Search Options
Judgment Search By Title
In a criminal revision the scope of reassessment of evidence is narrower than that in an appeal. It is also difficult to interfere with a judgment and order of acquittal, unless there is non-consideration or misreading of evidence, or miscarriage of justice arising out of misconception of law, gross procedural irregularities and apparent harshness of treatment. Generally an accused enjoys the presumption of innocence and an accused acquitted on trial acquires an added advantage of proven innocence………………………………………(8)
Mohammad Ali Vs. State and another, 2010, 39 CLC (HCD)
Cross-cheque/ Account Payee cheque as negotiable instrument
Cross-cheque/ Account Payee cheque is also cheque as contemplated in section 138(1) of the Negotiable Instruments Act but only changes its normal character by ceasing its negotiability but it does not lose its character as negotiable instrument as defined in section 13 of the Act.………….(10)
Interpretation of Statute
The principal object of interpretation is not only to find out a particular meaning of a word or words in a statute, but to find out the intention of the legislature which has been expressed through the medium of words. To interpret is not to restrict or to expand the meaning of the statute which, in truth, it intends to convey. So every effort is necessary to make a statute workable and not to render it ineffective by giving a meaningless interpretation. It is an elementary rule of construction that the intention of the legislature must be sought from the statute taken as a whole. In arriving at the true meaning of any particular phrase or words employed in the statute it must not be viewed isolated from the context, it must be viewed in its whole context, the title, the preamble, and all other related parts of the statute………………………………(13)Shahinur Begum Vs. Md. Minarul Islam Mondol @ Miton, 1997, 26 CLC (HCD)
Doon Valley Rice Limited Vs. MV Yue Yang and others, 1996, 25 CLC (HCD)
Yunus Molla (Md.) Vs. State, 1995, 24 CLC (HCD)
Mostafizur Rahman (Md.) Vs. State, 1993, 22 CLC (HCD)
State Vs. Anjali Debi alias Monju Debi, 2009, 38 CLC (HCD)
The Nari-o-Shishu Nirjatan Daman Ain, 2000 (Act No. VIII of 2000); section 6 (1)
Under section 6(1) of Ain, 2000, the offence must be a complete one, not an attempt. . . The offence under section 6(1) would be complete when the victim is totally under control of the accused. Unless the victim be totally under the control of the perpetrator or till that stage comes, no one could gather for what purpose the victim was taken by the perpetrator. And total control could not be seen unless that stage has arrived, that is, the victim was being removed from the care and custody of his guardian. To find a person guilty under this section, the prosecution must prove that the perpetrator illegally traffics any child or sells any child and with a view to trafficking any child keeps any child under his custody for the said purpose and the child is found under the total control of the perpetrator. The word 'keep' is very significant. Keep does not mean 'is going with' but it means 'to stay in a particular condition or position'. And stay means 'to continue to be in a particular place for a period of time without moving away'. To hold anyone as guilty of the offence under this Ain, 2000, for trafficking, then the accused should be put on trial when the victim was found to be under the custody and control of the offender at least for a considerable time, not when there is an attempt for the offence…………………………(18)
Section 6(1) of the Nari-o-Shishu Nirjatan Daman Ain, 2000 is jumbled up sections 359, 360, 361, 362, 363, 364, 364A, 365 of the Penal Code and by this jumbled up, a law has been promulgated, which has not been drafted properly, and it stands as harsh law. Harsh law is good law for veteran or seasoned criminals. Harsh law should not be applied in a case when there is possibility of acquittal or the fact does not invite any harsh sentence. It can be seen that from the year 1983 up to 2003, special laws have been promulgated by the Government for safety of woman's body, but there is no achievement, rather parallel laws are running in Bangladesh. Principle of natural justice speaks that when there are two parallel laws, harsh law should not be applied to an accused as the accused has a right for fair trial which cannot be possible under harsh law…………………………………….(23)
On awarding sentence
Death sentence is a sentence which should be passed when the offence committed has not been compatible with any other sentence. Sentence is the judicial determination of a punishment to be inflicted on the facts of the given case. A Judge is sitting for doing justice; a Judge is not a butcher who sits only to hang the accused. Even a condemned prisoner has the right to know why he or she was sent to the gallows or why he/she is to die………………(19)
The Government should not promulgate parallel law prescribing harsh punishment. Law is for protecting the citizen, not to place the citizen in apprehension that in the name of fair trial the accused is put under harsh law and in harsh law, there is no initial relief given to an accused, as such, when an accused put in a trial under special law, till judgment pronounced by the Apex Court of the country, the accused is kept inside custody……………………(25)Md. Akkas Ali Vs. Government of Bangladesh and others, 2010, 39 CLC (HCD)
Md. Rakibul Islam and others Vs. Anwar Hossain and another, 2009, 38 CLC (HCD)
Shamsul Alam Pathan Vs. State and M/S. Rahimafrooz Distribution Ltd., 2010, 39 CLC (HCD)
Md. Shawkat Ali Vs. Director General and others, 2010, 39 CLC (HCD)
Bahar Uddin Ahmed and others Vs. Secretary, Ministry of Liberation War Affairs and others, 2012, 41 CLC (HCD)
Hajee Helal Uddin Ahmed Vs. National Sports Council and others, 2012, 41 CLC (HCD)
Md. Arfan Khan Vs. Bangladesh and others, 2012, 41 CLC (HCD)
Commissioner of Customs and another Vs. Equity Construction Pvt. Ltd., 2012, 41 CLC (AD)
Md. Shahabuddin Vs. State, 2012, 41 CLC (AD)
Atif Atiq (Md.) and another Vs. Nurun Nahar Begum and others, 2012, 41 CLC (AD)
Abdul Gaffar and others Vs. Sree Sree Radha Madhab Jew Deity and others, 2012, 41 CLC (AD)
Labai Pramanik @ Nabab Ali Vs. State, 2005, 34 CLC (HCD)
Badsha Alam Vs. State, 2006, 35 CLC (HCD)