Practice and Procedure
New
question before the Appellate Division
The submission that since
the informant in his evidence stated that the articles stolen from his house
were worth about Tk. 5,0001- only, the Village Court had exclusive jurisdiction
to try the case is an after thought one in that neither in the trial Court nor
before the High Court Division this question was ever raised. The petitioner
cannot be permitted to raise this question for the first time before the
Appellate Division. Haider All Khan Vs. The State, 14BLD (AD) 270
Practice and Procedure
It is very surprising that
the High Court Division enunciated a wrong proposition of law without entering
into the merit of the case. This is not only illegal but also not a proper
exercise of jurisdiction vested in the court itself. Latifa Akhter and others
Vs The State and another, 19BLD(AD)20
Practice and Procedure
The Appellate Division is
loathe to hear a petitioner who has neglected to appear before the High Court
Division inspite of opportunities offered. Dil Mohammad Vs Abdul Motaleb Khan
and another, 19BLD(AD)131
Practice and Procedure
Appellate Division does not encourage making of submission which was not made
before the High Court Division and which for its resolution requires
examination of facts by the Appellate Division. Miah Hossain and others Vs The
State, 19BLD(AD)299
Practice and Procedure
When a complaint is filed
within one year of the last demand for dowry there is no violation of the
provision of section 7(b) of the Dowry Prohibition Act. Md. Nurun Nabi Sheikh
and others Vs. Mst. Fatema Khatun, 16BLD(AD)118
Practice and Procedure
When a Magistrate dismisses
a complaint under section 203 Cr.P.C. and stops further enquiry he obviously
passes a judicial order. Unless that order is got rid of, the DAB can- not
continue the same enquiry in violation of the said order. The State Vs. Md.
Raihan Ali Khandker and others, 17BLD (AD) 232
Practice and Procedure
Column 4 of the Schedule II
of the Code relating to the offences against other laws provides that warrant
of arrest shall be issued against the accused persons if the offence is
punishable with imprisonment for not less than two years and not more than five
years. Since the offence in question is punishable with imprisonment upto 5
years there is no illegality in passing an order of issuance of warrant of
arrest against the accused-persons. Shainpukur Holding Ltd. Vs Security
Exchange Commission, 18BLD (HCD) 61
Practice and Procedure
Section 94 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure authorises the Court or any competent police officer to ask
any person to produce any document or thing under his custody, which is
necessary for the purpose of an in- vestigation, enquiry, trial or other legal
pro- ceedings. But there is no provision for seizure of such document for
facilititating investigation. Arab Bangladesh Bank Ltd. Vs. Md. Shahiduzzaman,
18BLD (HCD)167
Practice and procedure
In view of the provisions
of section 476 Cr.P.C a Court cannot proceed directly against any person for
giving false evidence or fabricating evidence. The Court cannot also impose any
fine upon any witness or direct him to pay any compensation to the accused. A
Tribunal constituted under section 26 of the Special Powers Act is required to
follow the provisions of section 476 Cr. P.C if it wants to proceed against any
witness for commission of an offence under section 193 of the Penal Code. Md.
Idris Miah Vs. The State, 18BLD (HCD)288
Practice and procedure
Before exhausting the legal
formalities as
required by sections 87 and
88 of the Code of Criminal Procedure a Court is not competent to resort to the
provision of section 20 (5) (Kha) of নারী ও শিশু নির্যাতন (বিশেষ বিধান) , আইন 1995 the trial Court acted illegally and without
jurisdiction in publishing the im- pugned notification in a daily newspaper be-
fore obtaining service return of the orders of arrest of the accused and of
proclamation and attachment of his properties.
The expression
"notification" in at least one daily Bengali newspaper used in
section 20(5)(Kha) of the Act obviously meant publication of such notification
in a widely circu- lated national daily and to a district based daily newspaper
with very limited circulation. Belayet Howlader Vs. The State, 18BLD (HCD) 81
Practice and Procedure
The Excise and Salt Act and
the rules framed thereunder do not authorise the police to seize
manually-manufactured cigarettes (biris) on licence from the appropriate
author- ity on the suspicion that those were being marketed by avoiding
necessary excise duty as being without the requisite band-rolls thereon. The
police have no authority to arrest and prosecute any person directly for the
alleged voilation of the provisions of the Act. The police can act in aid of
the excise authority only when called upon to do so. Excise and Salt Act, 1944
(I of 1944), Section-37, Punishment for violation of the provisions of the Act Md.
Idris Miah alias Idris Ali and others Vs. The State and others, 18BLD (HCD) 54
Practice and procedure
Under section 23 of the Act
provisions of the Cr.P.C. have been made applicable to cases coming under this
Act in matters of investigation and trial. Although time limit for completing
investigation has been fixed, in section 18 of the Act, no provision has been
made as to what legal consequences shall follow if the investigation is not
completed within the specified time. So, the amended provision of section
167(5) Cr.P.C. shall ap ply in this regard. Md. Anwar Hossain Vs. The State,
18BLD(HCD) 18
Practice and procedure
Non-publication of notice
under section 27(6) of the Special Powers Act, 1974 directing the
accused-appellant to answer the charge is illegal and without jurisdiction and
as such the same is not curable under section 537 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure.
Md. SamiulHaider alias
Kuiba Vs. The State, 18BLD (HCD) 515
