Act/Law wise: Judgment of Supreme Court of Bangladesh (AD & HCD)
Druto Bichar Tribunal Ain (XXVIII of 2002) (দ্রুত বিচার ট্রাইব্যুনাল আইন, ২০০২) | |||
---|---|---|---|
Section/Order/ Article/Rule/ Regulation | Head Note | Parties Name | Reference/Citation |
Sections 5 and 6 |
An under trial prisoner is also entitled to get speedy trial without being languishing in jail without trial for an indefinite period and it is a fundamental right of an under-trial prisoner to get speedy trial and thus the High Court Division erred in law in granting stay against the spirit of law and intention of the legislature in enacting the Act No.28 of 2002. The learned Attorney General further submitted that section 5 and 6 of the Act 28 /naving been challenged in writ yrction and the said two sections A been found to be the valid law and /ie decision to that effect has been reported in 55 DLR 636, as such, High Court Division ought not to have granted stay of proceedings while issuing the rule challenging the vires of certain provisions of the law. Abdul Kader Mirza vs. Bangladesh represented by the Secretary Ministry of Law (Mohammad Fazlul Karim J) (Civil) 5ADC 901 |
Abdul Kader Mirza vs. Bangladesh represented by the Secretary Ministry of Law | 5 ADC 901 |
Sections 5 and 6 |
Section 5 of the Ain provides that the Tribunal shall hold trial of only
those cases mentioned in the Gazette Notification and the provision in
Section 6 provides which cases would be transferred by the Government
through Gazette Notification to the Tribunal established under the Ain. The
High Court Division finds that there is, prima-facie, no hide and sick or
choose and pick in making the transfer of the cases.
|
Abdul Kader Mirza -Vs.- The State | 3 ALR (AD) 90 |
Section 7 |
Section 7 specifically provides that the Tribunal shall be deemed to be
Court of Sessions and the provision of the Ain shall apply in respect of
the trial of the cases before the Tribunal.
|
Abdul Kader Mirza -Vs.- The State | 3 ALR (AD) 90 |
Section 9(2) |
We have gone through the order passed by the Magistrate which has simply and plainly asked the investigation officer to add relevant section of the Druta Bichar Ain provided the allegations do attract any of the section of the aforesaid Ain and so doing we do not think the Magistrate has in nay way exceeded his jurisdiction having the effect of interference with the course of investigation, rather, he has left the matter to the discretion and judgment of the investigating officer. Monajjel Hossain Khan Vs. The State 13 BLT (AD) 25. |
Monajjel Hossain Khan Vs. The State | 13 BLT (AD) 25 |
Section 13 |
Druta Bichar Tribunal Ain, 2000
|
Abdul Motaleb Vs. Govt. of Bangladesh & Ors. | 16 BLT (AD) 147 |