Prisons Act 1894,
Section 59 (f)
Chapter XXI of the Jail Code and
Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898:
In exercise of the power conferred by section 59, sub-section (5) of the Prisons Act,1894 (IX of 1894) Rules were made in chapter XXI of the Jail Code to regulate the shortening of sentences by grant of remission. Any remission calculated by jail authorities under the provisions of the Jail Code are to be referred to the Government for release under section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. But such remission recommended by the Jail Authority cannot be turned down by the Government without assigning any valid reason in writing as the rules relating to remission under Chapter XXI of the Jail Code were made under the mandate of section 59(f) of the Prisons Act,1894. (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

Government Servants (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1985
Rule 4(b), 4(2)(b)
The Bangladesh Service Rules (Part-II)
Rule 45
The Jail Code
Rule 194
Increments can be withheld for a specified period– In ordering the withholding of an increment the withholding authority shall state the period for which it is withheld, and whether the postponement shall have the effect of postponing future increments. The same principle has been followed in Rule 4(b) of the Government Servants (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1985. It is quite evident from the Fundamental Rule 24 that increments can be withheld for a specified period and it is to be stated whether the postponement shall have the effect of postponing future increments. But in the instant case the two annual increments of the petitioner had been stopped permanently and it was not stated whether the said postponement of the annual increment shall affect the future increments, which is derogatory to the Fundamental Rule 24. It is, therefore, clear that the appellants passed the impugned orders by violating the Rule 24 of the Fundamental Rules; the Rule 45 of the B.S.R. (Part-II); the Rule 4(2)(b) of the Government servants (Discipline & Appeal) Rules, 1985 and the Rule 194 of the Jail Code. .....Government of Bangladesh =VS= Mohd. Bazlur Rashid Akand, (Civil), 2022(1) [12 LM (AD) 19] ....View Full Judgment

The power of commutation and remission is within the domain of the executive Government, but the Courts have the jurisdiction to determine the entitlement:
The power of commutation and remission as contained in the Penal Code, Code of Criminal Procedure and the Jail Code are within the domain of the executive Government and such privilege may be extended by the Government to the convicts undergoing imprisonment for life. But the Courts have the jurisdiction in certain circumstances to pass an order directing that the accused shall not be entitled to the benefit of Penal Code, the Code of Criminal Procedure and the Jail Code in respect of commutation, deduction and remission. (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

The Prisons Act, 1894
Section 59 (f)
Jail Code
Chapter XXI
The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898
Section 401
In exercise of the power conferred by section 59, sub-section (5)of the Prisons Act,1894 (IX of 1894) Rules were made in chapter XXI of the Jail Code to regulate the shortening of sentences by grant of remission. Any remission calculated by jail authorities under the provisions of the Jail Code are to be referred to the Government for release under section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. But such remission recommended by the Jail Authority cannot be turned down by the Government without assigning any valid reason in writing as the rules relating to remission under Chapter XXI of the Jail Code were made under the mandate of section 59(f) of the Prisons Act,1894. (Majority view: Per Syed Mahmud Hossain, CJ) ...Ataur Mridha =VS= The State, [10 LM (AD) 527] ....View Full Judgment

This Division passed the death sentence and after the judgment, the Tribunal communicated the sentence There is no provision in this rule that if the communication of the sentence is made b' an inferior Tribunal, it will be illegal or void. This is merely an irregularity and this will not be said to be ineffective. The legislature has used the expression 'will be in respect of communication of the sentence. So, if the inferior Tribunal communicates the warrant as per direction of this Division, it cannot be said that the warrant was inoperative. This is a mere technical formality. Abdul Quader Mollah vs Chief Prosecutor, ICT, 66 DLR (AD) 289

The Jail Code
Rule 991 (I) & (VI) r/w
International Crimes Tribunals Act, 1973
Review petition should not be equated with an appeal– The condemned prisoner should be afforded an opportunity to file a mercy petition–
A review petition should not be equated with an appeal. In criminal matters, the power of review must be limited to an error which have a material, real ground on the face of the case. The finality attached to a judgment at the apex level of the judicial hierarchy upon a full fledged hearing of the parties should be re-examined in exceptional cases and a review is not permissible to embark upon a reiteration of the same points. The period of limitation provided in the Appellate Division rules will not be applicable in respect of a review petition from a judgment on appeal under the Act of 1973. The period of limitation is fifteen days and the review petition should be disposed of on priority basis. If a warrant of death for execution is communicated to the Jail authority after it is confirmed or imposed by this Division, the condemned prisoner should be afforded an opportunity to file a mercy petition and he should also be afforded an opportunity to meet his near ones before the execution of the sentence. If the jail authority fixes a date for execution of the sentence, the same cannot be taken as has been done hurriedly. If any review or mercy petition is filed or pending, the sentence cannot be executed unless the petitions are disposed of. So, the period of seven days or twenty one days mentioned in sub-rules (I) and (VI) of rule 991 of the Jail Code have no force of law under the changed conditions. .....Abdul Quader Mollah =VS= Chief Prosecutor, ICT, Dhaka, (Civil), 2018 (2) [5 LM (AD) 435] ....View Full Judgment