A perusal of regulation 68 makes it clear that the diary should contain full unabridged statement of persons examined by the police so as to give the Magistrate a satisfactory and complete source of information which would enable him to decide whether or not the accused person should be detained in custody. Section 167(1) requires that copies of entries of the diary should be sent to the Magistrate with the object to prevent any abuse of power by the police officer. .....Ministry of Law, Justice & Parl. Afrs. =VS= BLAST, (Civil), 2017 (2)– [3 LM (AD) 274] ....View Full Judgment

It has been said in PRB No.68(b) that a person not being a Police-Officer can also go through the case diary on being empowered by the Superintendent of Police Every Police Officer shall keep his case-diary in proper care and custody and shall consider it a very secret and confidential document till final disposal of an appeal or a revision pending before Courts. .....Ministry of Law, Justice & Parl. Afrs. =VS= BLAST, (Civil), 2017 (2)– [3 LM (AD) 274] ....View Full Judgment

Case diary–
Learned Attorney General submits that the High Court Division has not considered the Police Regulations of Bengal while making observations relating to case diary and submits that under the Police Regulations of Bengal the court or any other person is not authorized to look into the case diary in view of G.O. No.P.8C-5/60(III) 34PI, dated 16th January, 1961. .....Ministry of Law, Justice & Parl. Afrs. =VS= BLAST, (Civil), 2017 (2)– [3 LM (AD) 274] ....View Full Judgment

Writ petitioners did not challenge any disciplinary action taken against them by the Inspector–General of Police. The authority did not give the directions in accordance with the Police Act or the Bengal Police Regulations or the Ordinance of 1969. The writ petitioners also did not challenge the propriety of the imposition of black marks upon them. They have challenged the embargo imposed upon them by the Police Headquarter, which directly affected their right to be considered for promotion to the next higher post. Clause (5) of Article 102 does not stand in their way of making an application under Article 102(1) of the Constitution subject to the provision of Article 45 of the Constitution. …Bangladesh Vs. Md. Abdus Satter and others, (Civil), 1 SCOB [2015] AD 17 ....View Full Judgment

Constitution of Bangladesh, 1972
Article 112
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898
Section 25 r/w
Police Regulation Bangladesh
Regulation 728
Contempt of Court— Mr. Shahudul Haque, Inspector General of Police, Bangladesh appellant in Criminal Appeal No.12 of 2004 and Sergeant Shoaibur Rahman and Sergeant Md. Russel Arafat are the appellants in Criminal Appeal No.16 of 2004. Criminal Appeal No.12 of 2004 is against the judgment and order dated 21 January 2004 passed by a Division Bench of the High Court Division of the Supreme Court of Bangladesh in Criminal Miscellaneous Suo Moto Rule No.12166 of 2004 arising out of Suo Moto Rule No.7762 of 2003 convicting the appellant for contempt of Court and sentencing him to pay fine of Tk.2,000/-, in default, to suffer simple imprisonment for one month. Criminal Appeal No.16 of 2004 arose out of judgment and order dated 28.1.2004 passed by the High Court Division in Criminal Miscellaneous Suo Moto Rule No.7742 of 2003 convicting the appellant No.1 Sergeant Shoaibur Rahman to pay Tk.1,000/-, in default, to suffer simple imprisonment for 2 months and appellant No.2 Sergeant Md. Russel Arafat to pay Tk.500/-, in default, to suffer simple imprisonment for one month.
Though the contempt of Court is a weapon to be used sparingly and always with reference to the interests of administration of justice but in a serious situation as in the instant case the Court of law should not be happy with the 'apology' without resorting to the very weapon to uphold the dignity, prestige, authority and solemnity of the institution and its Judges. In view of the deliberate act of the appellants to disrespect the flag of the Supreme Court and deliberate commission/omission behaving in a manner undermining the authority. dignity and prestige of the Supreme Court of Bangladesh its flag and its Judge, Appellate Division does not find any mitigating circumstances to accept the unqualified apology and to censor the appellants in modifying of the sentence imposed on them. The appeals are, accordingly, dismissed without any order as to costs. .....Inspector General of Police, Bangladesh =VS= The State, (Criminal), 2025(1) [18 LM (AD) 613] ....View Full Judgment

Punishment like dismissal or removal in respect —of a police personnel like the respondent, a Sub—Inspector of Police, which can be awarded by the Inspector General of Police, can also be awarded under regulation No. 858 (a) (2) by the Superintendent of Police. Government of Bangladesh and others vs Md Sharfuddin Mollah 54 DLR (AD) 120.

The Administrative Tribunal and Administrative Appellate Tribunal held that Rules 858 and 884 of the PRB did not empower the Additional Inspector General of Police to review earlier order of punishment awarded by the competent authority to any Sub Inspector and inflicted major penalty.
Government of People's Republic of Bangladesh, -Vs.-Md. Nurul Islam. 4 ALR (AD) 2014 (2) 88

Reinstate in service with all financial benefits–– It appears from the record that the departmental proceeding against the respondent had not been drawn up in B.P. Form No. 164 as required under Regulation 861 (a) of the PRB, 1943. Regulation 861(a) lays down that: "No major punishment shall be awarded except in proceedings in the prescribed form (B.P. Form No. 164)." ––But in the case in hand such mandatory provisions has not been complied with and as such the dismissal order of the respondent from service cannot stand in the eye of law.
The respondent claimed in A.T. Case No. 21 of 2006 that the charge against him framed on the basis of G.D. No. 75 dated 02.12.05, but the copy of said G.D. was not supplied to him for which the respondent was barred to take defence against the departmental proceedings. Moreover, the respondent was not given an opportunity to produce defence witness at the time of departmental enquiry and he was also not given personal hearing by the authority before his final dismissal from service. The appellants could not controvert the claim of the respondent, the Administrative Tribunal on proper appreciation of the facts arrived at correct findings in this regard. .....Ministry of Home Affairs =VS= Md. Arifuddin, (Civil), 2023(2) [15 LM (AD) 6] ....View Full Judgment

Police Officers (Special Provisions) Ordinance, 1976
Section 3, 6
Police Regulations of Bengal
Rule 861
No copy of the preliminary enquiry papers was supplied— It appears from the record that the submission of the appellants is not based on facts. The departmental appeal was disposed of without any remark on filing the same beyond scheduled time, a point raised for the first time in this appeal and as such, this argument is not acceptable at all. Furthermore, it was found that the action of the disciplinary authority was taken mainly on the basis of the ex-parte statement of witnesses which were taken in the absence of the delinquent. It is undisputed that in spite of the prayer of the applicant no copy of the preliminary enquiry papers was supplied to him. This is an utter denial of natural justice as has been mentioned very correctly by the learned Administrative Tribunal. It also appears from the record that the lower Tribunal has correctly disposed of the A.T. Case coming to a proper decision. In such view of the matter, there is nothing to interfere with the impugned judgment and order passed by the Administrative Tribunal below on 17.08.1998. .....Government of Bangladesh =VS= Md. Abdur Rahim, (Civil), 2025(1) [18 LM (AD) 473] ....View Full Judgment

Black Mark–
The petitioner for submitting false investigation report with intent to save the accused persons for illegal gain. the petitioner was charged under Rule 861 of the Police Regulations, Bengal (P.R.B.) and after completing a departmental proceeding, major penalty of “Black Mark” was imposed on 17. 08.2009. .....Govt. of Bangladesh & others =VS= Ranjit Krishna Mazumder (Civil), 2016-[1 LM (AD) 370] ....View Full Judgment

It appears from the impugned memo that it was issued from the Police Headquarters in the form of directives, of them, directive No.5 contains an embargo upon the promotion prospect in respect of those who have landed with three major punishments. In paragraph 6, it has been mentioned that the officers who have received less than three major punishments shall not be eligible for consideration for promotion before expiry of 3 years from the date of punishment. These are policy matters relating to the terms and conditions of service of a police officer and this power has not been given to the Inspector-General of Police by the Police Act or the Bengal Police Regulation or any other law. …Bangladesh Vs. Md. Abdus Satter and others, (Civil), 1 SCOB [2015] AD 17 ....View Full Judgment