The Explosive substances Act
Sections 3/6 r/w
The Special Powers Act
Section 25D r/w
The Penal Code
Sections 57, 302/109
Abetment of the offence– We are satisfied that accused respondent Amjad Ali @ Md. Hossain @ Babu has been rightly found guilty by the special tribunal as well as by the learned Sessions Judge for abetment of the offence. However, since he did not directly participate either in the explosion of bomb or in the murder, the learned Sessions Judge is not justified in awarding him the death sentences in both the charges. As per our sentencing rules which provide that the abettor should not be equated with the principal offender so far as regards awarding the sentence although there is no legal bar to award the same sentence. We convert the conviction of the accused respondent Mohammad Hossain to one under sections 3/6 of the Explosive substances Act read with section 25D of the Special Powers Act and sentence him to imprisonment for life. We also award him sentence of imprisonment for life under sections 302/109 of the Penal Code. It should be borne in mind that imprisonment for life within the meaning of section 57 of the Penal Code means imprisonment for the whole of the remaining period of the convicted person's natural life. ...State =VS= Amjad Ali @ Md Hossain @ Babu, (Criminal), 2021(1) [10 LM (AD) 408] ....View Full Judgment

It appears that though the local witnesses deposed that appellant Mustafizur Rahman caused injury by using an explosive substance but this has not been supported by the evidence of P.W. 8 Dr. Shah Md. Akhtaruzzaman. He has not stated that injury No. 2 was caused by any explosive substance. He stated that the injury could be caused probably by a chemical substance. From his evidence it cannot be found that P.W. 1 sustained injury by an explosive substance. The Investigating Officer also failed to get the injury and the shirt of P.W. 1 examined by an expert to find out whether P.W. 1 sustained injury by explosive sub-stance. Unless that is proved it cannot be found that appellant No. 2 Mustafizur Rahman) alias Reza caused injury on the person of PW 1 by any explosive substance. Aminul Islam @ Ranga & Ors. Vs. The State 8 BLT(AD)-129

Although the local witnesses deposed that appellant Mustafizur Rahman caused injury by using an explosive substance but the doctor opined that the injury was caused by a chemical substance when the investigating officer failed to get the injury and the shirt of PW 1 examined by an expert to find out whether PW 1 sustained inury by explosive substance it cannot be said that it is proved that Mustafizur Rahman caused injury by explosive substance. Aminul Islam alias Ranga and others vs State 5 BLC (AD) 179.

Explosive Substances Act, 1908
Sections 4(b)/6
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898
Section 342
The High Court Division in its appellate jurisdiction is entitled to correct any error committed by the learned Judge of the Tribunal— The learned Judge of the Special Tribunal No. 4, Rajshahi found the accused guilty of the offence charged and by his judgment and order dated 21.03.2007 convicted the accused respondent under section 6 of the Explosive Substances Act and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 10 (ten) years and other accused were convicted under section 4(b)/6 of the said Act and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 15 years each.
Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the judgment and order of the trial Court, the convict- respondent, Md. Tareque Aziz moved the High Court Division by filing Criminal Appeal No. 1221 of 2010. The learned Judges of the High Court Division upon hearing both the sides by its judgment and order dated 17.01.2011 allowed the appeal and set aside the judgment and order of conviction passed by the Special Tribunal.
The findings arrived at and the decision made by the High Court Division so far as those relating to acquittal of the respondent having been based on proper appreciation of law and fact do not call for interference. Accordingly, this criminal petition for leave to appeal is dismissed and the derogatory comments made against the learned Judge and the direction for keeping a copy of the judgment of the High Court Division in dossier of the learned Judge are hereby expunged. .....The State =VS= Md. Tareque Aziz, (Criminal), 2025(1) [18 LM (AD) 638] ....View Full Judgment

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