The State -Vs.- Md. Ibrahim Ali | 3 ALR (AD) 199 |
Section 233 |
The element of continuity of action was also present in the instant case in that the petitioner and others encircled the house of the victims and that thereafter petitioner and some others entered into the hut of the victims and caused injuries by sharp cutting weapons in consequence whereof the death occurred. In this state of the matter it can in no way be said that the offences or, in other words, causing death of the two persons by the petitioner and others was not committed or done in the course of the “same transaction” or in one transaction. Delower Hossain Khan vs State 54 DLR (AD) 101. |
Delower Hossain Khan vs State | 54 DLR (AD) 101 |
Sections 233 & 234 |
The Penal Code, 1860
|
Bashir Ahmed =VS= DC, Magura | 3 LM (AD) 541 |
Section-233 r/w Section-239 |
"Same transaction" and the persons involved in the incidents are "accused
of the same offences"
|
Delower Hossain Khan Vs. The State | 11 BLT (AD) 12 |
Sections 234 and 561A |
The contention that there cannot be three separate cases out of single transaction and the petitioners cannot be put on trial in three separate cases arising out of one transaction is of no substance. Abul Fazal (Md) alias Abul Fazal alias Badal vs State 53 DLR (AD) 100. |
Abul Fazal (Md) alias Abul Fazal alias Badal vs State | 53 DLR (AD) 100 |
Sections 235-237 and 403 |
When facts of the case are such that it is doubtful which of the several offences has been committed the accused may be charged with having committed all or any of such offences; and after trial for one such offence the accused may be convicted for the other offence even though he was not charged thereof—In the instant case “robbery” and “unauthorised possession of fire arms” are not offences of the same nature contemplated in sections 236 and 237 (1) CrPC, but these are two distinct offences for which a person may be charged for each of them as provided in section 235(1) CrPC. Arfan Ali vs State 42 DLR (AD) 22. |
Arfan Ali vs State | 42 DLR (AD) 22 |
Sections 235(2)/236/403 |
Anti-Corruption Commission Act, 2004
|
Mirza Abbas Uddin Ahmed =VS= The State | 13 LM (AD) 643 |
Sections 236 and 237 |
Accused charged under Sections 302/34 of the Penal Code but convicted under Section 201 of the Penal Code — Whether legal — Although the accused persons were charged under Sections 302/34 of the Penal Code yet their conviction under Section 201 of the Penal Code is valid in law, though no charge under Section 201 of the Penal Code was framed against them — Penal Code (XLV of 1860) Ss. 201 and 302 /34 Kalu and another Vs. The State 1 BLD (AD) 299 Ref. 26 Cr L.J. 1050. |
Kalu and another Vs. The State | 1 BLD (AD) 299 |
Sections 236, 237 and 403 |
Prohibition against double jeopardy — The second trial which the appellant is now facing is with respect to different offence — Since they occurred during the same transaction or arose from the same facts, the appellant should have been charged for all such offences in the previous trial. Sultan Mahmudul Hossain Vs. The State 5 BLD (AD) 203. |
Sultan Mahmudul Hossain Vs. The State | 5 BLD (AD) 203 |
Sections 236, 237, 238 & 337 |
The accused raised no objection on the score of defect in charge at any stage of the trial. The objection raised for the first time in the Appellate Division is not entertainable by virtue of explanation appended to section 537 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Rajib Kamrul Hasan vs State 53 DLR (AD) 50. |
Rajib Kamrul Hasan vs State | 53 DLR (AD) 50 |
Sections 236, 237, 238, 417 and 423 |
A finding of acquittal can be converted into one of conviction only in an appeal under section 417 which being in accord with section 423 CrPC is the correct view taken in Bawa Singh’s case. Mofizuddin vs State 40 DLR (AD) 286. |
Mofizuddin vs State | 40 DLR (AD) 286 |
Section 237 |
Cr.PC
|
Md. Harun-ur-Rashid -Vs.- The State | 3 ALR (AD) 104 |
Section 238 |
An offence under section 342 of the Penal Code which is not included in the schedule of the Special Powers Act cannot be the basis of conviction as the same is a non-schedule offence. Had the original offence charged been one under Penal Code then the learned Judges by application of section 238 of the Penal Code could come to a finding that the offence constitutes a minor offence and in that view could have convicted the appellant under a minor offence, but here the original offence charged was exclusively triable by the Special Tribunal and in that view the alteration of the conviction from a schedule offence to an offence which is only referable under Penal Code is not legally permissible. Abdur Rahman vs State 51 DLR (AD) 33. |
Abdur Rahman vs State | 51 DLR (AD) 33 |
Section 238 |
Nari-O-Shishu Nirjatan Daman Ain, 2000
|
The State Vs. Nurul Amin Baitha and anr | 18 SCOB [2023] AD 1 |
Section 238 |
The alteration of the conviction from a schedule offence to an offence
which is only referable under Penal Code is not legally permissible.
Alteration of the conviction under Section 342/34 of the Penal Code cannot
be legally and lawfully done while disposing of an appeal arising from the;
jurisdiction of the Special Tribunal under Section 30 of the Act.
|
Abdur Rahman & Ors. Vs. The State | 7 BLT (AD) 225 |
Section 239 |
Mis-joinder of charges— Validity of trial—In a case where it is found that the trial is vitiated by misjoinder, then in the eye of law there has been no valid trial and therefore an accused cannot be acquitted after setting aside conviction. State vs Constable Lal Mia 44 DLR (AD) 277. |
State vs Constable Lal Mia | 44 DLR (AD) 277 |
Section 239 |
Joinder of charges—Sameness of transaction—Circumstances which must bear on the determination whether certain acts or events constitute a single transaction in each individual case are proximity of time, proximity of place, continuity of action and community of purpose or design. Which factor or factors shall be given relative importance depends on the facts of each case. State vs Constable Lal Mia 44 DLR (A D) 277. |
State vs Constable Lal Mia | 44 DLR (A D) 277 |
Sections 239 & 537 |
Sameness of transaction—Defect—If there is good evidence that the transaction was one and the same, then mere absence of certain links in the accusation will not make the trial illegal. If at all it is a defect which is curable under section 537 CrPC. State vs Constable Lal Mia 44 DLR (AD) 277. |
State vs Constable Lal Mia | 44 DLR (AD) 277 |
Section 241A |
It empowers the Magistrate to discharge the accused without framing any charge if he considers the allegations to be groundless — The provision in Section 241A is not altoghether new in the Code of Criminal Procedure. Previously Section 253(2) Cr.P.C. provided for discharge of an accused without framing any charge if the Magistrate considered the allegations groundless — Section 241A Cr.P.C. has been brought in by amendment by Ordinance No XL of 1982 — By this and other Ordinances, procedure for trial of summons cases by the Magistrate was made applicable to trial of all cases by Magistrates abolishing the distinction between erstwhile summons cases and warrant cases. Nannu Gazi Vs. Awlad Hossain and others 11 BLD (AD) 110 |
Nannu Gazi Vs. Awlad Hossain and others | 11 BLD (AD) 110 |
Section 241A |
Magistrate cannot discharge accused persons on the plea of alibi that they were at different places at the time of commission of offences alleged by the prosecution—Magistrate’s “finding” in this regard is based on no evidence. Mere submission of some papers supporting alibi is neither sufficient nor admissible as the stage of adducing defence evidence was not yet come. Magistrate’s order of discharge was not sustainable as it was based on gross misconception of law. Nannu Gazi vs Awlad Hossain 43 DLR (AD) 63. |
Nannu Gazi vs Awlad Hossain | 43 DLR (AD) 63 |
Sections 241A, 265C & 561A |
An accused can only prefer an application under section 561A for quashing
the proceeding if he becomes previously unsuccessful in his application
either under section 265C or 241A, otherwise his application for quashing
shall be premature.
|
Latifa Akhter vs State | 51 DLR (AD) 159 |
Section 241 A |
Discharge of accuseds— When improper—
|
Swendra nath Goswami Vs. Helena Herlovi and others | 2 MLR (AD) 249 |
Section 241A / 265-C |
Discharge of accused—Accused cannot be discharged under section 241A /
265-C of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 when there are primafacie
ingredients of the offence alleged to stifle the prosecution before trial.
The nature of offence can well be thrashed out in the trial.
|
Mozibul Plaque (Gazij and others Vs. Ahid Hossain Babu | 5 MLR (AD) 63 |
Section 241-A |
Alibi- When can be taken—
|
Nannu Gazi Vs. Awlad Hossain | 43 DLR (AD) 63 |
Sections 241A and 561A |
The High Court Division should have exercised its jurisdiction under
section 561A of the Code for quashment of the proceedings of the case
without waiting for framing of charge or invoking the provisions of section
241A of the Code for discharge.
|
Md. Habib Jamal-Vs.- The State | 13 ALR (AD) 111 |
Section 241A, 561A |
মানিলন্ডারিং প্রতিরোধ
অধ্যাদেশ, 2008
|
Mafruza Sultana =VS= State | 9 LM (AD) 370 |
Section 245(1) |
The prosecution having not taken any steps the learned Magistrate rightly acquitted the respondents under section 245(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Mobarak Ali vs Mobaswir Ali 49 DLR (AD) 36. |
Mobarak Ali vs Mobaswir Ali | 49 DLR (AD) 36 |
Section 245(1) and 171 |
Responsibility of police to produce witness-Under Section 171 Cr.P.C. it is
responsibility of the police to produce witness before the court on the
date of hearing of the case. When witness is not produced, the Magistrate
has rightly acquitted the accused under section 245(1).
|
Mobarak All and others Vs. Mobaswir Alt and. others | 1 MLR (AD) 406 |
Section 247 |
Summons must be issued for securing the attendance of the accused on the day appointed for hearing of the case. Shajib vs Md Abdul Khaleque Akand 51 DLR (AD) 119. |
Shajib vs Md Abdul Khaleque Akand | 51 DLR (AD) 119 |
Section 247 r/w section 403 |
Since the order passed under section 247 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is one of acquittal the second complaint on the same allegation is not maintainable. At whatever stage of the proceeding the acquittal order section 247 is ordered, such order will operate as a bar the fresh trial, in the same way as are acquittal after trial on merits. …Bo-Sun Park Vs State & another, (Criminal), 7 SCOB [2016] AD 50 ....View Full Judgment |
Bo-Sun Park Vs State & another | 7 SCOB [2016] AD 50 |
Section 247 |
Acquittal on ground of non-appearance of complainant-Section 247, provides
for issue of summons to the accused for appearance for hearing the case.
Acquittal of the accused on ground of non-appearance of the complainant on
such date is illegal.
|
Shajib (Md) and others Vs. Md. Abdul Khaleque Akand and others | 4 MLR (AD) 145 |
Section 247 |
Acquittal-Section 403— Bar to second Complaint—
|
Dwan Obaidur Rahman VS. The State | 4 MLR (AD) 257 |
Section 247 r/w section 403 |
Since the order passed under section 247 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is one of acquittal the second complaint on the same allegation is not maintainable. At whatever stage of the proceeding the acquittal order section 247 is ordered, such order will operate as a bar the fresh trial, in the same way as are acquittal after trial on merits. The judgment and order of the High Court Division is set aside. The proceeding of C.R. Case No.421 of 2006 is hereby quashed. .....Bo-Sun Park =VS= The State, (Criminal), 2017 (2)– [3 LM (AD) 544] ....View Full Judgment |
Bo-Sun Park =VS= The State | 3 LM (AD) 544 |
Sections 249, 339C(4) & 403 |
Fresh proceeding on self-same facts against the same accused persons after a proceeding is stopped and the accused is released—When a proceeding is stopped without a judgment either of acquittal or of conviction and the accused is released, it does not operate either as acquittal or discharge—the same proceeding is not revivable unless there is legislative intent to that effect. Section 339C(4) was inserted providing for revival within 90 days those proceedings of which trial was stopped—In the present case, more than 90 days having elapsed before the Ordinance came into force and revival of the proceeding being out of question, there was no legal bar against fresh prosecution on same allegations. Taking cognizance for the second time must however depend on facts and related considerations of each case—Fresh cognizance should not be taken where there is default in taking revival proceeding without sufficient cause. Niamat Ali Sheikh vs Begum Enayetur Noor 42 DLR (AD) 250. |
Niamat Ali Sheikh vs Begum Enayetur Noor | 42 DLR (AD) 250 |
Section 249/339C, 265/241A and 403 |
Release on bail—265/241A—”acquitted” and convicted’—person once
convicted or acquitted not to be tried for the same offence—double
jeopardy—terminologies such as ‘release’. released on bail’
discharged’, ‘acquitted’ and ‘convicted’—whether bear separate
meanings with separate consequences and denote different connotations?
|
Niamat Ali Sheikh and ors Vs Begum Enayetur Noor & others | 13 BLD (AD) 11 |
Section 265C |
Cr.PC
|
Md. Muntasir Mamun Khan -Vs.- The State | 5 ALR (AD) 77 |
Section 265H |
Criminal Trial No witness was examined on behalf of prosecution. In the
context, the question of acquittal of the accused under section 265 H of
the Code does not arise at all.
|
Hasan Arif Ullah -Vs- Most. Nilufar Yesmin | 3 ALR (AD) 15 |
Section 265B |
From a scrutiny of this section it does not appear that the section requires the actual production of documents before the court. Securities and Exchange Commission vs Abu Tyeb 55 DLR (AD) 47. |
Securities and Exchange Commission vs Abu Tyeb | 55 DLR (AD) 47 |
Sections 265B, 265C, 265D & 265E |
Sections 265B, 265C, 265D and 265E form a composite session and steps to be taken under these sections are to be taken in the same session. No question arises of fixing another date for taking steps under section 265C or of separate hearing under section 265C of the Code. Securities and Exchange Commission vs Abu Tyeb 55 DLR (AD) 47. |
Securities and Exchange Commission vs Abu Tyeb | 55 DLR (AD) 47 |
Section 265C |
The admitted position is that the respondent was the Chairman of the Company and she was never involved in the business of stock brokerage—In the absence of any allegation in the complaint-petition, the High Court Division rightly discharged the respondent from the charge. Securities and Exchange Commission, represented by its Chairman vs Runa N Alam 57 DLR (AD) 161. |
Securities and Exchange Commission, represented by its Chairman vs Runa N Alam | 57 DLR (AD) 161 |
Section 265C |
The accused has no scope to have any shelter under Section 265C of the Code since a prime facie case has already been disclosed against him. Md Lokman @ Lokman vs State 63 DLR (AD) 156. |
Md Lokman @ Lokman vs State | 63 DLR (AD) 156 |
Section 265 I (3) |
Restricted the number of defence witnesses–
|
Monirul Islam Khan =VS= Anti Corruption Commission | 4 LM (AD) 389 |
Section 339B |
The High Court Division did not give any finding on this point of circulation of the newspaper. Since it is a question of fact about the sufficiency or otherwise of circulation of the newspaper this cannot be raised at this stage. State vs Anowar Hossain Pinto alias Anowar Hossain 61 DLR (AD) 108. |
State vs Anowar Hossain Pinto alias Anowar Hossain | 61 DLR (AD) 108 |
Section 339C |
”Working days” for disposal of criminal cases—stopping proceedings for release of the accused—”Working lays” of the Court—”Working days” shall be understood to mean the “Working days” during which the learned judge will hold the charge of the trial Court—A Division Bench of the High Court Division rightly excluded the period of 53 days from the statutory period for the trial s the Additional District Judge held the charge of the District and Sessions Judge for 53 days which were not treated as “Working days” for the trial Court. The application for quashing the proceedings rightly rejected. Abul Kashem vs State 40 DLR (AD) 97. |
Abul Kashem vs State | 40 DLR (AD) 97 |
Sections 339C(4) & 497 |
Besides inordinate delay in prosecuting the trial of the case and the provision of section 339C(4) of the Code, the fact that the appellant has been suffering from enlarged prostate gland and problems in his urinary track attracts the proviso to section 497 CrPC for consideration to enlarge the accused on bail. Captain (Retd) Nurul Huda vs State 55 DLR (AD) 33. |
Captain (Retd) Nurul Huda vs State | 55 DLR (AD) 33 |
Section 339D |
A Public Prosecutor represents the State in a case “of which he has charge” which is under enquiry, trial or appeal. Any action taken by the Public Prosecutor in such a case particularly when a case has been stopped due to expiry of the time-limit (which law has since been repealed) will be deemed to be an action on behalf of the Government so long as the Government do not disown it. Alimuddin vs State 49 DLR (AD) 118. |
Alimuddin vs State | 49 DLR (AD) 118 |
Section 339C |
Application of Amending Act No XLII of 1992 to Pending Cases— Stoppage
and revival of proceedings—
|
Abdul Wadud Vs. The State | 1 MLR (AD) 66 |
Section 339D |
Revival of proceedings— On application of Public Prosecutor—
|
Alimuddin & others Vs. The State | 1 MLR (AD) 364 |
Section 339B |
Trial in absentia— Drugs (Control) Ordinance, 1982— Section 16A, 16B
and 20—
|
Nazrul Islam Chowdhury Vs. The State | 4 MLR (AD) 221 |
Section 340(3) |
Expunged Evidence–
|
Durnity Daman Commission=VS=Md Gias Uddin-al-Mamun & another | 1 LM (AD) 473 |
Section 342 |
Cr.PC
|
Md. Askan Al -Vs.- The State | 8 ALR (AD) 205 |
Section 342 |
Nari-O-Shishu Nirjatan Daman Ain, 2000
|
The State =VS= Robin | 12 LM (AD) 677 |
Section 342 |
Nari O Shishi Nirjatan Daman Ain, 2000
|
Mohasin Mollah(Md.) =VS= The State | 11 LM (AD) 222 |
Section 342 |
A statement of the accused under section 342 CrPC is meant for giving him an opportunity to explain the circumstances appearing against him in the evidence adduced by the prosecution—This is entirely for the benefit of the accused and the accused only—This statement cannot be used by the Court against him, nor is the prosecution permitted to use it to fill up any gap left in the prosecution evidence. Relied on (1923) ILR Lah 50. Shah Alam vs State 42 DLR (AD) 31. |
Shah Alam vs State | 42 DLR (AD) 31 |
Section 342 |
One of important items for linking up the accused with the crime, namely the sandal, was not at all put to the accused as a circumstance appearing in the case against him while he was examined under section 342 CrPC. Mizazul Islam vs State 41 DLR (AD) 157. |
Mizazul Islam vs State | 41 DLR (AD) 157 |
Section 342 |
Sending back the case on remand for fresh trial from the stage of the examination of the accused under section 342 of the Code for the purpose of bring the incriminating evidence including the confessional statement to the attention of the appellant cannot be taken as giving of undue privilege to the prosecution to fill up any lacuna. Rather, remand of the case to the trial Court is for removing a procedural defect only which was caused for non-application of the mind of the trial judge. If such type of procedural defect is not allowed to be cured and the accused is acquitted for such procedural defect that will cause great injustice to the informant side who brought the matter before the Court of law for justice. Sohel Sanaullah @ Sohel Sanaullah vs State 63 DLR (AD) 105. |
Sohel Sanaullah @ Sohel Sanaullah vs State | 63 DLR (AD) 105 |
Section 342 |
Husband is duty bound to explain his wife’s death when his wife dies in
his custody and he can explain it in his 342 statement:
|
Md. Anwar Sheikh Vs. The State | 16 SCOB [2022] AD 40 |
Section 342 |
When a literate accused person re-calling witnesses cross-examine them, he
is not at all prejudiced by minor defects in recording his statement under
section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure:
|
Md. Abdul Awal Khan Vs. The State | 16 SCOB [2022] AD 22 |
Section 342 |
We also find some merit in the submission of the learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant that the examination of the appellant done by the trial court under section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was not conducted properly as the incriminating evidence in the depositions of the prosecution witnesses were not placed before the appellant in accordance with law. Hence, we are of the opinion that the examination of the appellant under section 342 of the Code was not lawfully done by the trial Court. So, the trial conducted by the court below is liable to be vitiated. [Muhammad Imman Ali, J (Majority view)] …Md. Abdul Awal Khan Vs. The State, (Criminal), 16 SCOB [2022] AD 22 ....View Full Judgment |
Md. Abdul Awal Khan Vs. The State | 16 SCOB [2022] AD 22 |
Section 342 |
Appellate Division also finds some merit in the submission of the learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant that the examination of the appellant done by the trial court under section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was not conducted properly as the incriminating evidence in the depositions of the prosecution witnesses were not placed before the appellant in accordance with law. Hence, this Division is of the opinion that the examination of the appellant under section 342 of the Code was not lawfully done by the trial Court. So, the trial conducted by the court below is liable to be vitiated. (Majority view: Per Mr. Justice Muhammad Imman Ali). .....Abdul Awal Khan(Md.) =VS= The State, (Criminal), 2023(1) [14 LM (AD) 401] ....View Full Judgment |
Abdul Awal Khan(Md.) =VS= The State | 14 LM (AD) 401 |
Section 342 |
Examination of accused - Statement of accused-Mot to be used against
accused—
|
Shah Alam Vs. State | 42 DLR (AD) 31 |
Section 342 |
Omission, to examine an accused under section 342 Cr.P.C.— Legal effect
of—Examination of accused by Court under section 432 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure is a mandatory requirement of law. Omission to examine
an accused u/s 342 is a fatal defect which is not curable under section 537
Cr.P.C. Therefore the conviction and sentence passed in such trial is not
sustainable in law. The appropriate course is to set aside the conviction
and sentence and send the case for examination of the accused with
direction to proceed on to dispose of the case by writing a fresh judgment
in accordance with law.
|
Abdul Gafur Vs. Jogesh Chandra Roy | 43 DLR (AD) 62 |
Section 344 |
Stay of proceeding—In the facts of the case as in point of time the civil suit was instituted before the filing of the FIR and the questioned documents in their originals are yet to be produced and examined by the civil Court. The criminal proceeding, where the documents are claimed as forged, may, in the interest of justice, be stayed till the disposal of the civil suit. Zakir Hossain vs State 43 DLR (AD) 102. |
Zakir Hossain vs State | 43 DLR (AD) 102 |
Section 344 |
Refusal of prayer for ad- interim stay while issuing Rule in criminal revision. When appellant clearly stated before the High Court Division while obtaining the Rule that she gave birth to a child just five months ago and it would be injurious to her health as also to the baby if both were to be placed under any type of custody at that critical stage it was not a judicious and sound exercise of discretion to refuse the said stay. Azima Begum vs Yusuf Khan 43 DLR (AD) 53. |
Azima Begum vs Yusuf Khan | 43 DLR (AD) 53 |
Section 344 |
Prayer for stay of judgment in criminal case on the ground of pendency of civil suit—Section 344 CrPC authorises the Court to adjourn a trial. That a judgment in a criminal court is pronounced “after the termination of the trial” is provided in section 366 CrPC. Therefore, the prayer for stay of delivery of judgment under section 344 was misconceived. HM Ershad vs State 44 DLR (AD) 145. |
HM Ershad vs State | 44 DLR (AD) 145 |
Section 344 and 561A |
Stay of proceedings in view of pending civil suit-Where a suit with respect
to certain disputed documents has been instituted before lodging of FIR on
the allegations of forgery of the same where the civil court has yet to
examine the original documents, the proceedings of the subsequent criminal
case may be stayed till the disposal of the suit.
|
Zakir Hos sain and others Vs. The State | 43 DLR (AD) 102 |
Sections 345(6), 417(1) & (2) |
Remand the case to frame charge afresh in accordance with law– It appears
from the judgment and order of the High Court Division that the Rule was
made absolute purely on the ground that the opposite party Md Nurul Alain,
being a third party, did not have locus standi to file Criminal Appeal
No.419 of 2004 under section 417(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
|
Nurul Alam @Dr. Hazrat Shah Sufi Md Nurul Alam =VS= Saleha Khatoon | 12 LM (AD) 388 |
Section 349A |
Sessions Judge acted illegally in deciding the case upon the evidence recorded by the Special Martial law Court. This was the precise argument made on behalf of the respondents in the High Court Division which should have been upheld but the High Court Division misdirected itself in relying upon paragraph 4 of the Proclamation of Withdrawal of Martial Law dated 10-11-86. Although the reason was wrong but its conclusion was right that the order of conviction and sentence was illegal and without jurisdiction. Martial Law Court. State vs Golam Mostafa 49 DLR (AD) 32. |
State vs Golam Mostafa | 49 DLR (AD) 32 |
Section 349A |
Sessions judge court is not a successor court of Special Martial Law court
—
|
The State Vs. Colam Mostaja and others | 1 MLR (AD) 320 |
Section 367 |
There has not been any miscarriage of justice caused by non-compliance with the provisions of section 367 CrPC while acquitting the accused persons by the Magistrate though his judgment was not in proper form. Nurul Huda vs Bhashanu Sardar 40 DLR (AD) 256. |
Nurul Huda vs Bhashanu Sardar | 40 DLR (AD) 256 |
Section 367 |
Judgment—Writing of a proper judgment—If the trial Court’s judgment is such that it cannot be termed as a judgment as per requirement of this section, hence an order of writing a proper judgment may be necessary-- When the entire matter is open to the criminal Appellate Court which is required by law to assess the evidence independently and come to its finding, then merely because there has been some omission made by the Trial Court in not considering a piece or pieces of evidence, would hardly offer a valid ground for sending the case on remand for a proper judgment. Md Moslehuddin vs State 42 DLR (AD) 160. |
Md Moslehuddin vs State | 42 DLR (AD) 160 |
Section 367 |
The appellate court may send a case for retrial; but if evidence already on record is sufficient to dispose of it no such retrial is called for–– Appellate Division is of the view that the High Court Division as a revisional court ought to have disposed of the criminal revision on the basis of the evidence already on record. The order of rehearing by the appellate court below is found to be uncalled for, particularly after a decade. ––The case is remanded to the High court Division for hearing afresh. A single Bench of the High Court Division constituted by Fatema Najib, J., is directed to dispose of the Criminal Revision within 06 (Six) months from the date of receipt of this judgment. The order of bail of the petitioner granted by the High Court Division shall continue till disposal of the Criminal Revision. .....Helal Uddin(Md.) =VS= The State, (Criminal), 2022(2) [13 LM (AD) 593] ....View Full Judgment |
Helal Uddin(Md.) =VS= The State | 13 LM (AD) 593 |
Section 367 (5) |
The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898
|
Allama Delwar Hossain Sayedee =VS= Government of Bangladesh | 2 LM (AD) 76 |
Section 374 |
Commutation—Delay by itself is no extenuating circumstance for commuting the sentence. There must be other circumstances of a compelling nature which together with delay will merit commutation. Abdul Khair vs State 44 DLR (AD) 225. |
Abdul Khair vs State | 44 DLR (AD) 225 |
Section 374 |
The murder was not committed by a vicious macho male Before causing death of his wife the appellant suffered for some time from a bitter sense of being wronged by his wayward wife In this case ends of justice will sufficiently be met if the sentence of death is commuted to one of life imprisonment. Zahiruddin vs State 47 DLR (AD) 92. |
Zahiruddin vs State | 47 DLR (AD) 92 |
Section 374 |
Though leave was obtained on 12-7-93, yet the office of the Attorney-General did not take any step to get the appeal heard and it remained pending for more than eight years. Under the circumstances the quantum of punishment must be minus that eight years. State vs Abdul Barek 54 DLR (AD) 28. |
State vs Abdul Barek | 54 DLR (AD) 28 |
Section 374 |
When everything has been proved beyond all reasonable doubt mere long delay in the disposal of the case cannot by itself be a ground to commute the sentence. Giasuddin vs State 54 DLR (AD) 146. |
Giasuddin vs State | 54 DLR (AD) 146 |
Section 374 |
Merely because certain years have passed in reaching finality to the judgment of the Court of Additional Sessions Judge the same cannot be the ground for commuting the sentence of death where death was caused for no reason. Abdul Bashir alias Bashu vs State 56 DLR (AD) 207. |
Abdul Bashir alias Bashu vs State | 56 DLR (AD) 207 |
Section 374 |
The two petitioners being members of the Police Establishment, they are meant for maintaining law and order in the country. But the offence they committed is a heinous one and, as such, they were rightly served, sentencing them to death and so no leniency ought to have been shown to them. We are unable to see eye to eye to the order of modification of their sentence. ASI Md Ayub Ali Sardar vs State 58 DLR (AD) 13. |
ASI Md Ayub Ali Sardar vs State | 58 DLR (AD) 13 |
Section 374 |
Delay in disposal—The appellants never made any endeavour to dispose of the appeals either in the High Court Division or in the Appellate Division. It was the State that frequently prayed for fixation of the death reference in the High Court Division and on its prayer a Bench was constituted for hearing the death reference. After the death reference was disposed of by the High Court Division, the appellants after filing leave petitions did not take any step for hearing of their petitions. It was only on the prayer of the State that the leave petitions were heard and the appeals were also heard. Major Bazlul Huda vs State 62 DLR (AD) 1. |
Major Bazlul Huda vs State | 62 DLR (AD) 1 |
Section 374 |
The death of the victim was due to asphyxia resulting from exerting pressure on the throat, neck, head and facial region, which was ante-mortem and homicidal in nature and it is ex-facie clear that the petitioner strangled the victim with the intention of causing her death and there is no circumstances that may impel the Court to take a lenient view in commuting the death sentence as there is no mitigating or extenuating circumstances on record for the purpose of commutation of the death sentence, rather all the circumstances are aggravating. Alam Uddin vs State 62 DLR (AD) 281. |
Alam Uddin vs State | 62 DLR (AD) 281 |
Section 374 |
The appellant has been in death cell since 12.08.2002 and by the judgment he suffered the agony of death for the last 9(nine) years, 6(six) months and 9(nine) days. In the facts of the case, justice would be best served if the sentence of death awarded to the appellant is altered into one for imprisonment for life with fine, of taka 10,000.00 only, in default, to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 6(six) months. .....Momtaj Ali @ Babul =VS= The State, (Criminal), 2016-[1 LM (AD) 557] ....View Full Judgment |
Momtaj Ali @ Babul =VS= The State | 1 LM (AD) 557 |
Section 374, 376 & 537 |
Even if it is assumed that the Session Judge has not taken cognizance of the offence after the case was ‘sent’ by the Magistrate, the trial of the accused shall not be vitiated in view of section 537 of the Code which provides that ‘no finding, sentence, or order passed by the court of competent jurisdiction shall be reversed or altered under Chapter XXVII on appeal or revision of account ...’ Chapter XXVII contains sections 374-380. Section 374 provides the sentence of death to be submitted by a court of Sessions to the High Court Division for confirmation. Section 376 empowers the High Court Division to confirm a death sentence or annul a death sentence. So, whenever a death sentence is passed by a court of session, it is sent to the High Court Division for confirmation. The High Court Division has power to confirm the sentence or annul the sentence and by reason of any defect or error in the procedure, death sentence cannot be vitiated. So, the conviction of the accused cannot be set aside by reason of the alleged defect. .....Mufti Abdul Hannan Munshi =VS= The State, (Criminal), 2017 (2)– [3 LM (AD) 566] ....View Full Judgment |
Mufti Abdul Hannan Munshi =VS= The State | 3 LM (AD) 566 |
Section 374 & 376 |
The nature of the offence it appears to us that the petitioner is not anyway entitled to get any sympathy. We do not find any mitigating or extenuating circumstances on record for commutation of the sentence of death. Delay in the disposal of this case cannot by itself be a ground for commuting the sentence of death to one of imprisonment for life since the crime committed by the petitioner was premeditated senseless, dastardly and beyond all human reasonings. We do not find any Substance in the petition. Thus, the review petition is dismissed. .....Shahidul Islam @ Shahid =VS= State, (Criminal), 2018 (1) [4 LM (AD) 428] ....View Full Judgment |
Shahidul Islam @ Shahid =VS= State | 4 LM (AD) 428 |
Section 376 |
Sentence—Commutation of death sentence—Delay of about two years or so in the disposal of the Death Reference Cases and the Jail Appeal in the High Court Division, cannot by itself be a ground for awarding lesser sentence. Abed Ali vs State 42 DLR (AD) 171. |
Abed Ali vs State | 42 DLR (AD) 171 |
Section 376 |
There is nothing or record to show that there was (any real) love between the appellant and deceased Dilara. The appellant being not a jilted lover, it is difficult to commute the sentence of death to one of imprisonment for life. Further, soon before the occurrence there was no provocation from the prosecution side and there was no occasion for the appellant to show any emotional imbalance and disequilibrium. On the contrary, the evidence on record shows that the appellant with a premeditated and pre-planned manner entered into the hut of the deceased with a dagger and killed her. The trial Court as also the High Court Division found no mitigating circumstances. Nor did we. Abdul Quddus vs State 43 DLR (AD) 234, |
Abdul Quddus vs State | 43 DLR (AD) 234 |
Section 376 |
Death sentence, commutation of—Death sentence not executed after more than four years from the date of confinnation of the sentence. Appellant suffered a prolonged agony for laches of others. Death sentence commuted to one of life imprisonment. Wajear Rahman Moral vs State 43 DLR (AD) 25. |
Wajear Rahman Moral vs State | 43 DLR (AD) 25 |
Sections 378 & 429 |
Hearing of the case by a Third Judge—The language used in sections 378 and 429 of the Code is almost identical. It is said that in hearing a reference or an appeal if the Judges are equally divided in opinion thereon, the case with their opinions shall be laid before a third Judge for hearing, and the third Judge after hearing ‘as he thinks fit’ would deliver his opinion, and the judgment and order would follow such opinion. The expressions “as he thinks fit” used in both the sections are significant. It is the third Judge to decide on what points or in respect of whom he shall hear arguments. This postulates that the third Judge is completely free in resolving the difference as he thinks fit. If he does not think to hear the arguments in respect of any accused of whom the Judges are not divided in their opinions, he may decline to do so. The use of the words “equally divided” in both the sections means the Judges differ in their opinions, in respect of complicity of an accused or on the charge framed against him or them or on any particular point it can be inferred that they are equally divided but in a case where the Judges concur each other in respect of a particular accused and in respect of the offence charged, it can not be said that Judges are equally divided in respect of the accused charged with. Major Bazlul Huda vs State 62 DLR (AD) 1. |
Major Bazlul Huda vs State | 62 DLR (AD) 1 |
Sections 378 and 429 |
Sections 378 and 429 of the Code of Criminal Procedure contemplate that it is for the third learned Judge to decide on what points he shall hear arguments, if any, and, that postulates that he is completely free in resolving the difference as he thinks fit, and therefore, the third learned Judge was competent to decide the case of six convicts of whom the learned judges were equally divided in their opinion and thus the third learned Judge was in agreement with the decision of the learned Judges of the Division Bench in respect of 9(nine) convicts of whom there was no difference of opinion. ...Major Md. Bazlul Huda(Artillery)=VS=The State (Banga Bandhu Murder Case), (Criminal), 2020 [9 LM (AD) 386] ....View Full Judgment |
Major Md. Bazlul Huda(Artillery)=VS=The State (Banga Bandhu Murder Case) | 9 LM (AD) 386 |
Section 401 |
Prisons Act 1894,
|
Ataur Mridha alias Ataur Vs. The State | 15 SCOB [2021] AD 1 |
Section 401 |
The Prisons Act, 1894
|
Ataur Mridha =VS= The State | 10 LM (AD) 527 |
Section 403(1) |
Provides that a person tried and convicted by a court of competent
jurisdiction shall not be tried and punished again for the same offence—
Constitution of Bangladesh— Article 35(2)— Prohibits trial and
conviction of a person twice for the same offence— General Clauses Act,
1897— Section 26— Contains similar provision against trial and
conviction of a person more than once for the same offence—
|
Mohammad Ullah Vs. Sessions ]udge, Noakhali and others | 12 MLR (AD) 351 |
Section 403(2) |
Trial of an accused for one distinct offence will not stand in the way of
his subsequent trial for the other distinct offence as specifically
provided by sub-section (2) of section 403.
|
Arfan Ali vs State | 42 DLR (AD) 22 |
Section 403 |
Fresh complaint, over the self same occurrence- when a proceeding is
stopped under section 339C of the Code of Criminal Procedure and the
accused stands released thereunder, such release is neither an acquittal
nor a discharge as has been contemplated under the Code and as such the
accused cannot claim the protection of section 403 of the Code from facing
trial for the same offence.
|
Jotish Das Vs. Chandan Kumar Das | 4 BLT (AD) 258 |
Section 409 |
An Assistant Sessions iu1e deemed to be appointed as Additional Sessions Judge has the limited power of passing higher sentences except a Death Sentence in those sessions cases which are now triable by him by deeming and treating him to be an Additional Sessions Judge, consequent upon the changes brought. He shall not be deemed to be an Additional Sessions Judge for all the purposes under the Code, eg for hearing appeals, revisions, references and reviews if they are made over or transferred to him by the Sessions Judge. Under section 409 the Sessions Judge can transfer the hearing of an appeal only to an Additional Sessions Judge and not to an Assistant Sessions Judge deemed to have been appointed as an Additional Sessions Judge. The dismissal in the instant appeal by the Assistant Sessions Judge and refusal of interference by the High Court Division in revision are therefore illegal. The appeal against conviction is therefore allowed and it is directed that the Sessions Judge may himself dispose of the appeal or transfer it to an Additional Sessions Judge for disposal. Abdul Kashem vs State 43 DLR (AD) 77. |
Abdul Kashem vs State | 43 DLR (AD) 77 |
Section 410 |
The High Court Division sitting in appeal was bound to give due weight to the opinion of the trial Court with regard to the credibility and demeanour of the witnesses. State vs Abdus Sattar 43 DLR (AD) 44. |
State vs Abdus Sattar | 43 DLR (AD) 44 |
Section 410 |
It is surprising to find the peculiar way of disposal of criminal appeal by the High Court Division that shirked responsibility misdirecting themselves and shouldered the same on Allah. This sort of disposal of criminal appeal is unknown to our criminal jurisprudence, this unwarranted method of administration of justice is disapproved. State vs Kh Zillul Bari 57 DLR (AD) 129. |
State vs Kh Zillul Bari | 57 DLR (AD) 129 |
Section 410 |
Appeal against conviction and sentence passed by Sessons Judge—Scope of
interference —
|
Altaf Hossain Vs. The State | 5 MLR (AD) 205 |
Section 410 |
Appeal from sentence of Court of Sessions— and grant of bail-Bail in
appeal against short sentence like two years may usually be granted and
realisation of fine stayed where such appeal can not be decided
expeditiously; otherwise the purpose of appeal will be frustrated.
|
Alauddin Vs. The Stater | 4 MLR (AD) 256 |
Section 417 |
Review of evidence—The reason given by the Judges of the High Court Division to disregard the evidence of PWs 2, 3 & 4 relying only upon the evidence of PW 7 is rather artificial. In an appeal by the State against acquittal it is quite open to the Court to review the evidence in order to see whether finding on which acquittal is based is perverse being in wanton disregard of good and unblemished evidence given by other witnesses. State vs Ashraf Ali 43 DLR (AD) 83. |
State vs Ashraf Ali | 43 DLR (AD) 83 |
Section 417 |
As a matter of practice the High Court Division normally grants bail to the persons who are acquitted after a full-fledged trial when the State prefers an appeal against the order of acquittal. Abdul Hafez Howlader alias Habibur Rahman vs State 51 DLR (AD) 67. |
Abdul Hafez Howlader alias Habibur Rahman vs State | 51 DLR (AD) 67 |
Section 417(1)(a) |
Maintainability of appeal by witness against order of acquittal—The State under section 417(1)(a) of the Code is authorised to present an appeal against an order of acquittal passed by the Court of Sessions. But in the present case, the appeal was not preferred by the State. The appeal was filed before the High Court Division by a witness who is also the petitioner in the present petition for leave to appeal. Hence this leave petition is not maintainable in law. Fazar Ali Manik Chan vs Fazar Ali 43 DLR (AD) 129. |
Fazar Ali Manik Chan vs Fazar Ali | 43 DLR (AD) 129 |
Section 417(3) |
The special limitation provided in sub-section (3) of section 417 CrPC is applicable in a case where a complainant intends to file an appeal before the High Court Division against order of acquittal passed in a case upon a petition of complaint. Dr MA Mazed vs Bangladesh 56 DLR (AD) 198. |
Dr MA Mazed vs Bangladesh | 56 DLR (AD) 198 |
Section 417A(2) |
Section 417A(2) of the Code appeal lies to the appellate Court against the
sentence on the ground of inadequacy. The appellate Court was the Court of
Sessions but no appeal was filed before the Court of Sessions rather it was
filed, long after the limitation, before the High Court Division. The very
appeal was incompetent and the High Court Division acted illegally in
entertaining the appeal and therefore, the judgment of the High Court
Division is liable to be set aside.
|
GMM Rahman vs State | 62 DLR (AD) 410 |
Section 417 and 423 |
Conversion of finding of acquittal into one of conviction- when
permissible—
|
Mofizuddin Vs. State | 40 DLR (AD) 286 |
Section 417A |
Section 417A empowers the complainant to prefer appeal to the appellate court against the sentence on the ground of its in adequacy. Sub-section (3) of Section 417A provides that when an appeal has been filed against sentence on the ground of its inadequacy, the appellate court shall not enhance the sentence except after giving to the accused reasonable opportunity of showing cause against such enhancement. .....Shahidur Rahman Khadem =VS= The State, (Criminal), 2017 (2)– [3 LM (AD) 600] ....View Full Judgment |
Shahidur Rahman Khadem =VS= The State | 3 LM (AD) 600 |
Section 423 |
Section 423 relates to ‘Powers of Appellate Court in disposing of appeal’ and this power of the appellate Court may include a Court subordinate to the High Court Division. The appellate Court has power to enhance the sentence under section 423 (bb) in an appeal for enhancement of sentence. So this power can be exercised only when an appeal is filed by the state or the complainant, and in other cases initiated on a police report, if the state does not prefer appeal, the informant can file a revision petition, but in the absence of none, the appellate court has no power to enhance the sentence. If the appellate Court has no power to enhance the sentence without an appeal or revision being filed against the inadequacy of sentence, the High Court Division cannot exercise the power except in cases provided under section 439(6) of the Code. .....Shahidur Rahman Khadem =VS= The State, (Criminal), 2017 (2)– [3 LM (AD) 600] ....View Full Judgment |
Shahidur Rahman Khadem =VS= The State | 3 LM (AD) 600 |
Section 423 |
In view of the fact that the two foreigner-appellants have made a clean breast of their offence and never tried to beat the law by any smart manoeuvre and they have begged mercy of the court from the very beginning the sentence of the two foreigner appellants be reduced from life imprisonment to rigorous imprisonment for 7 years. Major (Retd) Ashrafuddin Sekander vs State 50 DLR (AD) 108. |
Major (Retd) Ashrafuddin Sekander vs State | 50 DLR (AD) 108 |
Section 423 |
When it is found after a full trial that there was a mis-trial or trial
without jurisdiction, the Court of appeal before directing a fresh trial by
an appropriate Court should also see whether such direction should at all
be given in the facts and circumstances of a particular case.
|
Asiman Begum vs State, represented by the Depuly Commissioner | 51 DLR (AD) 18 |
Section 423 |
If it is found that the accused had suffered a substantial part of the
sentence imposed upon him or her in the mis-trial, the Court may not for
ends of justice direct a retrial.
|
Asiman Begum vs State, represented by the Deputy Commissioner | 51 DLR (AD) 18 |
Section 423(1)(b)(2) |
The Appellate Court has jurisdiction under section 423(1)(b)(2) of Code of the Criminal Procedure to reverse an order of acquittal purporting to “alter the finding” of conviction. Mofizuddin vs State 40 DLR (AD) 286. |
Mofizuddin vs State | 40 DLR (AD) 286 |
Section 426 |
Granting bail–
|
Durnity Daman Commission =VS= Begum Khaleda Zia | 5 LM (AD) 207 |
Section 426 |
In many cases, bail has been granted even in cases involving serious and heinous offences where the Court has observed that prima facie there is no legal evidence to sustain the conviction and there is chance to succeed in the appeal. In a number of cases, it has been also decided that where the sentence is relatively short and the appeal is not likely to be heard for some time, thus rendering the appeal infructuous, bail could be granted. On that consideration, to our knowledge, bail has been granted in cases where sentence of imprisonment extended to 3 (three) years. .....Durnity Daman Commission =VS= Begum Khaleda Zia, (Criminal), 2018 (2) [5 LM (AD) 207] ....View Full Judgment |
Durnity Daman Commission =VS= Begum Khaleda Zia | 5 LM (AD) 207 |
Section 426 |
Undoubtedly in any case, where a court of law exercises its discretion, such discretion must be exercised judiciously. The Court must not lose sight of the fact that section 426 of the Code provides that the Court granting bail must record its reason in writing. Once that is done, this Court does not readily interfere with the discretion exercised by the High Court Division. .....Durnity Daman Commission =VS= Begum Khaleda Zia, (Criminal), 2018 (2) [5 LM (AD) 207] ....View Full Judgment |
Durnity Daman Commission =VS= Begum Khaleda Zia | 5 LM (AD) 207 |
Section 426 |
Bail—Suspension of sentence pending appeal—Release of appellants on bail— Sentence being in excess of one year Sessions Judge was not competent to grant such bail. Saidur Rahman vs State 40 DLR (AD) 281. |
Saidur Rahman vs State | 40 DLR (AD) 281 |
Section 426 |
Bail—Condition for the bail is quite reasonable and can be complied with by the person seeking bail without any difficulty but payment of fine involving huge amount of money as a condition for bail may not be possible— Impugned order of payment of fine as a condition for the bail is not supportable either in law or on the principle of reasonableness. Iqbal vs State 41 DLR (AD) 111. |
Iqbal vs State | 41 DLR (AD) 111 |
Section 426 |
Bail in a pending appeal— The matter of granting bail by the High Court Division, during the period of emergency, in a pending appeal filed by the convict who has been convicted and sentenced under the provision of Anti-Corruption Commission Act, 2004 in case of short sentence not exceeding 3 years, when the appeal could not be disposed of within 90 working days for no fault of the appellant and/or in the case of serious illness endangering life to be certified by duly constituted Medical Board, may consider the matter of granting bail in an appropriate case in an appeal. Government of Bangladesh vs Sabera Aman 62 DLR (AD) 246. |
Government of Bangladesh vs Sabera Aman | 62 DLR (AD) 246 |
Section 435,439 and 498 |
Cancellation of bail- Going through the police forwarding and remand report
indicating clearly that the accused petitioner along with his accomplices
by hiring the killers killed the husband, a freedom fighter, of the
informant. An enquiry was held by the police on the G.D. filed by the
informant and in the enquiry report it has been clearly stated that she was
threatened by the accused petitioner and thus she apprehended that fair
investigation could not be held if the accused petitioner remains on bail
and the witnesses will be influenced by the accused as a result of which
fair trial will be hampared. In that view of the matter the Courts below
have rightly cancelled the bail.
|
Md. Rayhan Khokon -Vs- The State | 1 ALR (AD) 75 |
Sections 435 & 439A |
The law should not be stretched too far so that big companies against whom serious allegation of foul play concerning national economy is being made can themselves overtake the law by ingenious contentions. It is true that in criminal matters the accused should get all protection under the law but it is also important that the law should not be stretched too far so that big companies against whom serious allegation of foul play concerning national economy is being made before the Court by a statutory authority can themselves overtake the law by resourceful enterprise in raising ingenious contentions in order to frustrate the prosecution on the threshold. The Court must strike a balance. We are of the view that the learned Sessions Judge failed to maintain that balance which has been restored by the High Court Division. Shinepukur Holdings Ltd vs Beximco Pharmaceuticals Ltd 50 DLR (AD) 189. |
Shinepukur Holdings Ltd vs Beximco Pharmaceuticals Ltd. | 50 DLR (AD) 189 |
Sections 435, 438 & 439A |
The Sessions Judge would have been well-advised to reject the revision petitions upon the view that the objection as to alleged lack of authority should be raised before the Court taking cognizance. Shinepukur Holdings Ltd vs Beximco Pharmaceuticals Ltd 50 DLR (AD) 189. |
Shinepukur Holdings Ltd vs Beximco Pharmaceuticals Ltd. | 50 DLR (AD) 189 |
Sections 435, 438 & 439A |
When the SEC was making a complaint of fraudulent acts against certain companies and their directors on the basis of an enquiry undertaken by an expert committee, a Court would be well-advised not to try to be more expert at the complaint stage because otherwise it will be an example of nipping the prosecution in the bud. Shinepukur Holdings Ltd vs Beximco Pharmaceuticals Ltd 50 DLR (AD) 189. |
Shinepukur Holdings Ltd vs Beximco Pharmaceuticals Ltd. | 50 DLR (AD) 189 |
Section 435 |
In view of the above specific provision as contemplated in the Code of Criminal Procedure, if anyone is aggrieved by an order including granting bail to an accused passed by a Magistrate, he ought to have preferred a revisional application before the Court of Sessions, if so advised or desired, as the order is revisable one. We have no hesitation to hold that a specific statutory provision cannot be overridden by so-called usual practice. When there is specific Provision of Law to ventilate a grievance particular in that event an authorized practice cannot be appreciated and endorsed. …Minaz Ahmed and another Vs. Arif Motahar and others, (Criminal), 16 SCOB [2022] AD 89 ....View Full Judgment |
Minaz Ahmed and another Vs. Arif Motahar and others | 16 SCOB [2022] AD 89 |
Sections 435, 426(2A) and 561A |
The Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881
|
Sajjad Hossain = Md. Lutful Hasan | 14 LM (AD) 599 |
Sections 436, 205(1) & 203 |
Neither the Sessions Judge nor the High Court Division is invested with any
power to direct any Magistrate to take cognizance of a case.
|
Yusuf A Hossain vs KM Rezaul Ferdous | 48 DLR (AD) 53 |
Sections 436, 439 and 439A |
Sessions Judge’s power to direct further, enquiry under section 436 CrPC on dismissal of complaint on an erroneous view of law. Bangladesh vs Yakub Sardar 40 DLR (AD) 246. |
Bangladesh vs Yakub Sardar | 40 DLR (AD) 246 |
Section 438 |
Executive Director of the Securities and Exchange Commission filed reports
under section 25 of the Securities and Exchange Ordinance, 1988 before the
Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, alleging offences under section 17 read with
section 24 of the said ordinance where upon the CMM took cognizance of
offence and directed issuance warrant of arrest against the accused
petitioners, on the day following, the accused petitioners obtained
anticipatory bail from the High Court Division, then they filed criminal
revision cases before the Sessions Judge, under sections 435 and 43 9A of
the Code of Criminal Procedure for setting aside the order of the CMM-
Held: The reference made by the Sessions Judge was misconceived because he
himself could set aside the order of the CMM which was actually prayed
for.
|
Shinepukur Holding LTD. & Ors. Securities Exchange Commission & Anr. | 6 BLT (AD) 265 |
Section 439A |
The complainant-respondent can file a criminal revision under section 439A of the Code of Criminal Procedure against the judgment and order dated 28.09.2002 passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, Dhaka in G.R. No.495 of 2001 but inadvertently he filed an appeal. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, we are of the view that the memo of appeal may be treated as a revision and the learned Sessions Judge or any other Court shall dispose of the revision in accordance with law. .....Enayet Chowdhury(Md.) =VS= The State, (Criminal), 2017 (2)– [3 LM (AD) 554] ....View Full Judgment |
Enayet Chowdhury(Md.) =VS= The State | 3 LM (AD) 554 |
Section 439A |
Practice and procedure — An order allowing maintenance allowance to the wife was allowed exparte but the order was set aside by an Additional Sessions Judge in revision and the case was remanded to the Magistrate to allow the husband opportunity to adduce evidence — The Appellate Division modified the said order of remand with a direction that if the husband failed to avail of the opportunity of adducing further evidence within six weeks the original order for maintenance would stand — The husband having failed to adduce further evidence within six weeks, the Magistrate affirmed his earlier order of maintenance — On revision an Assistant Sessions Judge deemed to be an Additional Sessions Judge set aside the Magistrates order and remanded the case to the Magistrate for rehearing — The High Court Division set aside the order holding that the Additional Sessions Judge has no jurisdiction to re-open the matter settled by the Appellate Division and that a second revision under Section 439A was not maintainable in the same Court — A Magistrate has got power under Subsection (6) of Section 488 Cr.P C to hear and determine a case for maintenance exparte if the opposite party willfully neglects to attend the Court. Abdul Moneyem Chowdhury Vs. Md Shamsul Hussain Chomlhury 6 BLD (AD) 128. |
Abdul Moneyem Chowdhury Vs. Md Shamsul Hussain Chowdhury | 6 BLD (AD) 128 |
Section 439(6) |
The appellate Court has no power to enhance the sentence without an appeal
or revision being filed against the inadequacy of sentence, the High Court
Division can not exercise the power except in cases provided under section
439(6) of the Code.
|
Shahidur Rahman Khadem-Vs-The State and others | 6 ALR (AD) 218 |
Section 439 |
The jurisdiction of a Single Judge to hear a revisional application against an order of acquittal passed in a case involving an offence punishable with sentence of imprisonment exceeding one year is barred. Ahsan Sarfun Nur vs Nurul Islam 42 DLR (AD) 90. |
Ahsan Sarfun Nur vs Nurul Islam | 42 DLR (AD) 90 |
Section 439 |
Refusal of prayer for ad-interim stay while issuing Rule in criminal revision. When appellant clearly stated before the High Court Division while obtaining the Rule that she gave birth to a child just five months ago and it would be injurious to her health as also to the baby if both were to be placed under any type of custody at that critical stage it was not a judicious and sound exercise of discretion to refuse the said stay. Azima Begum vs Yusuf Khan 43 DLR (AD) 53. |
Azima Begum vs Yusuf Khan | 43 DLR (AD) 53 |
Section 439 |
Revision against order of acquittal—When the appellate Court and the High Court Division upon evidence and circumstances which is not unreasonable or perverse refused to believe the prosecution case, this court merely because a different view is possible of the evidence does not interfere with an order of acquittal. Abdul Hamid Mollah vs Ali Mollah 44 DLR (AD) 223. |
Abdul Hamid Mollah vs Ali Mollah | 44 DLR (AD) 223 |
Section 439 |
Direction for filing a separate application for bail while moving a revisional application whether proper—When the appellants were already on bail granted by the lower Appellate Court, the direction that has been given after rejecting the prayer for bail is not proper and is not in keeping with the normal practice and; procedure that is traditionally followed in the High Court Division in revision. In that view o the matter, the appellants will remain on bail already granted, till disposal of the revision case. Baneanzuddin Ahmed vs State 43 DLR (AD) 12 |
Baneanzuddin Ahmed vs State | 43 DLR (AD) 12 |
Section 439 |
The High Court Division may also suo motu call for the record of the courts subordinate to it and set aside any order passed by such courts in any legal proceeding which has caused miscarriage of justice. Reazuddin Ahmed vs State 49 DLR (AD) 64. |
Reazuddin Ahmed vs State | 49 DLR (AD) 64 |
Sections 439, 439A & 561A |
Propriety of exercising jurisdiction under section 561A CrPC to quash Magistrate’s order drawing up proceeding under section 145 CrPC—As the High Court Division’s revisional jurisdiction is concurrent with that of the Sessions Judge and although the High Court Division could decline to interfere for not moving the Sessions Judge, the interference that has been made cannot be said to be without jurisdiction. Jurisdiction under section 561A CrPC is not ousted in the presence of the revisional jurisdiction of the Sessions Judge under section 439A of the Code. The only question will be, has any case been made out either under section 439 or 561A of the Code? The answer will vary from case to case. Samirun Nessa vs Kamaluddin 43 DLR (AD) 175. |
Samirun Nessa vs Kamaluddin | 43 DLR (AD) 175 |
Sections 439(4) & 439A |
The idea of the High Court Division that both the courts—one under section 439(4), the other under section 439A—are equal in power and the judgment of one is the judgment of another, appears to be grotesque displaying perversity of thought. Sher Ali (Md) vs State 46 DLR (AD) 67. |
Sher Ali (Md) vs State | 46 DLR (AD) 67 |
Sections 439(4), 439A & 561A |
The Sessions Judge’s decision is not final in relation to a person who
has not filed the revisional application to the Sessions Judge but has been
impleaded therein as opposite party. He is free to go to any appropriate
forum to challenge the Sessions Judge’s decision. But he cannot go to the
High Court Division with another revisional application, as such, an
application—better known as second revision—is expressly barred by
section 439.
|
Sher Ali vs State | 46 DLR (AD) 67 |
Section 439 and 561 A |
Maintainability—After disposal of application u/s 439— application u/s
561A not permissible— Section 145— Proceedings thereunder—
|
Ajman Alt Mia Vs. Md. Alauddin Chowdhury | 1 MLR (AD) 410 |
Section 439 |
— Section 561A-Quashment of judgment— Not permissible— When ao legal
infirmity—
|
Morshed Ali and others Vs. The Stale | 2 MLR (AD) 87 |
Section 439 |
Revisional application does not lie at a belated stage—
|
Nazrul Islam and others Vs. The State | 5 MLR (AD) 168 |
Section 439 |
Fresh bail petition not necessary while filing Revisional application—
|
Baneazuddin Ahmed Vs. The State | 43 DLR (AD) 120 |
Section 439A and 561 A |
Inherent power of the Court not circumscribed by the revisional power—
|
Amiml Islam Vs. Mujibar Rahman | 45 DLR (AD) 9 |
Section 471 |
Lunacy Act 1912 (IV of 1912)
|
The State =VS= Nazrul Islam | 11 LM (AD) 479 |
Section 473 |
There has not been an elaborate discussion of the evidence on record- In
view of the fact that the High Court Division did not write out a proper
judgment we took pains of going through both the judgments and we do not
find that any miscarriage of justice has been caused. After a careful
consideration we feel that no useful purpose will be served in sending the
case back to the High Court Division for writing out a proper judgment as
the same suffers from no error of law and fact.
|
Abdul Khaleque Master & Ors Vs. The State | 7 BLT (AD) 179 |
Section 473 |
Remand to the trial court for a fresh decision and allowed both the
complainant and the accused to examine further witnesses on the point
whether the alleged executant, Renu Bala died on 5.7.82 as alleged by the
complainant or on 5.8.82 as alleged by the accused persons- Held: The
learned Judges of the High Court Division in consideration of the evidence
of PW2 and his report Ext. 2 found an indication of commission of forgery
on the deed in question, and held rightly that the trial Magistrate had
conveniently failed to consider the opinion of both the hand writing expert
and the fingerprint expert to facilitate a judgment of acquittal.
|
Bhulu Rani Saha Vs. Sri Pran Ballov Podder & Anr. | 7 BLT (AD) 215 |
Section 476 |
Rule issued by the High Court Division on the appellants and two advocates to show cause why complaint should not be lodged against them under section 476 CrPC was m1e absolute against the appellants who then appealed. High Court Division issued a suo motu Rule in Criminal Revision No. 43 of 1986, upon the appellants and two Advocates to show cause as to why a complaint should not be lodged against them under section 476 of the Code of Criminal Procedure as they appeared to have practised fraud upon the Court by filing a false petition of compromise. The Rule against the appellants was made absolute, but it was discharged against the two Advocates. Hence this appeal. Abdul Gafur vs State 41 DLR (AD) 127. |
Abdul Gafur vs State | 41 DLR (AD) 127 |
Section 476 and 195 |
Complaint by Court—when permissible- Private complaint when can be
lodged—The court can make a complaint only when a fraudulent document
is produced before it in a proceedings. When not produced before the Court
in any proceeding private complaint is not barred in law.
|
Shamsuddin Ahmed Chowdhury Vs. The State &. another | 2 MLR (AD) 119 |
Section 476B |
Whether in appeal the appellate court has jurisdiction to order remand of
the cast under section 476 to the trial Court.
|
Khizir Hayat Khan Eusuf Zai Vs. Maja (Rtd.)Md. Muqtadir Ali & Ors. | 7 BLT(AD) 252 |
Section 476 Read with Section-195(1) (b) (c) |
Both section 195 and 476 of the Code of Criminal Procedure clearly speak of
production of a document in a proceeding before a court, Section 195 (2)
speaks of civil, revenue or Criminal Court and Section 476 of the Code
speaks of an enquiry into any offence referred to section 195 sub section
(1) clauses (b) and (c) when offence appears to have been committed
relation to a proceeding in that Court. Thus it is absolutely clear that
unless document is filed in Court, the Court can make a complaint.
|
Shamsuddin Ahmed Chowdhury Vs. The State & Anr. | 5 BLT (AD) |
Section 480 |
Section 480 of the Code of Criminal Procedure provides the procedure. This
section reads as under: -
|
Bangladesh =VS= Naznin Begum (Most.) | 3 LM (AD) 66 |
Sections 482 and 561A |
The Appellate Division also held that that in exercising the jurisdiction
under section 561A of the Code, the High Court Division shall have the
discretion to award costs against a party under a very extraordinary and
exceptional circumstances in a judicious manner and not in contradiction
with any of the specific provisions of the Code to meet the following
situations: (i) to prevent abuse of the process of any Court or (ii) to
give effect to any order passed under the Code or (iii) otherwise to secure
the ends of justice. Costs may also be given to meet the litigation
expenses or can be exemplary to achieve the aforesaid purposes.
|
Khondker Latifur Rahman -Vs.- The State, represented by the Deputy Commissioner, Chittagong and another | 12 ALR (AD) 6 |
Section 488 |
Maintenance allowance to wife — Whether an application for maintenance filed by the father of the wife is maintainable — An application for maintenance filed by the father or brother of the wife whom her husband neglected to maintain is maintainable. Abdul Moneyem Chowdhury Vs. Md Shamsul Hussain Chowdhury 6 BLD (AD) 128. |
Abdul Moneyem Chowdhury Vs. Md Shamsul Hussain Chowdhury | 6 BLD (AD) 128 |
Section 491 |
Cr.PC
|
Prashanta Bhushan Barua -Vs.- The State | 10 ALR (AD) 256 |
Section 491 |
In the appeal against the order of bail the matter of custody of the victim girl was not to be decided. The Court should have considered the Miscellaneous Case filed by the appellant under section 491 CrPC on merit. Bashu Dev Chatterjee vs Umme Salma 51 DLR (AD) 238. |
Bashu Dev Chatterjee vs Umme Salma | 51 DLR (AD) 238 |
Section 491 |
Having considered all aspects of the matter it will be in the best interest of the girl if she is released from custody and given to the care of her father. it is also necessary to see that the accused does not feel prejudiced at the trial because of the girl remaining under the care of the informant. The accused will be at liberty to pray before the trial Court for her production in Court if it is found necessary. Bashu Dev Chatterjee vs Umme Salma 51 DLR (AD) 238. |
Bashu Dev Chatterjee vs Umme Salma | 51 DLR (AD) 238 |
Section 491 |
Primary evidence being there that the girl is minor and that she is the victim of an offence it is right and proper that the girl should stay with her parents rather than be given to the family of the accused. The girl cannot be allowed to make her own choice because, prima facie, it appears that she is a minor. Jharna Rani Saha vs Khondaker Zayedul Hoque alias Jahangir 52 DLR (AD) 66. |
Jharna Rani Saha vs Khondaker Zayedul Hoque alias Jahangir | 52 DLR (AD) 66 |
Section 491 |
Judicial custody of minor girl— Father is legally entitled to her
custody—
|
Mongol Chandra Nandi (Sree) Vs. Bangladesh represented by the Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs and others | 2 MLR (AD) 62 |
Section 491 |
Custody of a minor girl-Determinattion of age of the victim—
Acceptability of father's statement when supported by school certificate
and opinion of Radiologist—
|
Bashu Dev Chatterjee Vs. Umme Salma and another | 4 MLR (AD) 209 |
Section 492 |
The terms of appointment of the writ petitioner was solely based on confidence and satisfaction of the Government as to service he was rendering. The moment there is absence of confidence and satisfaction, it was within the domain of the Government to terminate the appointment. Secretary, Ministry of Law, Justice & Parliamentary Affairs vs Md Borhan Uddin 56 DLR (AD) 131. |
Secretary, Ministry of Law, Justice & Parliamentary Affairs vs Md Borhan Uddin | 56 DLR (AD) 131 |
Section 492 |
When Government feels necessity of terminating appointment of a Public Prosecutor, questioning legality of termination of such appointment by a person claiming to be the informant of or the witness in the case can hardly; be considered legally well conceived. SM Jillur Rahman vs Bangladesh 56 DLR (AD) 127. |
SM Jillur Rahman vs Bangladesh | 56 DLR (AD) 127 |
Section 494 |
Withdrawal of a criminal case ----- Consent for withdrawal is not to be given mechanically — The Court is to exercise its jurisdiction judicially before giving consent This implies that the Court will have to examine the materials on which the Government decides the withdrawal of case — It ,is open to the Court to see whether the Government's order for withdrawal was malafide or made for collateral purposes. Syed Matiur Rahman alias Motiur Rahman Vs. The State 4 BLD (AD) 261. |
Syed Matiur Rahman alias Motiur Rahman Vs. The State | 4 BLD (AD) 261 |
Section 494 |
Withdrawal of criminal appeals — Giving consent to withdrawal is a judicial act and this will not be done as a matter of course — Before permission for withdrawal is accorded some material should be produced before the Court showing the reason for the withdrawal Anwara Bewa Vs. Razz.ak and others 5 BLD (AD) 327. Ref. 30 DLR (SC) 297; 35 DLR (AD) 329. |
Anwara Bewa Vs. Razzak and others | 5 BLD (AD) 327 |
Section 494 |
The trial Court having not accorded sanction for withdrawal of the case it cannot be said that the petitioners have acquired a vested right. Further, section 494 of the Code gives the authority only to a public prosecutor to file an application for withdrawal and, as such, the accused have no right to file an application for withdrawal. Apart from this the Tribunal after recording proper reasons have refused to accord consent for withdrawal of the case and, as such, no lawful grievance can be made on the merit as well. Abdul Khaleque vs Md Hanif 49 DLR (AD) 134. |
Abdul Khaleque vs Md Hanif | 49 DLR (AD) 134 |
Section 494 |
The consent mentioned in section 494 of the Code is not to be given mechanically. The Court is to exercise its function judicially before giving such consent which implies that the Court will have to examine the materials on which the Government decides withdrawal of a case. Sreemati Prativa Rani Dey (Tirtha) vs Dr Mohammad Yousuf Chittagong Medical College 52 DLR (AD) 8. |
Sreemati Prativa Rani Dey (tirtha) vs Dr Mohammad Yousuf Chittagong Medical College | 52 DLR (AD) 8 |
Section 494 |
Withdrawal of criminal, case— Accused can not seek— The accused has no
locus stand! to file an application for withdrawal of a criminal case. The
public Prosecutor only can file application for such withdrawal subject to
the permission of the court.
|
Abdul Khaleque and others Vs. Md. Hanif and others | 1 MLR (AD) 404 |
Section 497(1), r/w section 173 |
Bail–
|
Shafik Rahman =VS= State | 1 LM (AD) 490 |
Sections 497 and 498 |
Sections 497 and 498 Discretions in granting bail should be properly exercised — It has been overlooked that other accused alleged to have committed the same offence were enlarged on bail and there was no specific allegations against the appellants — It was held that the High Court Division has not properly exercised its discretion in refusing bail to the appellants Feroj AH and another Vs. The State 7 BLD (AD) 91. |
Feroj AH and another Vs. The State | 7 BLD (AD) 91 |
Section 497(5) |
Cancellation of bail when not proper — The Special Judge did not exercise his jurisdiction properly in cancelling the bail of the appellant merely upon the apprehension expressed by the prosecution as to his possible abscondence ignoring the fact that he did not do so during the last six years he had been on bail — In the circumstances the High Court Division was wrong in rejecting the applicaton for bail. Sajalendu Das Vs. The State 7 BLD (AD) 154. |
Sajalendu Das Vs. The State | 7 BLD (AD) 154 |
Section 497 |
Discretion in the matter of granting bail — Section 497 Cr PC. enjoins upon the Court a duty to exercise its judicial discretion in the matter of granting bail for ascertaining whether the materials placed before the Court by the prosecution are of such a tangible nature that if left unrequited they may lead to the inference of guilt of the accused — The High Court Division committed an error of law in refusing bail to the appellant holding that "it is very difficulty at this stage to believe that there is no reasonable ground for believing that he has not committed an offence under Section 409 as alleged" — The approach of the High Court Division was wrong and the order of refusal of bail was illegal. A. K. M. Mosharaf Hossian Vs. The State 12 BLD (AD) 175. |
A. K. M. Mosharaf Hossian Vs. The State | 12 BLD (AD) 175 |
Section 497 |
Bail—This section enjoins upon the Court to exercise judicial discretion in the matter of granting bail for ascertaining whether the materials placed before the court by the prosecution are of such a tangible nature that if left unrebutted, they may lead to the inference of guilt of the accused. In the present case there is no other materials on record other than the FIR and mere allegations thereof. The court thus committed an error in refusing bail in this case. AKM Mosharraf Hossain vs State 44 DLR (AD) 246. |
AKM Mosharraf Hossain vs State | 44 DLR (AD) 246 |
Section 497 |
”Save in accordance with law” as mentioned in Article 32 not only refers to criminal law but also civil law which provides for arrest and detention, namely, for recovery of decretal dues and public dues. State vs Faisal Alam Ansari 53 DLR (AD) 43. |
State vs Faisal Alam Ansari | 53 DLR (AD) 43 |
Section 497 |
Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is a procedural law and the accused having alleged to have committed a substantive offence of murder his liberty is curtailed. State vs Faisal Alam Ansari 53 DLR (AD) 43. |
State vs Faisal Alam Ansari | 53 DLR (AD) 43 |
Sections 497 & 498 |
Vires of the law has not been challenged in this case and therefore, we are not called upon to decide the Constitutionality of the law. Every law has a presumption of its Constitutionality. State vs Moyezuddin Sikder 60 DLR (AD) 82. |
State vs Moyezuddin Sikder | 60 DLR (AD) 82 |
Section 497 and 498 |
In the absence of any express or implied prohibition in any other special Law or Rule, the Magistrate concerned may entertain, deal with and dispose of any application for bail of an accused under section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. In case of rejection of his application for bail he may move before the Court of Sessions by filing a Criminal Miscellaneous Case under section 498 and thereafter in case of failure before the Court of Sessions, he can move under section 498 of the aforesaid Code for bail before the High Court Division. …Minaz Ahmed and another Vs. Arif Motahar and others, (Criminal), 16 SCOB [2022] AD 89 ....View Full Judgment |
Minaz Ahmed and another Vs. Arif Motahar and others | 16 SCOB [2022] AD 89 |
Section 498 |
The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898
|
Mia Nuruddin (Apu) =VS= State & another | 1 LM (AD) 474 |
Section 498 |
The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898
|
State =VS= Mahtab Uddin Ahmed Chowdhury | 1 LM (AD) 476 |
Section 498 |
The ad interim bail granted to the accused respondent is cancelled. The Central Jail Authority is directed to send the accused Mahtab uddin Ahmed Chowdhury (Minar) to Feni District jail for facing trial in the case. This petition is disposed of with the above observations and direction. .....State =VS= Mahtab Uddin Ahmed Chowdhury, (Criminal), 2016-[1 LM (AD) 476] ....View Full Judgment |
State =VS= Mahtab Uddin Ahmed Chowdhury | 1 LM (AD) 476 |
Section 498 |
The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898
|
DC, Sylhet =VS= Md. Shahjahan | 3 LM (AD) 547 |
Section 498 |
Bail–
|
The State =VS= Faridul Alam | 4 LM (AD) 522 |
Bail |
Bail–
|
Begum Khaleda Zia =VS= State | 9 LM (AD) 533 |
Section 498 |
Anticipatory bail — From the facts stated in the petition and the circumstances mentioned therein, it appears that the appellant may reasonably apprehend that the police might arrest him to prevent his participation in the election—His arrest may even destroy the chances of his winning the election — Political activities cannot be restrained even by the possibility of resorting to a criminal prosecution — Bail granted to the appellant till 1 (one) week after the postponed election Golam Sarwar Kamal Vs. The State 5 BLD (AD) 110. |
Golam Sarwar Kamal Vs. The State | 5 BLD (AD) 110 |
Section 498 |
The case of the appellant is that he is in possession of the disputed holding and he has already filed Title Suit No 117 of 1983 against the respondent who threatened him to dispossess from his peaceful possession __There is apparent disputes between the parties and as such there was no justification to refuse him bail Syed Mahbubur Rahman alias Mahhubur Rahman and another Vs. Abdul Matin and another 5 BLD (AD) 217. |
Syed Mahbubur Rahman alias Mahhubur Rahman and another Vs. Abdul Matin and another | 5 BLD (AD) 217 |
Section 498 |
When it is reasonable to grant bail — There is apprehension that the trial may be further delayed and the appellants will suffer prolonged custody in the facts of the case it will be reasonable to allow the appellants to remain Section 498 — The appellant was tried in absentia and was convicted under Section 420 of the Penal Code and sentenced to R.I. for 7 years and to pay a fine of Tk 35,000.00 — He filed an appeal before the High Court Division and prayed for bail but his prayer for bail was rejected on the ground that prima facie there was no illegality in the trial — Since there is hardly any chance of abscondence the appellant was entitled to bail. .V. M. Shajhahan Ali Tara Vs. The State 9 BLD (AD) 2. |
V. M. Shajhahan Ali Tara Vs. The State | 9 BLD (AD) 2 |
Section 498 |
The appellant is not named in the FIR. and the police could not gather any material against him although the investigation has been going on for over a year — In the circumstances of the case the High Court Division ought to have enlarged him on bail — The Appellate Division allowed his prayer for bail. Sree Kalyan Kumar Chowdhury Vs. The State 9 BLD (AD) 12. |
Sree Kalyan Kumar Chowdhury Vs. The State | 9 BLD (AD) 12 |
Section 498 |
Rejection of bail petition — Whether appeal is the only remedy — The High Court Division was not right in taking the view that once a petition for bail is rejected no further application can be made before the same Court and the only remedy for the aggrieved lies in an appeal — It is not also right to say than an application for bail could not be filed before the Vacation Judge and that he had no jurisdiction to grant interim bail as the prayer for bail of the appellant was earlier rejected by a Division Bench. M. A. Wahab Advocate Vs. The State 10 BLD (AD) 50. |
M. A. Wahab Advocate Vs. The State | 10 BLD (AD) 50 |
Section 498 |
Interim bail pending appeal — An interim bail can not be allowed to continue for an indefinite period—There is no reason for further extension of the interim bail simply because the appeal against his conviction is pending in the High Court Division — The ad interim bail was, however, extended for a period of six months from date on the expire of which the appellant was to surrender to his bail bond unless within this period his appeal was disposed of by the High Court Division Abdul Hakim Howlader Vs. The State 10 BLD (AD) 126. |
Abdul Hakim Howlader Vs. The State | 10 BLD (AD) 126 |
Section 498 |
If a fugitive surrenders before the High Court Division and prays for bail,
it may either grant bail under section 498 of the Code, on the principle
discussed above or is obliged to hand him over to the police, to be dealt
with in accordance with law– The accused-respondent nos.2 to 14, instead
of surrendering before the police or before the Court of Judicial
Magistrate, surrendered before the High Court Division and prayed for
anticipatory bail.
|
The State =VS= Zakaria Pintu | 11 LM (AD) 387 |
Section 498 |
The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898
|
DC, Dhaka =VS= AHM Fuad | 15 LM (AD) 191 |
Section 498 |
The High Court Division while exercising the discretionary power of
granting anticipatory bail must be guided by the principles laid down by
the Appellate Division––The High Court Division failed to consider the
principle as enunciated in the aforesaid decisions while enlarging the
respondents on anticipatory bail till filing of the police report. Because
sometime investigating agencies require more time to submit their report
for the purpose of proper investigation. In the circumstances, the accused
is not entitled to enjoy the privilege of anticipatory bail till filing of
the police report. Considering the above, Appellate Division is inclined to
modify the order dated 08.11.2023 passed by the High Court Division. The
order dated 08.11.2023 passed by the High Court Division is modified as
under:
|
The State =VS= Zainul Abedin @ Advocate Zainul Abedin | 16 LM (AD) 600 |
Section 498 |
সংশ্লিষ্ট বিচারক বা ম্যাজিষ্ট্রেট মূল আদেশ প্রাপ্তির পরে অনলাইনে শুধুমাত্র আদেশটি কনফার্ম হওয়ার বিষয়ে নিশ্চিত হবেন— এটা প্রত্যাশা করা অন্যায্য (unjust) হবে না যে, অতি ব্যতিক্রমী ক্ষেত্র ব্যতীত হাইকোর্ট বিভাগের মাননীয় বিচারকবৃন্দ কার্য তালিকায় দিন-তারিখ অনুসারে ও আদেশ প্রদানের ক্রম অনুযায়ী জামিনসহ অন্যান্য জরুরী অর্ন্তবর্তী আদেশসমূহে স্বাক্ষর প্রদান করবেন। আদেশ স্বাক্ষরের পর একই পদ্ধতিতে সংশ্লিষ্ট বেঞ্চ কর্মকর্তাবৃন্দ তা সংশ্লিষ্ট শাখায় প্রেরণ করবে। সংশ্লিষ্ট শাখা একইভাবে আদেশ প্রাপ্তি ও গ্রহণের পর তারিখ ও ক্রম অনুসারে আদেশ সংশ্লিষ্ট আদালতে প্রেরণ ও অন-লাইনে আপলোড করবে। —অতএব, হাইকোর্ট বিভাগের সংশ্লিষ্ট অফিস-কে মাননীয় বিচারকদের রায় ও আদেশ বিশেষতঃ জামিন আদেশ ও অন্যান্য অর্ন্তবর্তী আদেশ প্রাপ্ত হওয়ার পর নথিটি গ্রহণ এবং প্রাপ্তির পর দিন ক্ষনের ক্রমানুসারে আদালতের আদেশ সংশ্লিষ্ট আদালতে প্রেরণ ও অন-লাইনে আপলোড করার প্রয়োজনীয় ব্যবস্থা গ্রহণের নির্দেশ দেওয়া হলো। .....রাষ্ট্র =বনাম= মোঃ শহিদুল ইসলাম ওরফে সোহেল সিকদার, (Criminal), 2024(1) [16 LM (AD) 613] ....View Full Judgment |
রাষ্ট্র=বনাম=মোঃ শহিদুল ইসলাম ওরফে সোহেল সিকদার (The State = Vs = Md. Shahidul Islam @ Sohail Sikder) | 16 LM (AD) 613 |
Section 498 |
Dealing with the granting anticipatory bail–– The High Court Division passed the impugned orders overstepping its limits. Appellate Division has given their anxious consideration to such unwarranted attitude of the High Court Division. Such derogatory trend of the High Court Division shall leave an adverse impression upon the criminal to get an upper hand through the hands of law. In such backdrop, this Division’s considered view is that the High Court Division and all other courts are bound to follow the law and propositions enunciated by this Division. This Division also directs the High Court Division to refrain from unscrupulous exercise of the power of granting anticipatory bail. ––Thus, finally taking note to the patent violation of settled decision of this Division regarding the anticipatory bail, Appellate Division disapproves the manner in which the High Court has adjudicated the anticipatory bail applications preferred by the respondents. In the light of the observations made above, this Division finds merit in the submissions of the learned Attorney General. Therefore, the impugned redress passed by the High Court Division is liable to be set aside. .....The State =VS= Md. Kabir Biswas, (Criminal), 2022(2) [13 LM (AD) 13] ....View Full Judgment |
The State =VS= Md. Kabir Biswas | 13 LM (AD) 13 |
Section 498 |
Considering the statements under section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure wherein no specific overt act involving the appellants with the killing of the victim is found the appellants are granted bail and if the trial starts the Sessions Judge will be free to take them into custody during trial. Abdul Matin vs State 44 DLR (AD) 8. |
Abdul Matin vs State | 44 DLR (AD) 8 |
Section 498 |
Bail—It is not the prima facie case against the accused but reasonable grounds’ for believing that he has been guilty which prohibits granting of bail. The onus is on the prosecution to disclose those reasonable grounds. Court has to examine the data available in the case to find out whether reasonable grounds exist to connect the accused with the crime alleged. Shaikh Shahidul Islam vs State 44 DLR (AD) 192. |
Shaikh Shahidul Islam vs State | 44 DLR (AD) 192 |
Section 498 |
Sentence for one year—The Court ought to have exercised discretion in granting bail to the appellants in view of the short sentence of imprisonment. Saimuddin vs State 43 DLR (AD) 151. |
Saimuddin vs State | 43 DLR (AD) 151 |
Section 498 |
Bail in a case where the sentence is of short duration—In the present case the - sentence is of two years and the disposal of the appeal in question normally takes time. In that circumstances the High Court Division ought to have exercised judicial discretion in the matter of granting bail to the appellants. The judicial discretion having not been properly exercised in the facts of the case the order is set aside and the appeal allowed. Dhanu Mia vs State 43 DLR (AD) 119. |
Dhanu Mia vs State | 43 DLR (AD) 119 |
Section 498 |
High Court Division criminal revision cancelled the appellant’s when there was no new material before it and no allegation of tampering with the evidence. Co-accused against whom cognizance of a murder case has already been taken is already on bail. High Court Division did not exercise its judicial discretion properly in cancelling the appellant’s bail—Appellants to remain on bail already granted by Upazila Magistrate. Bakul Howlader vs State 43 DLR (AD) 14. |
Bakul Howlader vs State | 43 DLR (AD) 14 |
Section 498 |
Bail—When there is hardly any chance of abscondance of the appellant in the peculiar circumstances, the Court has found that he is entitled to bail—Appeal allowed. We need not consider the appellant’s contentions with regard to the order of conviction. In the peculiar circumstances of the case we think the appeallant is entitled to bail particularly where there is hardly any chance of abscondance. The respondent found it difficult to oppose the appellant’s prayer. SM Shajahan Ali Tara vs State 41 DLR (AD) 112. |
SM Shajahan Ali Tara vs State | 41 DLR (AD) 112 |
Section 498 and 517 |
An application for disposal of seized articles can be filed under section 517 of the Code before the proper Court after conclusion of trial. The High Court Division acted illegally and without jurisdiction in releasing the seized goods at the time of issuance of Rule in an application under section 498 of the Code. State vs Abdur Rahim 58 DLR (AD) 65. |
State vs Abdur Rahim | 58 DLR (AD) 65 |
Section 498 |
Successive bail petition, propriety of—The Judges were not right in
taking the view that once a petition for bail is rejected no further
application can be made and the remedy lies only in an appeal. It is also
not right to say than an application for bail could not be filed before the
Vacation Judge and that he had no jurisdiction to grant interim bail (when
he was himself a party to the rejection of bail for the same accused
earlier by the Division Bench). At the most, it may be said that it was
indiscreet on the part of the Vacation Judge to grant bail in the facts of
the case.
|
MA Wahab vs State | 42 DLR (AD) 223 |
Section 498 |
Bail matter—High Court Division admitted a criminal appeal but rejected the prayer for bail pending disposal of the appeal—Ad interim bail granted by tle Appellate Division at leave stage for two months cannot be allowed to continue indefinitely—ad-interim bail extended for six months more and meanwhile parties are directed to make sincere effoils for disposal of the appeals—on expiry of the extended period, prayer for bail is to be moved before the High Court Division. Azizul Hoq vs State 42 DLR (AD) 284. |
Azizul Hoq vs State | 42 DLR (AD) 284 |
Section 498 |
The law permits granting of bail even in a case where there are such
reasonable ground for refusing bail, in the case of any woman or any sick
or infirm person.
|
State vs Jobaida Rashid | 49 DLR (AD) 119 |
Section 498 |
Bail when can be refused—
|
Ashraful Vs. The State | 1 MLR (AD) 372 |
Section 498 |
Adinterim bail—When can be granted—
|
Jafar AH Bali Vs. The State | 3 MLR (AD) 80 |
Section 498 |
Anticipatory bail— Cancellation of— when cannot be made—
|
Hamidul Haque Advocate Vs. The State | 3 MLR (AD) 158 |
Section 498 |
Grant of bail-Discretionary power of court-Grant of bail to an accused in
non-bailable case is discretion of the court. The refusal of bail in an
arms case when trial was going on is not illegal. However if the trial
cannot be concluded within reasonable time, accused may move fresh bail
petition in appropriate court.
|
Emran Hossain Vs. The State | 4 MLR (AD) 146 |
Section 498 |
Anticipatory or pre-arrest bail— Jurisdiction of the High Court
Division—
|
The State Vs. Abdul Wahab Shah Chowdhury | 4 MLR (AD) 291 |
Section 498 |
Bail matter–
|
State =VS= Begum Khaleda Zia | 6 LM (AD) 88 |
Section 498 |
Without surrendering before the trial court The High Court Division issued
Rule and granted ad interim bail– It appears that the respondent was
neither in custody nor appeared in person when his revisional application
was moved. Clearly the High Court Division ought not to have considered his
petition as he was undoubtedly a fugitive from justice. Hence, the question
of issuing any Rule did not arise.
|
The State =VS= Dr. Fazlur Rahman | 9 LM (AD) 113 |
Section 498 |
Grant or refusal of anticipatory bail–
|
The State =VS= Morshed Hasan Khan(Professor Dr.) | 7 LM (AD) 292 |
Section 498 |
Santrash Birodhi Ain, 2009 (as amended in 2013)
|
Deputy Commissioner, Chattogram =VS= Md. Mir Ibrahim | 14 LM (AD) 314 |
Section 509A |
The doctor who examined the victim girl was not available and therefore another doctor PW 9 was examined to prove the handwriting of the examining doctor. His report was admissible in law. Sobesh Ali vs Jarina Begum 49 DLR (AD) 143. |
Sobesh Ali vs Jarina Begum | 49 DLR (AD) 143 |
Section 509A |
Postmortem Report- The postmortem report was filed under Section 509A of
the Code of Criminal Procedure as the Doctor was not available. Section
509A Cr. P. C. contemplates certain procedure but those were not complied
with and for that the postmortem report could be left out of consideration.
As the factum of murder has been proved by four eye witnesses the
postmortem report as corroborative evidence is not absolutely essential.
The assault on the deceased was proved by the eye witnesses and the same
was corroborated by the informant P. W. 1 Nurul Islam who heard from the
eye witnesses about the occurrence immediately after the occurrence. The
learned Single Judge failed to see that the postmortem report even if not
taken into consideration does not weaken the prosecution case for lack of
corroboration of the eye witnesses.
|
The State Vs. Ful Miah | 7 BLT (AD) 337 |
Section 509A |
The doctor who examined the victim and gave the report was not examined
witness, even the I.O. did not say anything about the medical examination.
P.W. stated that the victim was taken to Senba Health Complex, he also did
not anything about medical report. We do not understand how the medical
report was made exhibit when it was not formally produced before the court
and how courts relied upon it. There is no evidence to show that the
medical officer who made report was dead or was incapable of giving
evidence or was beyond the limits Bangladesh and his attendance could not
beocured without much delay. Unless the facts are proved or brought the
notice of 1 court, a medical report cannot be admitted r evidence in view
of the provisions of section 509A of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
|
Mir Hossain & Ors. Vs. The State | 12 BLT (AD) 58 |
Sections 517 and 520 |
Disposal of property — Appellate Court's power to make orders — To make the orders the Appellate Court must be in session of the matter involving an order passed by Subordinate Court — It cannot be said that after passing the judgment and order on July 29, 1980 in disposing of the criminal appeal, the Court was no longer in session of the matter — The order passed by the Magistrate was no longer pending consideration by the Additional Sessions Judge — He had obviously no jurisdiction to pass the impugned order on September 11. 1980. Northern Engineers Ltd Vs. Moklesur Rahman 5 BLD (AD) 181. |
Northern Engineers Ltd Vs. Moklesur Rahman | 5 BLD (AD) 181 |
Section 517 |
Disposal of seized goods—It is for the trial Court to consider all the relevant facts and hear all the necessary parties before making an order for disposal of goods under section 517 CrPC, if called upon. Sompong vs State 45 DLR (AD) 110. |
Sompong vs State | 45 DLR (AD) 110 |
Section 517(1) |
For an order to be passed under the aforesaid provision for disposal of the
goods after the conclusion of an enquiry or trial, the Court has to satisfy
itself as to the conditions mentioned therein, one of the conditions is
that the goods must be produced before it or in its custody.
|
Sompong Vs The State | 13 BLD (AD) 121 |
Section 522(1) |
In the face of the Civil Court's order of injunction in favour of the accused a Criminal Court cannot accept the claim of possession in the disputed property made by a party who is obliged to get the order of injunction vacated — The appellant armed with an order of injunction in his favour could not be legally convicted for criminal trespass _The order of conviction and that of restoration of possession are set aside Samiruddin Ahmed alias Santir Mia Vs. The State 8 BLD (AD) 157. |
Samiruddin Ahmed alias Santir Mia Vs. The State | 8 BLD (AD) 157 |
Section 522 |
Restoration of possession of immovable property in a case of criminal
trespass—Order for restoration of possession of immovable property under
section 522 of the Code of Criminal Procedure may be made following
conviction in a case under section 447 of the Penal Code when the
dispossession was caused by use of force, show of force or criminal
intimidation.
|
Mohammad Ali Member Vs. Abul Fazal Mia Md. Mazedul Huq and another | 4 MLR (AD) 373 |
Section 522(1) |
Restoration of possession of the case land
|
Mohammad Ali & Ors. Vs. A. F. M. Mazedul Huq Khan Lohani & Anr. | 8 BLT (AD) 96 |
Section 522(1) |
Power to restore possession of immovable property
|
Mohammad Ali Member Vs Abdul Fazul Mia Md. Mazedul Huq and another | 19 BLD (AD) 260 |
Section 523 |
The Provision of Section-523 Cr.P.C. empowers the concerned Magistrate to
decided himself as to the entitlement of possession of the seized goods by
either of its claimants namely, the informant- Islami Bank Bangladesh
Limited or the 3rd party petitioner Al-Baraka Bank Bangladesh Ltd.
|
Islami Bank Bangladesh Ltd. Vs. Al-Baraka Bank Bangladesh Ltd. & Ors. | 7 BLT (AD) 256 |
Section 526 |
Power of the High Court Division — The High Court Division has power to transfer a case pending in the court of any Special Judge to the court of another Special Judge irrespective of the territorial limits of either of the two Special Judges — This transfer by the High Court Division may be anywhere within Bangladesh while the jurisdiction of transfer of a case by the Senior Special Judge is limited within his district The State Vs. The Divisional Special Judge Khulna and another 12 BLD (AD) 166. |
The State Vs. The Divisional Special Judge Khulna and another | 12 BLD (AD) 166 |
Section 526 |
Even if the case of the accused is accepted that the Public Prosecutor
rebuked him and made comment while Pw.1 was examined cannot be the grounds
for creation of apprehension in the mind of the accused that he would not
get fair justice from the Divisional Special Judge, Barisal and such
grounds do not appear to be bonafide. The High Court Division without
issuing any Rule upon the State disposed of the application transferring
the case from the Division Special Judge to the Sessions Judge, Barisal.
Such kind of exercise of power by the High court Division cannot be
approved.
|
Anti-Corruption Commission -Vs- AKM Shamim Hasan and another | 1 ALR (AD) 69 |
Section 526 |
Security of the informant and the witnesses has to be ensured:
|
Mst. Fatema Vs. The State & ors | 17 SCOB [2023] AD 79 |
Section 526 |
We are of the view that justice would be best served if we direct the Superintendent of Police, Narayangonj to take all necessary steps for ensuring security of the informant and witnesses of the case, so that they may adduce their evidence in the Court without any fear and interruption from any corner. Accordingly, the Superintendent of Police, Narayangonj is directed to take necessary steps in ensuring security of the informant [petitioner] and witnesses of the case so that they may adduce their evidence in the Court in accordance with law. ...Mst. Fatema Vs. The State & ors, (Criminal), 17 SCOB [2023] AD 79 ....View Full Judgment |
Mst. Fatema Vs. The State & ors | 17 SCOB [2023] AD 79 |
Section 526 |
Transfer of a criminal case— Conditions for transfer—The High Court Division may withdraw a case to itself without issuing any notice upon either party when some question of law or unusual difficulty is involved therein. Neither of these situations is present here. There is no justification for the impugned transfer. Sirajul Islam (Md) vs Keramat Ali Bhuiyan 47 DLR (AD) 64. |
Sirajul Islam (Md) vs Keramat Ali Bhuiyan | 47 DLR (AD) 64 |
Section 526 |
The order of transfer of the case is set aside as the Court below unwillingly transgressed a basic principle of adjudication— ‘hear the other side’—for an opportunity to meet allegations. Khalequzzaman vs Md Illias 48 DLR (AD) 52. |
Khalequzzaman vs Md Illias | 48 DLR (AD) 52 |
Section 526 |
The High Court Division can suo motu transfer a sessions case. The informant and his victim brother by preferring the application has merely informed the High Court Division about the state of the circumstances surrounding the sessions case. Jahir Gazi vs Belal Hossain, Advocate 51 DLR (AD) 88. |
Jahir Gazi vs Belal Hossain, Advocate | 51 DLR (AD) 88 |
Section 526 |
Order of transfer of a case passed ex parte without any notice either to the accused or to the State and without calling for any report from the Court concerned by merely saying that without accepting or rejecting the grounds for the transfer the Court thinks justice will be met if the case is disposed of by the Court of Sessions Judge cannot be legally sustained. Moslem Uddin (Md) vs State 52 DLR (AD) 50. |
Moslem Uddin (Md) vs State | 52 DLR (AD) 50 |
Section 526(3) |
Ensuring security of the informant and witnesses of the case, so that they may adduce their evidence in the Court without any fear–– The High Court Division came to a finding that both the parties forced each other to give false testimony or give testimony in favour of either of the parties. And as such the High Court Division ought to have directed the law enforcing agency to take necessary steps for ensuring security of the informant and the witnesses of the case so that they could adduce their evidence in court without any fear. ––Appellate Division is of the view that justice would be best served if this Division direct the Superintendent of Police, Narayangonj to take all necessary steps for ensuring security of the informant and witnesses of the case, so that they may adduce their evidence in the Court without any fear and interruption from any corner. .....Fatema(Mst.) =VS= The State, (Criminal), 2023(1) [14 LM (AD) 454] ....View Full Judgment |
Fatema(Mst.) =VS= The State | 14 LM (AD) 454 |
Section 526 |
The contention that the transfer of the case from Munshiganj to Dhaka for trial will tend to the general convenience of the parties as most of the witnesses hail from Dh has substance. Roquib Mohammad Fakrul alias Rocky vs Md Abdul Kashem 56 DLR (AD) 191. |
Roquib Mohammad Fakrul alias Rocky vs Md Abdul Kashem | 56 DLR (AD) 191 |
Section 526(1)(C) |
Transfer of Case— When can be allowed—
|
The State Vs. Saman alias Faysal Ahmed and another | 3 MLR (AD) 160 |
Section 526 |
Transfer of Session case—
|
Moslemaddin (Md.) Vs. The State & another | 5 MLR (AD) 61 |
Section 528(2) |
A transfer application in respect of a proceeding under Section 145 Cr.P.C. was filed before the S. D. M. who called for the record of the case and fixed a date of hearing but no order of stay was passed — The trying Magistrate having received the intimation of the S. D. M.'s order was not competent to dispose of the proceeding under Section 145 Cr.P.C. finally before the transfer application was heard by the S DM Md. Mafizur Rahman Vs. Ahdus Salam and others 1 BLD (AD) 213. |
Md. Mafizur Rahman Vs. Ahdus Salam and others | 1 BLD (AD) 213 |
Section 528 |
The petitioner was named as an accused under various sections of the Penal
Code including section 302 of the Penal Code. In that case police submitted
a final report in favour of the petitioner and he was discharged by the
learned Magistrate. A Naraji Petition having been rejected, the Sessions
Judge under section 436 of the Code of Criminal Procedure directed for
further enquiry and at that stage the application for transfer was
filed- Held: The petitioner cannot at this stage interfere with judicial
enquiry by filing an application for transfer.
|
Haji Ali Asgar Bepari vs. the State & Anr. | 6 BLT (AD) 129 |
Section 535(2) |
Whether conviction of the accused who was not charged with an offence can be maintained — Since it appears that a failure of justice has been occasioned by the omission to frame a proper charge, the conviction cannot be maintained by taking recourse to Section 535 Cr.P C Joynal Abedin and others Vs. The State 5 BLD (AD) 257. |
Joynal Abedin and others Vs. The State | 5 BLD (AD) 257 |
Section 537 |
Sentence passed in lump is only an irregularity not affecting the Court’s competence to pass order of conviction and sentence. Haider Ali Khan vs State 47 DLR (AD) 47. |
Haider Ali Khan vs State | 47 DLR (AD) 47 |
Section 537 |
Irregularity in mentioning the section curable—
|
Abul Kalam and others Vs. Abu Daad Gazi and another | 4 MLR (AD) 414 |
Section 537 |
The acceptance of the charge sheet beyond the specified period without any
formal prayer by the investigating officer for extension of the period of
time may at best been an irregularity but the same is curable under section
537.
|
Kali Pada Datta Vs. Chandra Dev & Anr. | 6 BLT (AD) 244 |
Section 537 |
In the instant case, although the investigation was conducted by an Assistant Inspector and was not duly authorized by the order of Magistrate first Class, his report could still be held to submit fall within the purview of section 190(l)(b) of the Code, or in the alternative, can be accepted as a complaint within sub-section 1(a) of that section. Therefore trial on the basis of a report submitted by Assistant Inspector would not be vitiated as that would be only an irregularity curable under section 537 of the Code. Sri Bimal Chandra Adhikeri Vs. The State 12 BLT (AD)-83 |
Sri Bimal Chandra Adhikeri Vs. The State | 12 BLT (AD) 83 |
Section 540 |
Money Laundering Protirdoh Ain, 2002
|
Durnity Daman Commission, BD =VS= Dr. Khandaker Mosharraf Hossain | 12 LM (AD) 512 |
Section 540 |
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881
|
Md. Nurul Islam Biplob =VS= The State | 16 LM (AD) 577 |
Section 540 |
The section is expressed in the widest possible term— It cannot be said that the intention of the section is to limit its application to Court witnesses only. Hemayatuddin @ Auranga vs State 46 DLR (AD) 186. |
Hemayatuddin @ Auranga vs State | 46 DLR (AD) 186 |
Section 540 |
There is absolutely no material to show that accused Ramizuddin had any knowledge about the proceeding ever since it was started against him, as at all material times he was abroad. In that view the discretion exercised by the Additional Sessions Judge allowing the accuser’s application for cross-examination of PWs affirmed by the High Court Division calls for no interference. Nimar Ali vs Ramizuddin 50 DLR (AD) 162. |
Nimar Ali vs Ramizuddin | 50 DLR (AD) 162 |
Section 540A |
Section 540A of the Code indicates that the personal presence of the
accused is not always mandatory, the Court can exempt from personal
appearance if the conditions provided therein are fulfilled–
|
Begum Khaleda Zia =VS= Anti-Corruption Commission | 6 LM (AD) 208 |
Section 540 |
Section 540 is express in the possible term and it can not be said that the
intention of the section is to limit its application to Court witnesses
only. The power is available to the Court “if his evidence appears to it
essential to the just decision of the case.”
|
Hemayatuddin alias Auranga Vs. The State | 14 BLD (AD) 9 |
Section 549 |
Since the appellants were not on active service within the meaning of section 8(1) of the Army Act, 1952 the appellants cannot be tried under the Army Act and, as such, there was no offence of mutiny leading to murder in the facts of the instant case. Even if one were to accept for the sake of argument that offences committed were civil offences within the meaning of section 8(2) read with section 59(2) of the Army Act, there is no legal bar in trying those accused persons in the Sessions Court in compliance with the provisions of section 94 of the Army Act read with section 549 of the CrPC. There is no legal bar for trial of the appellants in the Criminal Court in the relevant case, inasmuch as, the offences committed are in the nature of murder simpler. (Per Md Muzammel Hossain J) Major Bazlul Huda vs State 62 DLR (AD) 1. |
Major Bazlul Huda vs State | 62 DLR (AD) 1 |
Section 549 |
The Army Act, 1952
|
Major Md. Bazlul Huda(Artillery)=VS=The State(Banga Bandhu Murder Case) | 9 LM (AD) 386 |
Section 549 |
Criminal Court and Court Martial– A Criminal Court and Court Martial have concurrent jurisdiction to try a civil offence then under Section 94 of the Army Act it is the discretion of the prescribed Officer to decide before which Court the proceedings shall be instituted. If he decides that it should be instituted before a court-martial, then he can direct that the accused shall be detained in military custody. But in the instant case, the prescribed officer has neither exercised his jurisdiction nor instituted the proceedings before the court-martial. Furthermore, the convict appellants did not even raised any objection before the criminal Court during trial. It is only for the prescribed officer to decide as to the forum of trial and, as such, in the instant case, neither the prescribed officer nor the accused appellant challenged the forum of the trial, rather in the Appellate Division, at a belated stage, such a challenge is not tenable in law. Since in the instant case, trial of a civil offence before a criminal Court is found to be legal and valid and, as such, the argument advanced by the defence is not tenable in law. (Per Md. Muzammel Hossain, J) ...Major Md. Bazlul Huda(Artillery)=VS=The State (Banga Bandhu Murder Case), (Criminal), 2020 [9 LM (AD) 386] ....View Full Judgment |
Major Md. Bazlul Huda(Artillery)=VS=The State (Banga Bandhu Murder Case) | 9 LM (AD) 386 |
Section 550 |
Read with Bangladesh Passport Order, 1973 Article-7 The Seizure/impounding
of the Passport
|
Bangladesh & Ors. Vs. M. Aynul Haqi Ors. | 12 BLT (AD) 91 |
Section 561A |
Penal Code, 1860
|
Anti Corruption Commission Vs. Md. Rezaul Kabir & ors | 8 SCOB [2016] AD 144 |
Section 561A |
High Court Division shall have the discretion to award costs against a party under a very extraordinary and exceptional circumstances in a judicious manner and not in contradiction with any of the specific provisions of the Code to meet the following situations: (i) to prevent abuse of the process of any Court or (ii) to give effect to any order passed under the Code or (iii) otherwise to secure the ends of justice. Costs may also be given to meet the litigation expenses or can be exemplary to achieve the aforesaid purposes. .....Khondker Latifur Rahman =VS= The State, (Criminal), 2018 (1) [4 LM (AD) 383] ....View Full Judgment |
Khondker Latifur Rahman =VS= The State | 4 LM (AD) 383 |
Section 561A |
For quashing a proceeding under section 561A of the Code, the High Court
Division has scope only to see whether there are materials on record
showing that the allegations made in the FIR and the charge sheet,
constitute an offence. If there be any such material the proceeding shall
not be quashed, in that case the trial Court will decide the case on the
basis of evidence to be adduced by the parties. This Division in the case
of Ali Akkas vs Enavet Hossain, reported in 17 BLD (AD) 44 held to bring a
case within the purview of section 561A of the Code for the purpose of
quashing a proceeding, one of the following conditions must be fulfilled:
|
Begum Khaleda Zia =VS= State | 4 LM (AD) 359 |
Section 561A |
The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898
|
Begum Khaleda Zia =VS= State | 4 LM (AD) 359 |
Section 561A |
High Court Division cannot exercise its extraordinary power to quash the
proceedings under 561A of Cr.PC–
|
Durnity Daman Commission Vs. Engineer Mosharrf Hossen & 2 another | 1 LM (AD) 480 |
Section 561A |
The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898
|
Md. Rafiqul Islam & others =VS= Md. Fakruddin & others | 1 LM (AD) 503 |
Section 561A |
The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898
|
Md.Shafiuddin =VS= The State | 1 LM (AD) 527 |
Section 561A |
The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898
|
Md. Shahidul Islam =VS= Shopon Bepari & another | 1 LM (AD) 530 |
Section 561A |
Nari-O-Shishu Nirjatan Daman Ain-2000
|
Umme Kulsum (Sweety) =VS= Md. Nazmul Islam | 12 LM (AD) 696 |
Sections 561A |
The Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (Amendment Act 1994)
|
SM Anwar Hossain =VS= Md. Shafiul Alam (Chand) | 12 LM (AD) 617 |
Section 561A |
The Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881
|
Alhaj Golam Rasul Belal =VS= Habibullah Shakir | 12 LM (AD) 672 |
Section 561A |
A criminal proceeding against a partner of a business firm — Once it is found that it was a partnership business and the complainant and the ac the witnesses under Section 161 Cr.P.C. - In the facts and circumstances of the ise, the High Court Division committed no illegality in refusing to quash the proceeding and directing the trial Court to include the trial on the basis of the available records within 3 months — The appellate Division directed the trial Court to conclude the trial within 3 months ailing which the proceeding will stand quashed. Azhar Ali Khan and others Vs. The State 5 BLD (AD) 75. |
Azhar Ali Khan and others Vs. The State | 5 BLD (AD) 75 |
Section 561A |
Quashing a criminal proceeding — In the absence of any challenge made in a previous civil suit between the parties regarding the genu-iness of the kabalas, the trial Court decreed the suit — The respondent cannot be allowed to harass the appellants by starting the criminal proceeding against them and the same is quashed Md. Farooque and others Vs. The State and another 5 BLD (AD) 80. |
Md. Farooque and others Vs. The State and another | 5 BLD (AD) 80 |
Section 561A |
Since the appellants helped the police in discharging their duties, whatever the appellant's real motive might have been, their prosecution in the instant case would serve no useful purpose and the impugned proceeding will amount to an abuse of the process of the Court — The proceeding is quashed. Md Khorshed Ali and others Vs. The State and another 5 BLD (AD) 223 |
Md Khorshed Ali and others Vs. The State and another | 5 BLD (AD) 223 |
Section 561A |
The Director and the Chairman of the Board of Directors of a Company are trustees in respect of the fund of the Company which is under their control and they can be proceeded against for misappropriation of the fund of the company — But this principle can not be applied to the facts of the present case — Therefore the criminal case against the appellants at the instance of the respondents, who retired from the company before filing of the complaint, is quashed as the dispute is a civil dispute. Md Yameen and another Vs. K. A. Basilar and others 6 BLD (AD) 305.Ref. 17 DLR (SC) 52; 34 DLR (AD) 47, AIR 1963 (Cal) 64, (1884) 1 Ch Div. 616. |
Md Yameen and another Vs. K. A. Basilar and others | 6 BLD (AD) 305 |
Section 561A |
Quashing of proceedings — Mere making of a false or untrue statement in a document does not constitute an offence of forgery, where the document is executed by a person who purports to execute it — The ingredients of the offence of cheating are not at all attracted upon the facts alleged in the case — The proceeding is quashed Radhahallah Sarker Vs. Pijush Kanti Chakravorty and another 7 BLD (AD) 32. |
Radhahallah Sarker Vs. Pijush Kanti Chakravorty and another | 7 BLD (AD) 32 |
Section 561A |
In the face of a clear averment in the petition of complaint that the accused totally denied the receipt of any money from the complainant, the question of civil liability does not arise and the High Court Division rightly refused to quash the impugned proceeding Abdur Rahim alias A. N. M. Abdur Rahim Vs. Enamul Huq and another 12 BLD (AD) 130. |
Abdur Rahim alias A. N. M. Abdur Rahim Vs. Enamul Huq and another | 12 BLD (AD) 130 |
Section 561A |
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898
|
Sourthern University Bangladesh =VS= Md. Osman | 11 LM (AD) 147 |
Section 561A |
A criminal proceeding cannot be quashed on the basis of defence materials
which are still not part of the materials for the prosecution– This
section has given the widest jurisdiction to the High Court Division to
exercise of its inherent power, to secure the ends of justice, to prevent
the abuse of process of the Court or to give effect to any order under this
Code. Therefore, the inherent power of the Court must be exercised
cautiously and judiciously.
|
Deputy Commissioner, Gopalgonj =VS= Kamrul alias Kamruzzaman | 10 LM (AD) 390 |
Section 561A |
Nari-O-Shishu Nirjatan Daman Ain, 2000
|
Dr APM Sohrab-uz-zaman =VS=State | 1 LM (AD) 466 |
Section 561 |
The Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881
|
S.M. Redwan =VS= Md. Rezaul Islam | 3 LM (AD) 605 |
Section 561A |
The Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881
|
Ashfaq Hossain =VS= The State | 10 LM (AD) 515 |
Section-561A |
Quashment–
|
RAJUK =VS=Manzur Ahmed & Others | 1 LM (AD) 1 |
Section 561A |
The Penal Code, 1860
|
Anti Corruption Commission =VS= Md. Rezaul Kabir | 3 LM (AD) 509 |
Section 561A |
Contempt of Courts Act, 2013
Section 2(3), 2(6), 2(8)
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898
Section 561A
Contemnor, Mr. Sohel Rana guilty of gross contempt of Court although
exonerate the contemnor— It is not the case of the appellant that he
misunderstood the order of the High Court Division or there is ambiguity
therein. Because, he did not say a single word that the court’s order was
unclear and ambiguous. —Exonerate the contemnor, Mr. Sohel Rana.
Nevertheless, it is crucial to issue a strong admonition, underscoring the
significance of adhering strictly to directives from the highest court in
the country. It is our expectation that this incident serves as a lesson
for all judicial officers, reaffirming the principle that the authority of
the judiciary must be respected and upheld at all times.
|
Sohel Rana =VS= The State | 16 LM (AD) 14 |
Section 561A |
The Rule issuing Bench of the High Court Division overstepped in its jurisdiction in not considering that the petitioner filed the application under section 561A of the Code of Criminal Procedure without surrendering to the jurisdiction of the appropriate court and thus illegally entertained the application under section 561A and stayed further proceedings of the case. ...Dr. Zubaida Rahman Vs. The State & anr, (Criminal), 17 SCOB [2023] AD 54 ....View Full Judgment |
Dr. Zubaida Rahman Vs. The State & anr | 17 SCOB [2023] AD 54 |
Section 561A |
It is well settled that when a person seeks remedy from a court of law either in writ jurisdiction or criminal appellate, revisional or miscellaneous jurisdiction under section 561A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, he/she ought to submit to due process of justice. The Court would not Act in aid of an accused person who is a fugitive from law and justice. ...Dr. Zubaida Rahman Vs. The State & anr, (Criminal), 17 SCOB [2023] AD 54 ....View Full Judgment |
Dr. Zubaida Rahman Vs. The State & anr | 17 SCOB [2023] AD 54 |
Section 561A |
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881
|
Md. Amam Hossain Milu =VS= The State | 16 LM (AD) 608 |
Section 561A |
Madok Drabbya Neontron Ain, 1990
|
The State =VS= Md. Ramizuddin | 13 LM (AD) 568 |
Section 561A |
Section 241A and 265C— Distinction between—
|
Latifa Akhter and others Vs. the State and another | 4 MLR (AD) 187 |
Section 561A |
Nari-O-Shishu Nirjatan Daman Ain, 2000
|
Hasina Akhter =VS= Amena Begum | 13 LM (AD) 598 |
Section 561A |
When a prosecution arises out of ill-motive or improper motive the machinery of administration of justice need not be available to such person. Reason of delay in lodging FIR is unconvincing. Md Shamsuddin vs State 40 DLR (AD) 69. |
Md Shamsuddin vs State | 40 DLR (AD) 69 |
Section 561A |
The informant’s plea that he could not lodge FIR due to alleged lawlessness even after 1975 although there was constitutional government for over 4 years except a Martial Law Government for a brief period is unacceptable. The proceedings are quashed. Md Shamsuddin vs State 40 DLR (AD) 69. |
Md Shamsuddin vs State | 40 DLR (AD) 69 |
Section 561A and 369 |
Quashment of proceedings and correction of clerical errors- two defferent
aspects—Proceedings of a Criminal Case can be quashed under section
561A while mere clerical errors may be corrected under section 369 Cr.P.C.
Judgment cannot be setaside under section 369 Cr.P.C. for rehearing.
|
Shahiduddin (Md.) Vs. Md. Rahalullah and others | 5 MLR (AD) 62 |
Section 561A |
Mere delay in lodging a complaint is not a ground for quashing a proceeding. There may be circumstances in which lodging of FIR as to commission of an offence may be delayed. Md Shamsuddin vs State 40 DLR (AD) 69. |
Md Shamsuddin vs State | 40 DLR (AD) 69 |
Section 561A |
Facts of the instant case do not bring it within the ambit of exceptional circumstances in which the extraordinary power of the Court may be exercised. Md. Shamsuddin vs State 40 DLR (AD) 69. |
Md. Shamsuddin vs State | 40 DLR (AD) 69 |
Section 561A |
A timely GD entry of course strengthens the allegation made in the complaint and its absence may create doubt about it; but doubt in the allegation is a matter to be considered at the trial only. Md Shamsuddin vs State 40 DLR (AD) 69. |
Md Shamsuddin vs State | 40 DLR (AD) 69 |
Section 561A |
The fact that the accused were tried and found guilty and then unsuccessfully filed an appeal and a revisional application cannot be a ground, in the facts of the present case (i.e. absence of any legal evidence), for refusing to exercise the Court’s inherent power to secure the ends of justice by way of setting aside their conviction. Mofuzzal Hossain Mollah vs State 45 DLR (AD) 175. |
Mofuzzal Hossain Mollah vs State | 45 DLR (AD) 175 |
Section 561A |
In a proceeding under this provision the court should not be drawn in an enquiry as to the truth or otherwise of the facts which are not in the prosecution case. HM Ershad vs State 45 DLR (AD) 48. |
HM Ershad vs State | 45 DLR (AD) 48 |
Section 561A |
Mere plea of right of private defence cannot be a ground for quashing the criminal proceeding, for such plea is to be established by the accused who takes it. A criminal proceeding is liable to be quashed only if the facts alleged in the First Information Report of complaint petition, even if admitted, do not constitute any criminal offence or the proceeding is barred by any provision of law. Where disputed facts are involved, evidence will be necessary to determine the issue. The appellants have produced an order of temporary injunction against the complainant’s party. This must be considered along with other evidence during the trial. Their application for quashing the proceedings is found to have been rightly refused by the High Court Division. SM Khalilur Rahman vs State 42 DLR (AD) 62. |
SM Khalilur Rahman vs State | 42 DLR (AD) 62 |
Section 561A |
Quashing of proceedings for alleged breach of trust and cheating: Money claims, not the outcome of a particular transaction but arose after year-end accounting following regular business between the parties. If on settlement of accounts at the end of a period some money falls due to one party from the other party and the other party fails to pay the dues, such liability cannot be termed criminal liability. Allegation that dues were allowed to accrue dishonestly, neither attract an offence under section 420 nor under section 406 or under any other section. The whole allegation in complaint petition, even if true, cannot form basis of any criminal proceeding. The proceedings are quashed. Syed Ali Mir vs Syed Omar Ali 42 DLR (AD) 240. |
Syed Ali Mir vs Syed Omar Ali | 42 DLR (AD) 240 |
Section 561A |
Stay of proceeding—In the facts of the case as in point of time the civil suit was instituted before the filing of the FIR and the questioned documents in their originals are yet to be produced and examined by the civil Court. The criminal proceeding where the documents are claimed as forged, may, in the interest of justice, be stayed till the disposal of the civil suit. Zakir Hossain vs State 43 DLR (AD) 102. |
Zakir Hossain vs State | 43 DLR (AD) 102 |
Section 561A |
lt has been asserted that the FIR itself was lodged by the complainant after receiving an order from the Home Ministry and not on his own. A prosecution cannot be quashed just because it was initiated at the instance of the Home Ministry. The question of possession can only be decided on evidence and not on submission on law as to what constitutes possession. The question whether the proceeding should be quashed or not should be decided on facts alleged in the FIR and charge-sheet. The accused’s general denial that the facts disclosed in the FIR are not true will not do. To succeed, the accused must show that the facts alleged by the prosecution do not constitute any offence or that the prosecution is otherwise barred by law. Hussain Mohammad Ershad vs State 43 DLR (AD) 50. |
Hussain Mohammad Ershad vs State | 43 DLR (AD) 50 |
Section 561A |
Quashing of proceeding— Court will be loath to stifle a prosecution at the initial stage unless facts are such as would attract inference that even upon admitted facts no case can be made out and continuation of the proceeding would be an abuse of the process of the Court. Al-haj Md Serajuddowlah vs State 43 DLR (AD) 198. |
Al-haj Md Serajuddowlah vs State | 43 DLR (AD) 198 |
Section 561A |
The Drug Control Ordinance is an additional forum for trying drug offences. Taking of cognizance and framing of charge by the Tribunal under the Special Powers Act in respect of offences relating to possession of spurious medicine, are not illegal and the prosecuting thereof are liable to be quashed. Ordinance No. VIII of 1982 has been promulgated not with a view to excluding all other trials on the same offence but as an additional forum for trying drug offences. If the same offence can be tried by a Special Tribunal under the Special Powers Act it cannot be said that the accused- petitioner has an exclusive right to be tried by a Drug Court only. As on the petitioner’s own showing he has been charged only under section 25C(d) of the Special Powers Act by the Senior Special Tribunal, we do not find any illegality in the proceedings. Ashraf Ali @ Asraf Ali vs State 49 DLR (AD) 107. |
Ashraf Ali @ Asraf Ali vs State | 49 DLR (AD) 107 |
Section 561 A |
Quashment— Exercise of inherent power—As to re-hearing of case decided
on merit—
|
Abu Yahaya Nurul Anowar @ Anowar Vs. The State and another | 1 MLR (AD) 362 |
Section 561 A |
Quasfament of Proceedings—On further inquiry-when not permissible—
|
Md. Abdus Sabur Khan & another Vs. Md. Nurul Islam Shah & another | 1 MLR (AD) 363 |
Section 561 A |
Quashment of Proceedings— Not permissible on the basis of defence
materials—
|
Most Rahela Khatoon Vs. Md. Abul Hassan & others | 1 MLR (AD) 366 |
Section 561 A |
Quashment of proceedings—
|
Khondaker Mahtabuddin Ahmed and others Vs. The State | 1 MLR (AD) 411 |
Section 561 A |
Quashment of proceedings— Not permissible-When both cases are
permissible—
|
Naziur Rahman Vs. The State | 1 MLR (AD) 446 |
Section 561 A |
Quashment of Proceedings— after the dispute decided by the Sessions Judge
in revision- Not permissible-
|
M. A. Mottalib Vs. Narayan Kumar Agarwala | 2 MLR (AD) 251 |
Section 561 A |
Quashment of Criminal Proceedings— Not permissible when loanee and
gaurantor are jointly prosecuted for fraud and collusion—
|
Ansor Ali (Md) Vs. Manager, Sonali Bank | 2 MLR (AD) 253 |
Section 561 A |
Quashment of proceeding- Civil and criminal proceedings on contractual
dispute—
|
Ansarul Hoque Vs. Abdur Rahman & 4 others | 2 MLR (AD) 125 |
Section 561 A |
Quashment of proceedings—Allegations being preposterous and abuse of the
process of court—
|
Ali Akkas Vs. Enayet Hossain and others | 2 MLR (AD) 166 |
Section 561 A |
Quashment of proceeding— Where not tenable— Prevention of Corruption
Act, 1947— Section 5(2)— Offence of Criminal misconduct triable
by Special Judge—
|
International Finance Investment and Commerce Bank Ltd Vs. Abdul Quayum & another | 4 MLR (AD) 340 |
Section 561-A |
The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898
|
Ruhul Amin(Md.) =VS= The State | 12 LM (AD) 391 |
Section 561A |
The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898
|
Dr. Zubaida Rahman, wife of Tarique Rahman =VS= The State | 12 LM (AD) 523 |
Section 561A |
Secure justice– The provision of the section 561A of the Code only
provides following jurisdiction upon the High Court Division which can be
exercised by it to achieve purposes mentioned herein, namely,
|
Khalilur Rahman=VS= Md. Alauddin Akon(Bir Muktijoddha) | 9 LM (AD) 543 |
Section 561A |
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898
|
Anti-Corruption Commission =VS= Shahjahan Omar(Md) | 9 LM (AD) 281 |
Section 561A |
Section 561A has only reiterated the Courts inherent power to give effect
to any order under the Code of Criminal Procedure to prevent the abuse of
the process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. The
fact that the accused were tried and found guilty and then unsuccessfully
filed an appeal and a revisional application can not be a ground for
refusing to exercise the Courts power under section 561A Cr.P.C.
|
Mofazzal Hossain Mollah and others Vs. The State | 13 BLD (AD) 207 |
Section 561A |
In view of the complainants case that he delivered the jute in good faith on the accused’s inducement of part-payment and a specific promise to pay the balance price within three days, but subsequently he betrayed, it cannot be said that there was no prima facie case against the accused. The High Court Division rightly refused to quash the proceeding. Md. Arifur Rahnzan alias Bablu Vs. Shantosh Kumar Sadhu and another, 14 BLD (AD) 78 |
Md. Arifur Rahnzan alias Bablu Vs. Shantosh Kumar Sadhu and another | 14 BLD (AD) 78 |
Section 561A |
The High Court Division exercises its inherent power under section 561A
independent of any other powers. Although the High Court Division cannot
entertain any application under section 439 (1) from a decision of the
Sessions Judge under section 439A, still in a fit case, it can interfere
with the Sessions Judge’s order by invoking its inherent power. This
inherent jurisdiction is available even to a party who has lost in revision
before the Sessions Judge.
|
Md. Sher Ali and others vs The State and another | 14 BLD (AD) 84 |
Section 561A |
The evidence on record having been properly assessed by the Trial Court and independently reassessed by the Appellate Court and both the Courts found it reliable, no case of interference is made for the Court of Revision or the High Court Division acting u/s 561A Cr.P.C. Abdul Khaleque and others Vs. State and another 14 BLD (AD) 131 |
Abdul Khaleque and others Vs. State and another | 14 BLD (AD) 131 |
Section 561A |
Once it is found that there is a prima facie case for going to the trial, a criminal proceeding cannot be quashed on the ground of any defect in the charge framed. Hussain Mohammad Ershad Vs. The State, 14 BLD (AD) 161 |
Hussain Mohammad Ershad Vs. The State | 14 BLD (AD) 161 |
Section 561A |
In a proceeding under Section 561A Cr.P.C. the High Court Division cannot embark upon an enquiry to ascertain the truth or otherwise of the prosecution case or of facts which are not in the prosecution case. When a prima facie case is disclosed, there is no legal impediment for the proceeding to continue. Hussain Mohaininad Ershad, former President Vs. The State, 14 BLD (AD) 178 |
Hussain Mohaininad Ershad, former President Vs. The State | 14 BLD (AD) 178 |
Section 561A |
Even though a Minister is found to be personally interested in a criminal case against the accused-appellant, yet this by itself is not sufficient to conclude that the specific allegations against the appellant are false. The High Court Division was right in holding that the question of malafidies could be determined only on taking evidence at the trial and was justified in refusing to quash the proceeding. Engineer Afsaruddin Ahmed Vs. State, 14 BLD (AD) 206 |
Engineer Afsaruddin Ahmed Vs. State | 14 BLD (AD) 206 |
Section 561A |
The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898
|
Solim Ullah(Md.) =VS= Deputy Commissioner (DC), Chattogram | 7 LM (AD) 285 |
Section 561A |
In view of the confessional statements and the statements of witnesses recorded under section 161 Cr.P.C. it cannot be said that this is a case of no evidence justifying the quashing of the proceeding. Evidence led at the trial to substantiate the allegations can be scrutinised only at the trial. Nasim Bin Rahman Vs. The State, 14 BLD (AD) 217 |
Nasim Bin Rahman Vs. The State | 14 BLD (AD) 217 |
Section 561A |
The Penal Code, 1860
|
Abu Taher (Md) =VS= State | 14 LM (AD) 297 |
Section 561A |
Although quashing of a criminal proceeding at the stage of submission of charge sheet is not and should, not generally be permitted, particularly when it discloses commission of offences, yet under special circumstances quashing of a proceeding at this stage is permissible in the interest of justice. Afia Khatoon Vs. Mobasswir Ali and others, 14 BLD (AD) 251 |
Afia Khatoon Vs. Mobasswir Ali and others | 14 BLD (AD) 251 |
Section 561A |
When an earlier proceeding instituted by the petitioners husband alleging offences of forgery was dismissed by the Magistrate on the finding that the dispute was one of a civil nature, a second proceeding on the same facts and allegations by the present complainant amounts to an abuse of the process of the Court. No person can initiate a second proceeding nor a Magistrate can take cognizance of any offence alleged to have been committed in respect of the same transaction which has already been decided in a previous proceeding. Such a proceeding is clearly vexatious and it amounts to misuse of the provision of law. Dil Afrose Vs. Md. Mostamsher Billah alias M. S. Billah and others, 15 BLD (AD) 3 |
Dil Afrose Vs. Md. Mostamsher Billah alias M. S. Billah and others | 15 BLD (AD) 3 |
The power of commutation... |
The power of commutation and remission is within the domain of the
executive Government, but the Courts have the jurisdiction to determine the
entitlement:
|
Ataur Mridha alias Ataur Vs. The State | 15 SCOB [2021] AD 1 |
Retracted confessions– |
Retracted confessions– It has been held in the case of State vs. Minhun alias Gul Hassan reported in PLD 1964 SC 813 that “Retracted confessions, whether judicial or extra-judicial, could legally be taken into consideration against the maker of those confessions himself, and if the confessions were found to be true and voluntary, then there was no need at all to look for further corroboration. As against the maker himself his confession, judicial or extra-judicial, whether retracted or not retracted, can in law validly form the sole basis of his conviction, if the Court is satisfied and believes that it was true and voluntary and was not obtained by torture or coercion or inducement.” ...Abdul Mannan(Md.) =VS= The State, (Criminal), 2021(1) [10 LM (AD) 223] ....View Full Judgment |
Abdul Mannan(Md.) =VS= The State | 10 LM (AD) 223 |
Challenging the proceedings of Special cases... |
Challenging the proceedings of Special cases writ Petition No.9905 of 2007 and 8578 of 2007 are not maintainable inasmuch as Code of Criminal Procedure provides efficacious remedy to get redress if one feels himself aggrieved due to initiation of such criminal proceedings. In such view of the matter those two writ petitions were not maintainable. …Anti Corruption Commission Vs Md. Shahidul Islam & ors, (Criminal), 6 SCOB [2016] AD 74 ....View Full Judgment |
Anti Corruption Commission Vs Md. Shahidul Islam & ors | 6 SCOB [2016] AD 74 |