Sections 4(2) and 4 (3)
|
Penal Code
Sections 409/420/109
Money Laundering Protirodh Ain, 2012
Sections 4(2) and 4 (3)
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947
Section 5(2)
It is now well settled that a criminal case having criminal liability
cannot be avoided due to departmental proceeding against the accused.
...Sultana Fahmida Vs. The State & anr, (Criminal), 18 SCOB [2023] HCD 54
....View Full Judgment
|
Sultana Fahmida Vs. The State & anr |
18 SCOB [2023] HCD 54 |
Sections 4(2) and 4 (3)
|
CrPC
Section 439
Penal Code
Sections 409/420/109
Money Laundering Protirodh Ain, 2012
Sections 4(2) and 4 (3)
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947
Section 5(2)
Exercise of revisional jurisdiction of High Court Division to ensure
justice under Section 439 of CrPC:
On an application by a party or which otherwise comes to its knowledge,
High Court Division is legally competent to exercise its revisional
jurisdiction under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to examine
the facts and circumstances of the case and the judgment and the order if
there is any error which may not ensure justice to the litigant public in
not following the correct principles of law and fact in assessing the
material and evidence in proper perspective and in that case, High Court
Division may, in its discretion, exercise any of the powers conferred on a
court of appeal by Sections 423, 426, 427 and 428 or on a court by Section
338. ...Sultana Fahmida Vs. The State & anr, (Criminal), 18 SCOB [2023] HCD
54
....View Full Judgment
|
Sultana Fahmida Vs. The State & anr |
18 SCOB [2023] HCD 54 |
Sections 4(2) and 4 (3)
|
Penal Code
Sections 409/420/109
Money Laundering Protirodh Ain, 2012
Sections 4(2) and 4 (3)
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947
Section 5(2)
Failure of Prosecution to implicate responsible Persons within the Chain of
Occurrence:
Under the circumstances, it is worthwhile to mention that the prosecution
case cannot continue on a defective foundation of a case since the
necessary and responsible persons who are involved in the alleged offences
within the chain of occurrence are not implicated in this case making them
accused. ...Sultana Fahmida Vs. The State & anr, (Criminal), 18 SCOB [2023]
HCD 54
....View Full Judgment
|
Sultana Fahmida Vs. The State & anr |
18 SCOB [2023] HCD 54 |
Section 13
|
Code of Criminal Procedure [V of 1898]
Sections 497 and 498 read with
Money Laundering Prevention Act [V of 2012]
Section 13 read with
Criminal Law (Amendment) Act [XL of 1958]
Section 4(2)
Whether before taking cognizance of any offence by a competent Court having
jurisdiction to try a case relating thereto filed under the Anti-Corruption
Commission Act, 2004 (hereinafter referred to as the Act of 2004), in
particular, under the Money Laundering Prevention Act, 2012 (in short, the
Act of 2012), the Magistrate or any other Court having no jurisdiction to
take cognizance thereof has got any authority to entertain and dispose of
an application for bail.
The High Court Division held that while dealing with an application for
bail, the Magistrate or the Court concerned will consider the materials
furnished by the prosecution only and by considering those materials
furnished by the prosecution, the Magistrate or the Court at his or its
discretion may grant or refuse bail to the accused. At this juncture, the
High Court Division feels tempted to reiterate that it is a settled
proposition of law that the defence plea can only be raised and gone into
at the time of trial of the case. This is essentially a matter of evidence
and trial. Before conclusion of the trial of the case, the veracity of the
defence plea can not be ascertained. At the pretrial stage, the defence
plea can not be taken into account at any rate. But if a Judge or a
Metropolitan/Judicial Magistrate does so, that will amount to begging the
question. So this exercise is deprecated. The State -Vs.- M. Wahidul Haque
and others (Criminal) 2019 ALR (HCD) Online 42
....View Full Judgment
|
The State -Vs.- M. Wahidul Haque and others |
2019 ALR (HCD) Online 42 |
Section 13
|
Code of Criminal Procedure [V of 1898]
Sections 497 and 498 read with
Money Laundering Prevention Act [V of 2012]
Section 13 read with
Criminal Law (Amendment) Act [XL of 1958]
Section 4(2)
The High Court Division further held that there is no express or implied
provision within the four corners of the Act of 2012 debarring or
prohibiting the Metropolitan or Judicial Magistracy from entertaining and
dealing with any application for bail or remand at the pretrial stage, the
Magistracy is well-authorized to entertain and deal therewith in accordance
with the above-mentioned provisions of the Code. To sum up, at the pretrial
stage, that is to say, from the date of lodgment of the FIR with the
concerned Police Station till taking cognizance of the offence by the
Senior Special Judge under section 4(2) of the Criminal Law (Amendment)
Act, 1958, the Judicial or Metropolitan Magistracy is empowered to
entertain, deal with and dispose of any application for bail of an accused
in a case under the Act of 2012 under section 497 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure. Similarly at the pretrial stage, in the absence of any express
or implied prohibition in any other special law, the Metropolitan or
Judicial Magistracy may entertain, deal with and dispose of any application
for bail of an accused under section 497 of the Code. In case of rejection
of his application for bail, he may move the Court of Session by filing a
Criminal Miscellaneous Case under section 498 and thereafter in case of
failure before the Court of Session, he can move the High Court Division
under the self-same section 498 of the aforesaid Code for bail. In this
connection, it is to be remembered that the powers of granting bail of the
Court of Session and the High Court Division under section 498 of the Code
are concurrent. Again after taking cognizance of any offence punishable
under the Act of 2012, if an accused files an application for bail, then
the Senior Special Judge/Special Judge concerned will hear and dis¬pose of
the same in accordance with the provisions of section 13 of the Act of
2012. In case of refusal of bail by the Senior Special Judge or the Special
Judge, as the case may be, the accused may prefer an appeal there against
before the High Court Division under section 22 of the Act of 2012. The
State -Vs.- M. Wahidul Haque and others (Criminal) 2019 ALR (HCD) Online 42
....View Full Judgment
|
The State -Vs.- M. Wahidul Haque and others |
2019 ALR (HCD) Online 42 |