Search Options
Judgment Search By Title
Tahmina Khatun Vs. Begum Nurun Nahar and others, 1988, 17 CLC (AD)
Md. Nurul Huda Vs. Bhashanu Sardar and ors., 1988, 17 CLC (AD)
Alauddin Sarder and another Vs. Surendra Nath Falia and Ors, 1988, 17 CLC (AD)
Sekander Ali Mia, Mujibur Rahman & Shahidul Islam Vs. Chairman, B.I.W.T.A. & ors, 1988, 17 CLC (AD)
Bhupati Ranjan Shome & ors Vs. Afizuddin Sheikh & ors., 1988, 17 CLC (AD)
Haruni Fisherman Cooperative Society Vs. Md. Ebadut Ali & ors., 1988, 17 CLC (AD)
Awlad Hossain Vs. Haji Monwaruddin Ahmed & ors., 1988, 17 CLC (AD)
Kutubuddin Ahmed Vs. Hasna Banu and another, 1988, 17 CLC (AD)
Ahmed Meah Vs. Ejahar Meah & Ors., 1988, 17 CLC (AD)
Md. Iqbal alias Salim Vs. The State, 1988, 17 CLC (AD)
Saidur Rahman alias Chan Miah & Ors Vs. The State, 1988, 17 CLC (AD)
Alauddin Molla & Others Vs. The State & Others, 1988, 17 CLC (AD)
Mafizuddin alias Mahi Vs. The State, 1988, 17 CLC (AD)
Sree Kalyan Kumar Chowdhury Vs. The State, 1988, 17 CLC (AD)
Shahjahan Biswas & Others Vs. The State, 1988, 17 CLC (AD)
Kashem Ali Vs. The State & ors, 1988, 17 CLC (AD)
Nishat Jute Mills Ltd. Nishatnagar, Tongi, District Gazipur Vs. Md. Sanaullah, 1988, 17 CLC (AD)
Shahabullah (Md) Vs. The State, 1990, 19 CLC (AD)
The Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 (II of 1947), Section 5(2)
The Penal Code, 1860 (XLV of 1860), Section 161
Whether witnesses of a trap case are accomplice requiring corroboration of their evidence in material particulars
Though in case of accomplice evidence the rule of prudence has been crystallized into a rule of law that conviction based on such evidence is to be corroborated in material particulars, such principle cannot be extended to the evidence of trap witnesses, because the latter cannot be termed as accomplices.
With regard to corroboration of trap witnesses no hard and fast rule or guidance can be given. There may be cases where the Court will look for independent corroboration and Equally there may be cases where the Court may accept the evidence of the trap witnesses. In the instant case the trial Court as well as the Appellate Court unhesitatingly accepted the prosecution evidence as to the acceptance and recovery of the bribe - There is no evidence on record to show that the witnesses were inimical towards the appellant or friendly towards the appellant or that they had any ill motive to implicate the appellant falsely.Siddik Ali Vs. Nurun Nessa Khatun and others, 1990, 19 CLC (AD)
The Transfer Property Act, 1882 (IV of 1882), Section 116
Whether long possession of the tenant alone after expiry of the period of lease will constitute holding over
Continuous possession by a tenant with the assent of the landlord creates an implied contract, and a tenancy by holding over is constituted. Such a tenancy cannot be created by the tenant’s continuance of possession alone. There must also be the assent of the landlord- assent may be expressed or implied. It may be evidenced by acceptance of rent or by other circumstances -Where the lessor dissents or does not assent either expressly or impliedly there cannot be any holding over. Absence of dissent will not necessarily imply assent, but from the tenant’s continuous possession for a long period, without any contrary indication from the landlord, may in certain circumstances constitute an implied assent. The implied assent is a question of fact. It may be inferred from the length of period of possession and other circumstances excluding an inference of dissent by the landlord. The finding of the Courts below as to the right of the plaintiff on the basis of continuous possession after the expiry of the lease Ext.3 is based on good reasoning.