Search Options
Judgment Search By Title
Abdul Hannan Vs. State, 2008, 37 CLC (HCD)
Extra-judicial confession
Extra-judicial confession if not recorded in the own language of the accused raises doubt about the genuineness of the extra-judicial confession………………………(42)
Extra-judicial confession made before a person in authority cannot be relied upon as evidence without any independent corroboration…………………….(43)
Extra-judicial confession is a weak piece of evidence. If it is lacking in probability, there is no difficulty in rejecting it. …………………….(45)
For testing the credibility of extra-judicial confession, the Court will consider-
(i) The circumstances in which the extra-judicial confession is made;
(ii) The manner in which it is made;
(iii) The person to whom it is made along with the rules of caution…………………..(46)
Confession
Before a confession can be accepted in evidence, it must be established by cogent evidence that what were the exact words used by the accused. Even if so much is established, prudence and justice demand that such evidence cannot be made the sole ground of conviction. It may be used only as a corroborative piece of evidence. The rule of prudence does not require that each and every circumstances mentioned in the confession with regard to the participation of the accused person in the crime must be separately and independently corroborated, nor is it essential that the corroboration must come from the facts and circumstances discovered after the confession was made…………………….(48)
The Court should apply two tests:
Is it voluntary? Is it true? It is the duty of the Court to enquire very carefully into all the circumstances under which confession was made and to ascertain whether it is true and voluntary……………………(49)
Principle of criminal law
The cherished principles or golden thread of proof beyond reasonable doubt which runs through the web of our law field should be respected and should be given due importance at the time of appreciation of evidence…………………………..(62)
The age long concept that hundreds of guilty men escape but one innocent person may not suffer……………………………(63)
If a guilty person goes unpunished and stands acquitted, justice delivery system shall break down and public shall lose confidence in the judicial system which has also got public accountability. . . “miscarriage of justice" may arise from the acquittal of the guilty is less than the conviction of the innocent…………………......................(64)
How the court should consider the evidence
The Court is to examine the entire evidence and must distinguish the chaff from the grain and should not discard the entire prosecution case merely on the ground that a part of the story is found to be false. It is the duty of the Court to disengage the truth from falsehood instead of taking an easy course of rejecting the evidence in its entirety solely on the ground that the same is not acceptable in respect of some of the accused……………………..(65)
The proper procedure for appreciation of evidence of a witness is in its entirety and not to bank on a particular portion of it, ignoring the rest. Evidence of a witness in his cross-examination is as good as that of his examination in chief while considering the legal incidence and the essence of impressions that it creates on the mind of the judge………….............(67)
In arriving at the proper conclusions, the Court is also required to take note of the attending circumstances of the case which at times become a determining factor in judging the guilt or innocence of the accused. Any findings based on the examination- in-chief of a witness ignoring his cross examination and vital circumstances surrounding the case must be held to be no proper finding in the eye of law…………………………..(68)
Durga Prasad Singh Hajari Vs. Commissioner of Taxes, Taxes Zone 3, Chittagong, 2007, 36 CLC (HCD)
Abu Taher Chowdhury and others Vs. Showkat Ali and others, 2012, 41 CLC (HCD)
Government of Bangladesh Vs. Abdul Malek, 2007, 36 CLC (HCD)
Kartick Chandra Das and another Vs. State, 2012, 41 CLC (HCD)
Abdul Karim Vs. Land Acquisition Officer, Comilla and others, 2006, 35 CLC (HCD)
LMJ International Ltd. India Vs. MV BK Ace and others, 2010, 39 CLC (HCD)
Md. Enamul Haque Vs. Md. Ekramul Haque and others, 2011, 40 CLC (HCD)
Sharifuddin and others Vs. Commissioner of Customs and others, 2009, 38 CLC (AD)
Zareen Biscuit Company Vs. Sayed M. Salimullah and others, 2010, 39 CLC (HCD)
Government of the People's Republic of Bangladesh and others Vs. Md. Harun-or-Rashid and others, 2012, 41 CLC (AD)
An employee who was appointed in a development project could claim absorption as of right in the revenue budget and the government should follow the following matters-
(i) Whenever any vacancy in LGED is created in the revenue set up, it shall consider for absorption of employees or officers of the development projects within the meaning of rule 2(ga) of the উন্নয়ন প্রকল্প হইতে রাজস্ব বাজেটে স্থানান্তরিত পদধারীদের নিয়মিত করন ও জেষ্ঠতা নির্ধারন বিধিমালা, ২০০৫ (the Rules, 2005), if the project in which s/he is working is completed subject to the condition that such employee or officer has requisite qualifications for the said post.
(ii) Whenever a vacant post is created in the revenue budget, the LGED shall absorb/transfer an employee or officer from the development project mentioned in clause (1) to fill up that post in accordance with Rules of 1985 and the ECNEC'S decision dated 10th January, 2008.
(iii) An officer or employee shall be absorbed if she was appointed in the development project within the meaning of rule 2(ka) of Rules, 2005 in accordance with the procedures prescribed for appointment in public employment.
(iv) An officer or employee must have requisite qualifications for the post in which he is seeking absorption.
(v) An officer or employee must have continuity in service in the project in which he is working.
(vi) An officer or employee must have satisfactory service record before his case is considered for regularization in the revenue budget.
(vii) If an officer and employee whose rank and status does not relate to the posts advertised by the impugned notifications on the day of its publications, such officer or employee would not be eligible for consideration for absorption.
(viii) The employees and officers who have been working in the development projects mentioned in clause (1) on monthly pay basis would only be eligible for consideration for absorption in the revenue budget.
(ix) Unless and until vacancies in the revenue budget in the LGED are created, the employees and officers of the development projects mentioned in clause (1) can not claim as of right to be absorbed in the revenue budge.
(x) While considering and selecting an employee or officer of the development project for absorption in the revenue budget, the appointing authority shall maintain strictly the prevailing quota system for employment in the public employment being followed by the Government.
(xi) The LGED shall consider the cases of those working on master roll basis for absorption in the revenue budget by phases if they have requisite qualifications subject to availability of vacancies according to their seniority.Nasirullah and another Vs. Government of Bangladesh and others, 2008, 37 CLC (HCD)
Rezia Khatun Chowdhurani and others Vs. Shamir Kumar Chowdhury and others, 2008, 37 CLC (HCD)
Rafiqul Islam Vs. State, 2009, 38 CLC (HCD)
Islamic Democratic Party (IDP) Vs. Bangladesh Election Commission and others, 2008, 37 CLC (HCD)
Zahed Hossain (Md.) Vs. State and another, 2009, 38 CLC (HCD)
Bangladesh Biman Airlines Limited and others Vs. Emran Ahmed and others, 2012, 41 CLC (AD)
Abdur Razzak Vs. State, 2012, 41 CLC (HCD)
Allama Delawar Hossain Sayedee Vs. Bangladesh, and others, 2009, 38 CLC (HCD)