Section 2(b)
|
Whether the Managing Director or an Employee of a Private Limited Company
registered under the Companies Act, 1913 is a public servant within the
meaning of Section 2(b) ' Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1958.
In the instant case, M/s. Master Industries was established by its sponsors
and it registered under the Companies Act and started functioning. It is no
body's case the M/s. Master Industries Ltd. is established by or under any
law. By no stretch of imagination it can not be said that Managing Director
or an employee of a Private Limited Company registered under Companies Act
is a local authority or statutory corporation or a body corporate,
therefore a Managing Director or an employee of Private Limited
Company registered under the Companies Act, 1913 not be said to be public
servant within ling of section 2(b) of the Criminal Amendment Act only
because the firm was registered under the Companies Act to start
functioning.
Khurshid Alam & Ors.Vs. Azizur Rahman & Ors 13 BLT (AD)-211
|
Khurshid Alam & Ors.Vs. Azizur Rahman & Ors |
13 BLT (AD) 211 |
Section 3
|
Power of Special Judge— Creation of new Districts or Sessions Divisions
does not require fresh Notifications as to Senior Special Judges. When a
public functionary is found to have been acting in a particular capacity in
normal course, the Court may presume that he has been duly empowered to act
in that capacity.
Mozahar Ali Howlader Vs. Lal Miah Talukder 44 DLR (AD) 250.
|
Mozahar Ali Howlader Vs. Lal Miah Talukder |
44 DLR (AD) 250 |
Section 3(2)
|
Durnity Daman Commission Ain, 2004
Section 28 r/w
Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1958
Section 3(2)
These provisions are self explanatory and in this regard no further
explanation is necessary. The Sessions Judge in a Sessions Division is
ex-officio Senior Special Judge and therefore, he has all the powers of a
Special Judge within the meaning of the Criminal Law Amendment Act and the
Durnity Daman Commission Ain.
The Appellate Division held that the offences punishable under the Money
Laundering Protirod Ain are schedule offences of the Durnity Daman
Commission Ain and section 28 of the Ain of 2004 clearly provides that the
offences punishable under the said Ain shall exclusively be triable by the
Special Judge which includes the Senior Special Judge. Therefore, the High
Court Division was totally unmindful in arriving at such conclusion. The
decisions referred by the High Court Division in Nurul Huda V. Bahar Uddin,
41 DLR(HCD)395 and Zaved Khan V. ACC, 63 DLR(HCD)221 are also to the same
extent based on misconception of law. .....Anti Corruption Commission &
others =VS= Abdul Azim & others, [1 LM (AD) 136]
....View Full Judgment
|
Anti Corruption Commission & others =VS= Abdul Azim & others |
1 LM (AD) 136 |
Sections 4(3)
|
The wider territorial jurisdiction of the Divisional Special Judge has not
conferred upon him any higher authority than that of the Senior Special
Judge. In relation to the Senior Special Judge, the Divisional Special
Judge is like any other Special Judge—power of taking cognizance of
offence has not been given to him.
State Vs. Divisional Special Judge Khulna Division 44 DLR (AD) 215.
|
State Vs. Divisional Special Judge Khulna Division |
44 DLR (AD) 215 |
Sections 4(3) & 10(3)
|
High Court Division may 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. But the jurisdiction of
transfer of a case by the Senior Special Judge is limited within his
district. The two sections have therefore no conflict.
State Vs. Divisional Special Judge, Khulna Division 44 DLR (AD) 215.
|
State Vs. Divisional Special Judge, Khulna Division |
44 DLR (AD) 215 |
Section 4(1)
|
There are authorities which have found it improper for an enquiry to be
held against a person by a person belonging to the same department.
In the present case it cannot be said that the Special Judge has acted with
sound discretion in asking the ASP to hold an enquiry when admittedly
officers much above him have been made accused in the case. The Additional
Attorney-General submitted that since the Deputy Commissioner and
Superintendent of
Police were already transferred there was no reason to apprehend that the
ASP would not be able to hold an influence-free enquiry. It is difficult to
accept the submission of the learned Additional Attorney-General, for, it
is not necessary to be personally present to influence an enquiry. Abdur
Rahim @ (Md) Abdur Rahim vs State 49 DLR (AD) 51.
|
Abdur Rahim @ (Md) Abdur Rahim vs State |
49 DLR (AD) 51 |
Section 4
|
There is no denial as to the issuance of the letter for sanction of trial.
There is also no denial that the required sanction has neither been
received nor refused within sixty days. In such view the sanction be deemed
to have been accorded. Atiquzzaman Khan vs State 57 DLR (AD) 100.
|
Atiquzzaman Khan vs State |
57 DLR (AD) 100 |
Sections 4(1), 10(1A)
|
The Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1958
Sections 10(1A), 4(1)
The Money Laundering Protirodh Ain, 2012
Section 4(2)/ 4(3)
A case under the Money Laundering Protirodh Ain, 2012 the Magistrate has no
jurisdiction to deal with the application for bail of an accused as he has
no jurisdiction to take cognizance of an offence under the said Ain of
2012– A prayer for bail before the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Dhaka
and the learned Metropolitan Magistrate concerned by the order on the same
day enlarged them on bail. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the
said order of granting bail to the accused respondents, the present
victim-petitioners filed an application for cancellation of bail of the
said accused vide Miscellaneous Case No.6012 of 2021 before the
Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Dhaka. The learned Metropolitan Sessions
Judge, Dhaka after hearing the said Miscellaneous Case by its order dated
26.09.2021 rejected the same and maintained the order of bail passed by the
Metropolitan Magistrate, Dhaka.
Thereafter, the present victim-petitioners moved an application under
section 10(A) of the Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1958 vide Criminal
Revision No.2330 of 2021 before the High Court Division. A Division Bench
of the High Court Division on 22.11.2021 issued a Rule and also stayed the
operation of the order dated 26.09.2021 passed by the Metropolitan Sessions
Judge till disposal of the Rule and the accused-respondents were directed
to surrender before the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Dhaka within a
period of 02(two) weeks from the date of receipt of the order by him. Since
the application under section 10(1A) of the Act of 1958 filed by the
victim-petitioners is not amenable in the High Court Division and the High
Court Division wrongly applied its jurisdiction, thus the Rule issuance
order and all the orders including the impugned order passed by the High
Court Division, in the said Rule is nullity in the eye of law and are
liable to be interfered with. Accordingly, this leave petition is disposed
of. .....Minaz Ahmed =VS= Arif Motahar, (Criminal), 2022(1) [12 LM (AD)
499]
....View Full Judgment
|
Minaz Ahmed =VS= Arif Motahar |
12 LM (AD) 499 |
Section 5(6) read with Sec. 6A & 8
|
Further investigation of the case under section 5(6) of the Criminal Law
Amendment Act, 1958–
Section 8 of the Criminal Law Amendment debars de-novo trial for an offence
punishable under the Criminal Law Amendment Act. Moreso. under section 6A
of the Act, a special time limit has been fixed for concluding trial of a
case providing that the trial shall have to be concluded within 45 days
from the date of taking cognizance of the offence and if the trial cannot
be concluded within the said time, the Special Judge after recording
reasons in writing conclude the trial within 15 days next thereafter. In
this case more than 7 (seven) years elapsed from the date of taking
cognizance of the offence. Moreso, the trial of the case is almost over.
The examination of the alleged offenders is also over. On 2-2-2017 the
petitioner has been examined. From the record, it appears that the learned
Special Judge has assigned proper reasons in rejecting the application.
The application filed by the petitioner is misconceived one. We find no
error in the order of the High Court Division that calls for interference.
...Begum Khaleda Zia =VS= State, (Criminal), 2019 (1) [6 LM (AD) 85]
....View Full Judgment
|
Begum Khaleda Zia =VS= State |
6 LM (AD) 85 |
Section 6(5)
|
“working days”
Since the decision of the Government not to accord sanction against the
appellants was not given within 60 days, it would be deemed that sanction
had been accorded.
The Appellate Division observed that the words “working days” have not
been mentioned in the proviso to section 6(5) of the Criminal Law Amendment
Act,1958. Therefore, the High Court Division was justified in holding that
since the Government’s decision not to accord sanction against the
appellants was intimated beyond 60 days, it would be deemed that sanction
had been accorded according to the proviso to section 6(5) of the Criminal
Law Amendment Act,1958.
Mahboobur Rahman and others. -VS- Md. Kayser Parvej (Milon) and others.
(Criminal) 11 ALR (AD) 88-92
|
Mahboobur Rahman and others. -VS- Md. Kayser Parvej (Milon) and others |
11 ALR (AD) 88 |
Section 6(2)
|
The impugned order that Special Judge considering prosecution case and
others materials on record allowed the prayer for tendering pardon and also
allowed this respondent Nos. 3 and 4 as approvers. From the section 6 sub
section 2 of the Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1958. .....Gias Uddin Al-Mamun
(Md) =VS= The State, (Criminal), 2017 (2)– [3 LM (AD) 558]
....View Full Judgment
|
Gias Uddin Al-Mamun (Md) =VS= The State |
3 LM (AD) 558 |
Section 6(2)
|
The Special Judge, recording the reasons, accepted the prayer for tendering
pardon. In such view of the matter, we do not find any wrong in the
judgment of the High Court Division. However, the trial Court is directed
to allow other accused to cross-examine the approvers as per provision law
at the time of examining them as approvers of the case. .....Gias Uddin
Al-Mamun (Md) =VS= The State, (Criminal), 2017 (2)– [3 LM (AD) 558]
....View Full Judgment
|
Gias Uddin Al-Mamun (Md) =VS= The State |
3 LM (AD) 558 |
Section 6 (5)
|
The learned Judges held that since sub-section (5) of section 6 of the Act,
1958 was repealed on 18.04.2004 by Act XXII of 2004, there-fore, "at the
time of submission of police report, on 29.10.2004 prior sanction of the
Government for prosecuting the accused was not required under the law in
existence." So, taking of cognizance of the offence under section 409 of
the Penal Code against the petitioner by the Senior Special Judge on
12.03.2005 in the absence of any sanction was not illegal or without lawful
authority. In view of our findings that continuation of the investigation
of the case in question by the police after coming into force of the Ain,
2004 was illegal and without jurisdiction, the question as to whether prior
sanction of the Government or the Commission was required for taking
cognizance by the Senior Special Judge against the petitioner.
The learned Senior Special Judge, Sylhet acted illegally and without
jurisdiction in taking cognizance of the offence under section 409 of the
Penal Code against the petitioner and other two accused, on the basis of
the report, filed by the police under section 173 of the Code and the High
Court Division also erred in affirming the same. However, in view of the
fact that the case was initiated as back as on 17.12.2003.
Accordingly, this petition is disposed of in the following terms:
(a) The order dated 12.03.2005 passed by the Senior Special Judge, Sylhet
in Special Case No. 1 of 2005 taking cognizance against the petitioner and
the other accused under section 409 of the Penal Code and the impugned
judgment and order passed by the High Court Division in affirming the same
are set aside.
(b) The report submitted by Sub-Inspector of police, Md. Moinul Islam of
Kotwali police station on 29.10.2004 in the case under section 173 of the
Code of Criminal Procedure is declared to be no report in the eye of law
and the same is quashed.
(c) The Senior Special Judge, Sylhet is directed to send the case records
to the District office of the Durnity Daman Commission, Sylhet for
investigating of the case afresh by it as per the provisions of the Ain,
2004 and the Bidhimala framed there under keeping in view of the
observations and the findings given by this Court in the judgment.
...Kaisor-uz-Zaman(Md.) =VS= Deputy Commissioner, Sylhet, (Criminal),
2021(1) [10 LM (AD) 483]
....View Full Judgment
|
Kaisor-uz-Zaman(Md.) =VS= Deputy Commissioner, Sylhet |
10 LM (AD) 483 |
Section 6
|
Reference to High Court Division—Provisions of the Criminal Procedure
Code will apply to the proceedings of the Court of Special Judge only for
the purpose of hearing and disposal of a special case. Transfer of a case
from one Special Judge to another Special Judge does not appear to fall
within the provision for hearing and disposal of a case.
State Vs. Divisional Special Judge, Khulna Division 44 DLR (AD) 215.
|
State Vs. Divisional Special Judge, Khulna Division |
44 DLR (AD) 215 |
Section 6
|
Accused is a public servant— Order of sanction to prosecute him submitted
in court along with charge—sheet —Court of trial perused the sanction
order and noted “seen” thereon, but omitted to mention it either in
Order—sheet or in the Judgment_—Witness including the Investigation
Officer remained silent about it while deposing. The trial is not vitiated
by illegality in spite of the omission on the part of the prosecution to
refer to the evidence as to the order of sanction since the trial is found
to have been held by the Court on perusal of the order of sanction.
Liakat Ali Vs. State 42 DLR (AD) 30.
|
Liakat Ali Vs. State |
42 DLR (AD) 30 |
Section 6(5)
|
Anti-Corruption Commission Act, 2004
Section 32 r/w
The Criminal Amendment Act, 1958
Section 6(5)
Sanction requirement to file Anti-corruption Case– Section 32 of the
Anti-Corruption Commission Act, 2004 while giving the direction. Since in
the instant case cognizance was taken long back before the coming into
being of Anti Corruption Commission Act, 2004, Section 32 of the Act shall
have no application in the instant case. Since by Section 28(2) requirement
of sanction under Section 6(5) of Criminal Amendment Act, 1958 was done
away the case can proceed now without any sanction in accordance with law
and therefore Section 32(2) of Anti Corruption Commission Act, 2004 has no
manner of application in the instant case. .....Mostafa Kamal =VS=
Salahuddin Ahmad, [5 LM (AD) 431]
....View Full Judgment
|
Mostafa Kamal =VS= Salahuddin Ahmad |
5 LM (AD) 431 |
Section 6(5)
|
The imperative language of the provision, "the Special Judge shall,
immediately on receipt of the complaint", leaves no manner of doubt that
before any step is taken the Special Judge has to address the Government in
case of sanction not being accompanied with a petition of complaint.
It is true that in a case under the Act a Special Judge may, where he deems
if necessary, order an investigation by any officer in whose jurisdiction
the offence was wholly or partly committed. This step also, however, cannot
be taken without complying being that the Government may not give any
sanction to prosecute at all. Abdur Rahim @ (Md) Abdur Rahim vs State 49
DLR (AD) 51.
|
Abdur Rahim @ (Md) Abdur Rahim vs State |
49 DLR (AD) 51 |
Section 6(5)
|
It is not necessary to personally represent to influence an enquiry by a
subordinate Junior Officer. There are authorities which have found it
improper to hold an enquiry against a person by a person belonging to the
same department (29 CrLJ 1928, 1958). Abdur Rahim @ Md Abdur Rahim vs State
48 DLR (AD) 167.
|
Abdur Rahim @ Md Abdur Rahim vs State |
48 DLR (AD) 167 |
Section 6
|
Withdrawal from the prosecution is subject to consent by the trial Judge
and when the accused persons are still absconding the discretion ought not
to have been exercised. 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 6(5)
|
Appellant filed a petition of complaint before the learned Senior Special
Judge against the Deputy Commissioner, Super-in-tendent of police, and some
other local officials alleging offence's under sections 166/217/114 of the
Penal Code and section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947-
Complainant was examined on oath and the A. S .P. was asked to submit a
report upon holding an inquire into the complaint made- the grievance of
the appellant is that the learned Special Judge Committed a two fold wrong
(1) is not having acted in terms of the proviso to section 6(5) of the Act
and (2) having called for a report, of all persons, from the A. S. P. when
senior officers above him were complained against- Held: In the Present
case it cannot be said that the learned Special Judge has acted with sound
discretion in asking the A. S. P. to hold an inquire when admittedly
officers much above him have been made accused in the case- The order
passed by the learned Senior Special Judge is found to be wholly
unsustainable in that he has failed to comply with the proviso to section
6(5) of the Act which, on all accounts, was a first step that was required
to be taken by him, on receipt of the complaint.
Mr. Abdur Rahim Vs. The State 4BLT (AD)-187
|
Mr. Abdur Rahim Vs. The State |
4 BLT (AD) 187 |
Section 6(5)
|
Prior sanction - where the prosecution report does not indicate of
obtaining sanction to the prosecution of a public servant cognizance cannot
be taken. But the proviso to Section 6(5) has given authority to the Senior
Special Judge to send a letter to the appropriate authority for getting
sanction and if no response is received within 60 days from the date of
receipt of the letter by the Government then it should be deemed to have
been duly accorded.
Jalaluddin Choudhury & Ors. Vs. The State & Anr. 9 BLT(AD)-95
|
Jalaluddin Choudhury & Ors. Vs. The State & Anr. |
9 BLT (AD) 95 |
Section 6(5)
|
A petition of complaint was filed before the Senior Special Judge against
the police personnel and some other local officials without any sanction of
the government and upon examining the complainant on oath the ASP was
directed to submit a report after holding an enquiry. The Imperative
language of the proviso, “the Special Judge shall, immediately on receipt
of complaint,” leaves no manner of doubt that before any step is taken
the Special Judge has to address the Government in case of sanction not
being accompanied with a petition of complaint and even the Special Judge
cannot pass an order of investigation by any police officer without
complying with the proviso to section 6(5) of the Act as the Government may
not give any sanction to prosecute at all and it cannot be said that the
learned Special Judge has acted with sound discretion in asking the ASP to
hold an enquiry when admittedly officers much above him have been made
accused in this case and the High Court Division wrongly rejected the
revisional petition on the ground of being premature.
Abdur Rahim @ Md. Abdur Rahim vs State 1 BLC (AD) 141
|
Abdur Rahim @ Md. Abdur Rahim vs State |
1 BLC (AD) 141 |
Section 6A
|
Emergency Powers Rules, 2007
Rule 19Ka - Time limit under both the provisions is held directory, and not
mandatory.
As there is no consequence provided, in the event of the failure to
conclude trial within the time specified the apex court held the provisions
of 339C of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, section 6A of Criminal Law
Amendment Act, 1958 and rule 19Ka of the Emergency Power Rules, 2007 as
directory and not mandatory. However the apex further advised to take
disciplinary action against the judge concerned for his willful negligence
in not complying with the provisions of the law in appropriate cases.
A.H.M. Mustafa Kamal @ Lotus Kamal Vs. Government of Bangladesh 14 MLR
(2009) (AD) 45.
|
A.H.M. Mustafa Kamal @ Lotus Kamal Vs. Government of Bangladesh |
14 MLR (AD) 45 |
Section 6(5)
|
Sanction as sought for by the Special judge of the Government for
persecution of the accused to be accorded within 60 days on the expiry of
which it shall be presumed that sanction has been duly accorded. Subsequent
refusal to accord sanction after 60 days is of no consequence.
The Appellate Division held the position of law under section 6(5) of the
Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1958 is clear and as such set aside the
impugned judgment and order of the High Court Division and directed the
Special Judge, Sunamganj to proceed with the Special case in accordance
with law.
Malek Hussain Pir Vs. Begum Nurjahan Khanam and others 15 MLR (2010) (AD)
109.
....View Full Judgment
|
Malek Hussain Pir Vs. Begum Nurjahan Khanam and others |
15 MLR (2010) (AD) 109 |
Section 6(5)
|
Criminal Law (Amendment) Act, 1958
Section 6(5)
Penal Code, 1860
Section 401, 431/467
Prevention of Corruption Act, II of 1947
Section 5(2)
The trial has been held without sanction from the proper authority and as
such the trial held by the Special Judge is without jurisdiction––
“From the lower court record it does not appear that the learned Special
Judge took notice of such a patent fact and that any sanction letter was
ever produced before the learned Judge and that he ever wrote under section
6(5) of the Criminal Law (Amendment) Act to the proper authority for the
sanction. It is now well settled that sanction confers jurisdiction upon
the Special Judge for taking cognizance of an offence against a government
servant. Mere statement in the charge-sheet that some sort of sanction was
received without producing the sanction order before the court and putting
in the same to the evidence in order to show that the sanction order was
valid and proper is not enough. In my view the trial has been held without
sanction from the proper authority and as such the trial held by the
Special Judge is without jurisdiction and the impugned order of conviction
and sentence is illegal.” Appellate Division finds no reason to interfere
with the judgment and order passed by the High Court Division and
accordingly the appeal is dismissed. .....The State =VS= Md. Moslemuddin,
(Criminal), 2023(1) [14 LM (AD) 257]
....View Full Judgment
|
The State =VS= Md. Moslemuddin |
14 LM (AD) 257 |
Section 8
|
The High Court Division rightly acquitted the accused in view of the
provision of section 8 of the Criminal Law Amendment Act as the trial
having not been concluded within the period of 2 years it was without
jurisdiction. State vs Md Minhazuddin Khan 51 DLR (AD) 142.
|
State vs Md Minhazuddin Khan |
51 DLR (AD) 142 |
Section 8(a)
|
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 (AD) 51.
|
Nur Israil Talukder vs State |
52 DLR (AD) 51 |
Section 8
|
Conviction after expiry of time limit—
When the trial could not be concluded within the time limit, there was, in
fact, no proceeding after the expiry of the period. Trial held and
conviction given after the expiry of the time limit is illegal.
The State Vs. Md. Minhazuddin Khan— 4, MLR (1999) (AD) 147
|
The State Vs. Md. Minhazuddin Khan |
4 MLR (AD) 147 |
Section 9
|
Section 9 Provides for confiscation of property to the extent connected
with the offence - When the charges under section 5(2) of the Prevention of
Corruption Act, 1947 read with section 109 of the Penal Code, 1860 are
established section 9 of the Criminal Law (Amendment) Act, 1958 imposes a
duty upon the trial judge hath he imposes a sentence of imprisonment or
not, he shall impose a sentence of fine and pass an order confiscating the
property of the accused connected with the offence. The apex court held
that the confiscated property cannot be restored to the offender.
M.A. Sattar and others Vs. The State 14 MLR (2009) (AD) 168.
|
M.A. Sattar and others Vs. The State |
14 MLR (AD) 168 |
Section 10
|
The expression ‘এই বিধিমালার অধীন’refers
to the Emergency Powers Rules as a whole. It cannot mean and refer to Rule
10 only; otherwise the expression would have been ‘উক্ত
বিধির অধীন’i.e. under the aforesaid Rule.
Anti-Corruption Commission vs Barrister Nazmul Huda 60 DLR (AD) 57.
|
Anti-Corruption Commission vs Barrister Nazmul Huda |
60 DLR (AD) 57 |
Section 10
|
The language of Rule 11(3) admits of no ambiguity and therefore, there is
hardly any scope for interpretation. The intention of the law makers is
manifested in the express words used in sub-rule 3 leaving no scope to
doubt that such power of granting bail by the appellate Court has been
taken away by express provisions. ACC vs Barrister Nazmul Huda 60 DLR (AD)
57.
|
ACC vs Barrister Nazmul Huda |
60 DLR (AD) 57 |
Section 10
|
Provides for alternative remedy by way of appeal—
Constitution of Bangladesh—
Article 102— The power of the High Court Division under writ jurisdiction
is limited. It can not exercise the power of appellate court in writ
jurisdiction—
The apex court firmly held that a fugitive in law and justice is not
entitled to get the protection of law unless he surrenders in the proper
court—
The writ petitioner was convicted and sentenced in a trial held in his
absence. Instead of surrendering before the trial court he instituted the
writ petition through his authorised agent which the High Court Division
entertained and made conflicting orders from time to time with regard to
his bail, stay of the operation of sentence, and the manner of surrendering
before the proper court by violating the long established principles of
law, norms and practice which the apex court deprecated and disapproved in
strong words and directed the convict-writ petitioner to surrender before
the trial court. Anti-Corruption Commission Vs. Dr. H.BM Iqbal Alamgir and
others 15 MLR (2010) (AD) 103.
|
Anti-Corruption Commission Vs. Dr. H.BM Iqbal Alamgir and others |
15 MLR (AD) 103 |
Section 10(1A)
|
Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1958
Section 10(1A)
Money Laundering Protirodh Ain, 2012
Section 2(11)
Stayed the bail granting order–– The First Information Report (FIR) and
result of investigation disclosed the specific and definite allegation of
offence of money laundering. The Investigating Officer reports that
specific and definite allegations of money laundering against the
respondent is noticeable and the blue print towards commission of the
offence alleged has been disclosed as serious and repulsive activities of
the respondents in misappropriating money through illegal suspicious
transaction to the other authorities and in such a state of affairs, the
respondent should not be enlarged on bail. ––Having considered those
fact, circumstances and materials on record, this Division finds that
accepting bail of the respondent is not a legal and just one and thus.
––The judgment and order dated 26-1-2021 passed by the High Court
Division in Criminal Miscellaneous Case No. 1799 of 2020 is hereby
set-aside. Accepting the bail of Rashedul Huq Chishti is hereby set-aside.
.....Durnity Daman Commission =VS= Rashedul Huq Chishti, (Criminal),
2023(1) [14 LM (AD) 300]
....View Full Judgment
|
Durnity Daman Commission =VS= Rashedul Huq Chishti |
14 LM (AD) 300 |
Section 10
|
Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1958
Section 10
Emergency Power Rules, 2007
Section 11(2)
The Penal Code, 1860
Sections 161/109
Granting ad-interim bail–– It appears that the High Court Division has
correctly followed the observations made by this Division in Criminal
Appeal No.6 of 2008 in grant¬ing bail to the respondent No.1. ––It
further appears that the appeal could not be disposed of within ninety days
and the respondent has already served out a substantial portion of
sentence. Appellate Division does not find that the judgment and order of
the High Court Division suffers from any infirmity. Accordingly the
petition is dismissed. .....Anti-Corruption Commission =VS= Sigma Huda,
(Criminal), 2023(1) [14 LM (AD) 497]
....View Full Judgment
|
Anti-Corruption Commission =VS= Sigma Huda |
14 LM (AD) 497 |
Section 10(3)
|
The Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1958
Section 10(3) r/w
The Prevention of Corruption Act II 1947
Section 5(2) of Act II 1947 r/w
The Penal Code
Sections 409/109
Transfer the Case under Sec. 5(2) of the Act II 1947 read with Sec. 409/109
of the Penal Code–
The petitioner is entitled to get an order of transfer if she shows
circumstances from which it can be inferred that there is apprehension that
she would not get justice from the Judge concerned and that the same is
reasonable in the circumstances alleged but a mere allegation of
apprehension is not enough; the Court will consider whether the
apprehension is reasonable, genuine and justifiable.
Taking into consideration the entire facts and circumstances of the case
and the materials on record, we are of the view that the petitioner has
failed to make out a case that she has reasonable apprehension of not
availing justice from the presiding Judge of the Special Court No. 5,
Dhaka. The petition is dismissed. ...Begum Khaleda Zia =VS= State,
(Criminal), 2019 (1) [6 LM (AD) 91]
....View Full Judgment
|
Begum Khaleda Zia =VS= State |
6 LM (AD) 91 |
Sections 10(1A), 4(1)
|
The Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1958
Sections 10(1A), 4(1)
The Money Laundering Protirodh Ain, 2012
Section 4(2)/ 4(3)
A case under the Money Laundering Protirodh Ain, 2012 the Magistrate has no
jurisdiction to deal with the application for bail of an accused as he has
no jurisdiction to take cognizance of an offence under the said Ain of
2012– A prayer for bail before the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Dhaka
and the learned Metropolitan Magistrate concerned by the order on the same
day enlarged them on bail. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the
said order of granting bail to the accused respondents, the present
victim-petitioners filed an application for cancellation of bail of the
said accused vide Miscellaneous Case No.6012 of 2021 before the
Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Dhaka. The learned Metropolitan Sessions
Judge, Dhaka after hearing the said Miscellaneous Case by its order dated
26.09.2021 rejected the same and maintained the order of bail passed by the
Metropolitan Magistrate, Dhaka.
Thereafter, the present victim-petitioners moved an application under
section 10(A) of the Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1958 vide Criminal
Revision No.2330 of 2021 before the High Court Division. A Division Bench
of the High Court Division on 22.11.2021 issued a Rule and also stayed the
operation of the order dated 26.09.2021 passed by the Metropolitan Sessions
Judge till disposal of the Rule and the accused-respondents were directed
to surrender before the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Dhaka within a
period of 02(two) weeks from the date of receipt of the order by him. Since
the application under section 10(1A) of the Act of 1958 filed by the
victim-petitioners is not amenable in the High Court Division and the High
Court Division wrongly applied its jurisdiction, thus the Rule issuance
order and all the orders including the impugned order passed by the High
Court Division, in the said Rule is nullity in the eye of law and are
liable to be interfered with. Accordingly, this leave petition is disposed
of. .....Minaz Ahmed =VS= Arif Motahar, (Criminal), 2022(1) [12 LM (AD)
499]
....View Full Judgment
|
Minaz Ahmed =VS= Arif Motahar |
12 LM (AD) 499 |
Section 11
|
Bail–– The petitioner has undergone imprisonment for 2 (two) years out
of imprisonment of 10 (ten) years. In the application for bail, it has been
stated that the petitioner is aged about 68 years and that he is a member
of the Supreme Court Bar Association and that he has been suffering from
various ailments. The petitioner has also taken the ground of prevailing
Covid situation. ––Appellate Division is inclined to enlarge the
petitioner on bail pending hearing of the criminal petition subject to the
satisfaction of learned Special Judge, 2nd Court, Dhaka. This Division is
also inclined to stay the order of confiscation and realisation of fine
till disposal of the criminal petition. .....Mir Mohammad Nasir Uddin =VS=
Deputy Commissioner, Dhaka, (Criminal), 2022(2) [13 LM (AD) 587]
....View Full Judgment
|
Mir Mohammad Nasir Uddin =VS= Deputy Commissioner, Dhaka |
13 LM (AD) 587 |
Prima facie case of abetment—
|
Prima facie case of abetment—
A prima facie case of abetment of the alleged offences against the
petitioner has been disclosed in the petition of complaint and the
provision of Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1958 has also made abetment of the
alleged offences punishable, and as such the High Court Division rightly
refused to quash the proceeding.
Abul HossainAbu vs State 1 BLC (AD) 173.
|
Abul HossainAbu vs State |
1 BLC (AD) 173 |