Special Powers Act (XIV of 1974)
Special Powers Act, 1974
Section 25(1)- Justice will be met if the seized rice can be given in the custody of the petitioner on furnishing reasonable bank guarantee to the sattisfaction of the Court concerned. Tarun Majumder vs State, 64 DLR 279
Section 25A-Mere physical posses- sion of the counterfeit notes is not an offence punishable under section 25A of the Act but the intention as it transpires from the FIR, facts, circumstances on record and the other evidence it has become clear to us that criminal proceeding cannot be quashed at this stage of hearing because it needs evidence to be recorded by the court during the course of trial to establish the intention of keeping huge quantity of counterfeit note in the apartment. Abdul Wahed Gaffar vs State, 68 DLR (AD) 218
Section 25B-From the evidence on record, I do not find any special mark of identification on the seized goods to show that those were of Indian origin and that they were contraband goods. Moreover, the requirements of section 25B of the Act has not been fulfilled in the case as the place of occurrence was inside the territory of Bangladesh. Abdul Aziz (Md) vs State, 67 DLR 429
Section 25B-Mere bringing in or taking out goods in breach of legal prohibition or restriction or without paying customs duties or taxes does not ipso facto constitute offence of smuggling unless it is a transaction of consignment clandestinely made for commercial purpose. Nor the goods of any and every description brought in or taken out are smuggled goods within the meaning of section 25B merely because those were brought in or sought to be taken out through unauthorized routes. Riad vs State, 69 DLR 93
Section 25B-When the language of each sub-section of section-25B of the Act are clear on its plain reading, the Court has got no power or authority to alter the language of the sub-sections to give effect with the supposed intention of the legislature. The court has no jurisdiction to assume delegated legislative function and if the meaning of the words used in a law or Rule is clear, the Court cannot re-arrange the words to convey a meaning which the legislature intended to convey. Md Maniruzzaman vs State 477
Section 25B(1)(a)(b) Goods-There are, however, 'goods' which on the face of them are totally forbidden, a small quantity or a single piece of which, if brought into Bangladesh, may constitute smuggling and the act of bringing in or possession thereof by persons not authorized so to do, may attract section 25B of the Act. Riad vs State, 69 DLR 93
Section 25B(1)(a) and (2)(1)(b)- The legislature does not make mistakes in not adding or inserting the word 'currency' in the sub-sections. Even if, the mistake is obvious, the Court cannot correct it as it would amount to legislation which is outside the domain of interpretation; a Court of law is bound to proceed on the assumption that the legislature is an ideal person that does not make mistakes. Md Maniruzzaman vs State 64 DLR 477
Section 25B (2)- Neither in the FIR nor in the evidence of P.W.1 or in the evidence of other witnesses, there is any allegation that the petitioner has kept or carried one bottle of phensedyl for the purpose of sale. It is the consistent case that the phensedyl bottle was recovered from his possession while the petitioner was approaching towards Dupchanchia. Only possession of contraband goods does not constitute an offence of smuggling within the meaning of section 25B (2). It is only if any person keeps in his possession for the purpose of sale of the contraband goods the bringing of which is prohibited by law, an offence of the second category of smuggling will be attracted. .....Md. Akram -VS- The State, [1 LM (AD) 581]
Section 25 (B)(2)
Articles were seized and seizure list was
prepared in his presence where in he put his signature he also identified the
accused-Petitioner in the dock and that another..the eye witnesses of the occurrence,
by their testimony proved the prosecution case and corroborated each other in
support of the prosecution case and the informant, P.W I deposed that the accused
petitioners illegally smuggled contraband alachi into Bangladesh from India
without payment of custom duties and taxes and the prosecution witnesses proved
that the accused petitioner kept in his possession 42 Kg. Indian black alachi
and failed to show any legal document in respect of those articles and all the
prosecution witness namely P.Ws. 1-4 proved the prosecution case as to the
time, place and manner of occurrence and thus the prosecution proved the suit
of the accused petitioner beyond reasonable doubt and accordingly dismissed the
appeal. Delip Kumar Shaha vs The State (Md. Tafazzul Islam J) (Criminal) 3ADC
404
The Special Powers Act, (XIV of 1974)
Section 25B
The provision of both these acts are
distinct and different. One acts in personam and other acts in rem and as such
acquittal or conviction under one Act will not automatically operate as
acquittal or conviction or a bar in respect of other proceeding under another
Act. Govt Bangladesh vs M/s. Amora Holding Inc. Panama (Mohammad Fazlul Karim
J) (Civil) 2ADC 946
The Special Powers Act, (XIV of
1974)
Section 26, 27, 30.
In all such types of cases therefore it
will be for the High Court Division to satisfy itself in the facts and circum-
stances of each case whether the person seeking remedy under Article 102 of the
Constitution has adequately explained his conduct in not pursuing the statutory
remedy under section 30 of the Special Powers Act which the High Court Division
failed to do in the instant case. The High Court Division was swayed by the
facts and circumstances of the other writ petition and was totally unmindful of
the facts of the present case and did not at all consider that the appellant
has made out a case that he had no opportunity of availing of the alternative
remedy in section 30 of the Special Powers Act. If and when such a case is made
out it will be improper, inequitable and indeed a denial of justice if the door
is shut upon the face of the accused person. The High Court Division was wrong
in holding that the instant writ petition was not maintain- able. The appellant
had no reasonable opportunity to avail of the alternative remedy. In such
circumstances, his writ petition was fully maintainable. The High Court
Division was wrong in holding that the instant writ petition was not maintainable.
The appellant had no reasonable opportunity to avail of the alternative remedy.
In such circumstances, his writ petition was fully maintainable. Nesar Ahmed
also known as Babul vs Bangladesh (Mustafa Kamal J)(Civil) 2ADC 263
Section 27(6)-The 'Daily Chuadanga Barta' is a local newspaper or at the most, a regional newspaper and the publication of the order of the Tribunal in 'Daily Chuadanga Barta' did not obviously satisfy the requirement of the sub-section (6) of section 27 of the Special Powers Act. Shah- jahan vs State, 64 DLR 49
Section 27(6)-The petitioner was prejudiced in his defence though no fault of his own. Unless the provisions of sub- section (6) of section 27 of the Special Powers Act are strictly complied with by the Tribunal below, it can not assume any jurisdiction with regard to the trial of the petitioner. Shahjahan vs State, 64 DLR 49
Non-compliance of the mandatory provision of law
Non-compliance of the procedures laid down in section 27(6) of the Special Powers Act strikes at the root of the trial and the trial stands vitiated from its very inception. Section 537 Cr.P.C. cannot cure this basic infirmity. Notification regarding the attendance of the accused though published in the newspapers by the Magistrate cannot be construed to be a sufficient compliance with the requirement of law as envisaged by section 27(6) of the Special Powers Act.
Md. Sadeque Ali Vs. Judge, Senior Special Tribunal, Thakurgaon, and others, 14BLD(HCD)369
Ref: 1 BCR (AD) 117: 31 DLR (AD) 301; 26 C. LJ.(1925)1336-Cited