Sections 16 & 18
|
Appellant was neither given any notice of enquiry nor was he given any
hearing before cancellation of arms—Enquiry undertaken on a sprawling
private complaint made by the local upazila Chairman.
No emergency or any other compelling situation preventing giving of
notice of enquiry lo the appellant—Nothing on record to show that any
specific case was started against the appellant involving alleged misuse of
revolver —Inquisitorial nature of enquiry aggravating the degree of
unfairness—Principles of natural justice to be observed in proceedings
affecting "the person or property or other right of parties concerned
"—court adds a rider to the observance of the principle of natural
justice that so far as exercise of power under section 18 of the Arms Act
is concerned, the absence of a prior notice or hearing may not always
invalidate the order passed thereunder if the security of the public peace
is involved.
Sk. Ali Ahmed Vs. Secretary, Home Affairs 40 DLR (AD) 170.
|
Sk. Ali Ahmed Vs. Secretary, Home Affairs |
40 DLR (AD) 170 |
Section 18
|
Cancellation and suspension of license for arms—The necessity of
recording reasons by the appropriate authority in writing for the
cancellation of the license to be emphasized as a general rule—If the
appropriate authority chooses not to make its order a speaking one and
merely relies on the materials on record, its order stands a greater risk
of being struck down.
Sk. Ali Ahmed Vs. Secretary Home Affairs 40 (AD) 170.
|
Sk. Ali Ahmed Vs. Secretary Home Affairs |
40 (AD) 170 |
Section 19A
|
The Explosive Substances Act, 1908
Sections 4/6 r/w
The Arms Act, 1878
Section 19A
Pending any prohibitory order from the Apex Court–– The court has
knowledge of the order it is bound to obey it and if it does not, it not
only acts illegally, and all proceedings taken after the knowledge of the
order but also all proceedings taken even without knowledge too would be a
nullity in toto. ––The order of the High Court Division for dismissing
the criminal appeal no. 7403 of 2021 allowing the petition for
non-prosecution on 27.06.2022 is set aside and the Criminal Appeal no.7403
of 2021 is hereby restored to its original file and number and in the
category of Rule hearing. The order of stay granted by this Division to be
continued till disposal of the Rule. ––The High Court Division is
further directed to dispose of the Rule on merit. The copy of this judgment
be communicated to the Judges of the criminal Benches of the High Court
Division at once for further reference and steps. .....The State =VS= Omit
Hasan @ Azmir, (Criminal), 2022(2) [13 LM (AD) 588]
....View Full Judgment
|
The State =VS= Omit Hasan @ Azmir |
13 LM (AD) 588 |
Section 19A and 19 (f)
|
Constitution of Bangladesh
Article 66(2)(d)
Arms Act, 1878
Section 19A and 19 (f)
In view of the findings and decision on the issue of the remaining period
of sentence (Isssue No. 6) it is evident that, on the date of his release
from jail on 01.06.2006, the incumbent MP (respondent No. 7) had not served
out the entire sentence and that he was required to serve out the remaining
sentence for another 468 days. There is nothing on record to show that,
after his release on 01.06.2006, he was ever taken to jail in connection
with the sentence imposed on him in Special Tribunal Case No. 757 of 1999.
It follows that as per article 66(2)(d) of the Constitution he was
disqualified to be nominated and elected as an MP in the election held on
05.01.2014. It is noted that article 66(2)(d) speaks of conviction for a
criminal offence involving moral turpitude. The offence under section 19A
and 19 (f) of the Arms Act, 1878 is such an offence. Because in the context
our society the nature of the prescribed penalty namely a minimum rigorous
imprison of 10 years and 7 years for illegal possession of fire arms and
ammunition without licence issued by appropriate authority is an offence
against the security of the society at large and also against the state and
moral value in general. (Minority view) (Per Mr. Md. Emdadul Huq, J)
...Shakwat Hossain Bhuiyan Vs.Bangladesh & ors., (Civil), 12 SCOB [2019]
HCD 39
....View Full Judgment
|
Shakwat Hossain Bhuiyan Vs.Bangladesh & ors. |
12 SCOB [2019] HCD 39 |
Section 19A
|
The Arms Act, 1878
Section 19A r/w
Evidence Act [I of 1872]
Section 27
Whether on the admitted facts the High Court Division is justified in
maintaining the appellant’s conviction under section 19A of the Arms
Act–
The Appellate Division held that whatever allegations made in the FIR and
the statements made by P.Ws.1-4 are the result of the investigation and
therefore, those statements are hit by section 162 of the Code. The
appellant was not an accused on 13.12.2004 and the recovery of fire arm as
per his statement is a doubtful story to believe on. After recovery of the
fire arm, the police officer in course of investigation found that the
appellant planted the fire arm in the hayrick of Abdul Hoque. This
statement is not admissible under section 27 of the Evidence Act. The High
Court Division has totally misconstrued section 27 of the Evidence Act and
illegally held that the recovery of the fire arm was on the basis of the
statement made by the appellant with a sketch map ‘pointing to an arm
which is sufficient to have a knowledge, possession and control by himself
and nobody else, even not Abdul Hoque’. This conclusion arrived at is
based on misconception of law. There is no legal evidence to prove the
recovery of he firearm from the exclusive control or knowledge of the
appellant. .....Md. Tofajjal Hussain =VS= The State, (Criminal), 2016-[1 LM
(AD) 483]
....View Full Judgment
|
Md. Tofajjal Hussain =VS= The State |
1 LM (AD) 483 |
Section 19(f)
|
Seizure list witnesses were not examined as such alleged recovery of seized
ammunitions from the possession of the accused-appellant not proved–
The Appellate Division observed that the High Court Division pointed out
that the person-who prepared the seizure list was not examined before the
court although he was cited as a witness in the charge sheet and that both
the seizure list witnesses were declared hostile. the place wherefrom the
seized ammunitions were allegedly recovered was a shop in public place
located besides the road and was accessible to the public at large and that
in that situation it could not be said that the accused-appellants had
exclusive control and possession over the place of occurrence. The High
Court Division commented also that in that circumstances the possibility of
false implication by business rival, as has been suggested by the learned
Counsel for the accused-appellants, could not be brushed aside. .....The
State =VS= Asif Khan Riyad & another, (Criminal), 2016-[1 LM (AD) 534]
....View Full Judgment
|
The State =VS= Asif Khan Riyad & another |
1 LM (AD) 534 |
Sections 19A/19(f)
|
Recovery of the arms consequent upon confession made by the
accused-petitioner and which he himself brought out of his straw store
located within his homestead–
After consideration of the evidence and materials on record the Special
Tribunal No.1, Narail by its judgement and order dated 14.06.2011 convicted
the accused under sections 19(f)/19A of the Arms Act sentencing him to
suffer rigorous imprisonment for life for the offence under section 19A and
7(seven) years for the offence under section 19(f) of the Arms Act.
No appeal was preferred against the judgement and order of the trial Court.
However, being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the judgement and order
of conviction and sentence dated 14.06.2011, the convict-petitioner
preferred Criminal Miscellaneous Case No.6610 of 2012 under section 561A of
the Code of Criminal Procedure and obtained Rule, which upon hearing was
discharged.
We are of the view that the ends of justice would be sufficiently met if
the sentence of the convict-petitioner imposed for the offence under
section 19A of the Arms Act is reduced to rigorous imprisonment for 10(ten)
years. Both the sentences shall run concurrently. Any period that the
convict-petitioner suffered in custody during the course of the trial shall
be deducted from the period of his sentence. ...Abdur Rab Munshi =VS= The
State, (Criminal), 2019 (1) [6 LM (AD) 95]
....View Full Judgment
|
Abdur Rab Munshi =VS= The State |
6 LM (AD) 95 |
Section 26
|
Section 26 of the Arms Act does not empower the Deputy Commissioner to
issue such an order for seizure of arms. Only the Government is empowered
to seize arms of any person and to detain the same for such time as it
thinks necessary for the public safety.
Golam Ambia Vs. Deputy Commissioner & Ors 12 BLT (AD)-63
|
Golam Ambia Vs. Deputy Commissioner & Ors. |
12 BLT (AD) 63 |