Chapter XXI
|
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
|
Ataur Mridha alias Ataur Vs. The State |
15 SCOB [2021] AD 1 |
Rule 194
|
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
|
Government of Bangladesh =VS= Mohd. Bazlur Rashid Akand |
12 LM (AD) 19 |
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:
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
|
Ataur Mridha alias Ataur Vs. The State |
15 SCOB [2021] AD 1 |
Chapter XXI
|
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
|
Ataur Mridha =VS= The State |
10 LM (AD) 527 |
Rule 979
|
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
|
Abdul Quader Mollah vs Chief Prosecutor, ICT |
66 DLR (AD) 289 |
Rule 991 (I) & (VI)
|
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
|
Abdul Quader Mollah =VS= Chief Prosecutor, ICT, Dhaka |
5 LM (AD) 435 |