Act/Law wise: Judgment of Supreme Court of Bangladesh (AD & HCD)
Narcotics Control Act [XX of 1990]/ Madok Drabba Niontran Ain/ মাদকদ্রব্য নিয়ন্ত্রণ আইন | |||
---|---|---|---|
Section/Order/ Article/Rule/ Regulation | Head Note | Parties Name | Reference/Citation |
Section 2 & 1st schedule [Ka (3)] |
The Narcotics Control Act, 1990
|
The State =VS= Badal Kumar Paul | 12 LM (AD) 423 |
Sections 2(Kha), 9 and 10(Ga) |
There is absolutely no truth as to the allegation of the limit of use of alcohol or rectified spirit as a raw material in the preparation and formation of the Homeopathic medicine under the provisions of Drugs Act, 1940 or the Drugs (Control) Ordinance, 1982 or no such right of use has been taken away by the Narcotics Control Act, 1990. Bangladesh Homeopathic Medicine Manufacturers Association vs Bangladesh 11 BLC (AD) 26. |
Bangladesh Homeopathic Medicine Manufacturers Association vs Bangladesh | 11 BLC (AD) 26 |
Section 2 and 1st schedule [Ka (3)] |
The Narcotics Control Act, 1990
|
The State Vs. Badal Kumar Paul, (Criminal) | 17 SCOB [2023] AD 43 |
Section 11 |
To grant license in favour of the writ petitioner No.1 under Section 11 of
the Narcotics Control Act, 1990 to manufacture, process, carry, transport,
export, supply, sell, hold, preserve, warehousing and exhibit of
products– It appears that the appellants admitted before the High Court
Division about the issuance of license for manufacturing various alcoholic
drinks and the High Court Division observed as under:-
“It is not denied by the respondents that there are commercial concerns
in the country which are manufacturing various alcoholic drinks under
license. It is also not denied that there are also licensed dealers in the
country dealing in such drinks and accordingly they buy such drinks from
those licensed manufactures in the country.”
|
Department of Narcotics Control Dhaka=VS=Crown Beverage Ltd. | 8 LM (AD) 94 |
Section 19(1) Serial 3 |
The Narcotics Control Act, 1990
|
The State =VS= Badal Kumar Paul | 12 LM (AD) 423 |
Section 19 |
As the respondent was carrying surreptitiously 3 kg 27 grams of powder the whole stuff is to be treated as heroin for the purpose of the Act intending to punish the carrier of the narcotic irrespective of whether it is in the purest form or not. It is not necessary for the prosecution to prove the “actual and real heroin content” for the purpose of a conviction under clause 1(a) of the table of section 19 of the Act. The view taken by the High Court Division expressing that the purpose of the law is only to punish the preparation, carrying and dealing, etc. of laboratory heroin’ and not the stuff is wrong. State vs Miss Eliadah McCord 2 BLC (AD) 1. |
State vs Miss Eliadah McCord | 2 BLC (AD) 1 |
Section 19 |
While considering the sentence to be passed upon the respondent under clause 1(a) of section 19 of the Act the High Court Division was wrong in relying upon a statement made by the respondent recorded in connection with the Miscellaneous case started on a suo motu Rule as that statement was not part of the record of the appeal and thus irrelevant as far as the appeal was concerned. State vs Miss Eliadah McCord 2 BLC (AD) 1. |
State vs Miss Eliadah McCord | 2 BLC (AD) 1 |
Section 19 |
As there is no scope for altering the conviction from one under clause 1(b) to clause 1(a) of the table of section 19 of the Act reducing the sentence on compassionate ground considering the age of the respondent who may approach the Government or the President, if so advised, for any relief that she may choose to pray. State vs Miss Eliadah Mac Cord 2 (AD) BLC 1. |
State vs Miss Eliadah Mac Cord | 2 BLC (AD) 1 |
Section 19 |
Heroin-When mixed—
|
The State Vs. Ms. Eliadah Mac Cord | 1 MLR (AD) 238 |
Section 19(1) (ka) |
Conviction for possession of herion—
|
Shahid Hussain Chowdhury @ Bakul Vs. the State | 2 MLR (AD) 164 |
Section 19(1) Serial 3 |
Narcotics Control Act, 1990
|
The State Vs. Badal Kumar Paul, (Criminal) | 17 SCOB [2023] AD 43 |
Section 19(1) Serial 3(Kha) |
Since in the instant case, total 250 bottles i.e. 25 liters of the Phensedyl containing codeine phosphate have been seized the entire measure of Phensedyl is to be considered as narcotics. As the quantity of seized Phensedyl exceeds 2 kilograms, the accusedrespondent will be convicted under Section 19(1) Serial 3(Kha) of the Act. The High Court Division committed a serious error of law holding that in the absence of any law declaring Phensedyl contraband, the existence of codeine phosphate in Phensedyl does not make Phensedyl a schedule narcotic. ...The State Vs. Badal Kumar Paul, (Criminal), 17 SCOB [2023] AD 43 ....View Full Judgment |
The State Vs. Badal Kumar Paul, (Criminal) | 17 SCOB [2023] AD 43 |
Section 22 (Ga) |
We have gone through the judgments of both the trial court and the appellate court below and found that both the courts, on careful examination and consideration of evidence adduced by the prosecution found the charge against both the accused-persons proved beyond all reasonable doubt. We find no wrong in these concurrent findings and decision of the trial court and the appellate court below. Rather we, in agreement with the trial court and the appellate court below, find that the charges framed against both these accused-petitioners were proved beyond all reasonable doubt by sufficient convincing evidence and in the circumstances this criminal petition for leave to appeal has no merit. .....Md. Hosen Ali & another =VS= The State, (Criminal), 2016-[1 LM (AD) 481] ....View Full Judgment |
Md. Hosen Ali & another =VS= The State | 1 LM (AD) 481 |
Section 22(Ga) |
Madok Drabbya Neontron Ain, 1990
|
The State =VS= Md. Ramizuddin | 13 LM (AD) 568 |
Sections 31, 39 and 44 |
Section 31 of the Act has made the offence committed under this Act
cognizable. Section 39(i) of the Act has given power of an Officer--in
charge of a Police Station to the Directorate to investigate into an
offence under this Act. Sub-section (2) of section 39 empowers the
Government to confer power of an Officer-in-charge of a Police Station to
an officer subordinate to the Director General of the Narcotics Directorate
by a gazette notification to investigate into any offence under this Act.
It is thus evident that the power of the Director General of the Narcotics
Directorate is not in derogation of the power of the Officer-in-charge of
the concerned Police Station. Under section 5(2) of the Code of Criminal
Procedure. Section 44--Section 44 of the Act shows that on a written
request by the Director General of the Directorate of Narcotics, the
investigating agency may hand over charge of investigation of a case. It is
thus clear that besides the Director General of the Directorate of
Narcotics an officer subordinate to him specially empowered by the
Government, investigation of an offence under this Act may also be done by
any designated member of the law enforcing agency competent to investigate
the case. The power of the Director General of the Directorate of
Narcotics to investigate a case under this Act is neither exclusive nor
absolute.
|
The State-Vs.- Amin Huda | 2 ALR (AD) 177 |
Section 44 |
Section 44 of the Act shows that on a written request by the Director
General of the Directorate of Narcotics, the investigating agency may hand
over charge of investigation of a case. It is thus clear that besides the
Director General of the Directorate of Narcotics an officer subordinate to
him specially empowered by the Government, investigation of an offence
under this Act may also be done by any designated member of the law
enforcing agency competent to investigate the case.The power of the
Director General of the Directorate of Narcotics to investigate a case
under this Act is neither exclusive nor absolute.
|
The State-Vs.- Amin Huda | 2 ALR (AD) 177 |