Observation Judicial domain requires dispassionate approach and the importance of issues involved for consideration is по justification to throw to winds basic judicial norms. Observation should not be made by the Court against any person unless it is essential for decision of the case.... Hosneara Begum, Adv. VS A.K.M. Bahauddin alias Bahar, [9 LM (AD) 669]
Observation is expunged- Review- While quashing the criminal proceeding this court observed that the period of occurrence in respect of the incident is hit by section 234 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. This observation is made through overlooking sub-section (1B) of section 6 of the Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1958. The above observation is expunged. These petitions are disposed of with the above expunction and observations. Manzur Ahmed =VS= Government of Bangladesh, [5 LM (AD) 205]
Observation of the Court- A Court has right to make observation(s) in dealing with a matter, but it cannot make any observation(s) about the behavior or action of the writ respondent(s) in future, particularly, about the possible disobedience or violation of the order/direction/ observation of the Court, the reason being that when a Court passes an order or gives a direction or makes an observation it is presumed that such order/direction/ observation shall be obeyed and complied with in its true purport and spirit. And if the Court itself nourishes an element of doubt in its mind as to the obedience or the compliance with its order/ direction/observation, then there cannot have any meaning in passing such order/ giving such direction/making such observation. And such kind of doubt by a court shall make the people's confidence in the administration of justice shaky. We would like to add further that a Court must always pass an order/give direction/and make observation in a positive way to ensure fair justice and not in a manner as quoted hereinbefore......Land Reform Board =VS= Md Hamdu Miah, [5 LM (AD) 117]
Observations-Government should act properly and instruct at least the vested property cell so that no other citizen should be harassed in the name of law which has already dead. Md Hossain vs ADC (Rev) & Assistant Custodian, Vested and Non- Resident Properties, 64 DLR 282 Observations-The Judges should not be swayed by emotion as that may impair even handed justice. In a criminal proceedings where accusation is made against an accused as to the commission of an offence under any law, be it the Penal Code or other law, the Court is to see whether the evidence adduced by the prosecution in the case proved the accusation and if so to hand down the punishment on the accused as per the dictate of the law, no matter how serious or heinous the offence might be. (PER MD ABDUL WAHHAB MIAH J, MAJORITY) Mehedi Hasan @ Modern (Md) vs State, 66 DLR (AD) 111 Observations-Some appointees who are beneficiaries of the crime and they cannot get the benefit of the crime because their appointments took place through disputed appointment process. The Commission should inquire and investigate into the involvement of those appointees. Abdul Wadud Bhuiyan (Md) vs State, 67 DLR 435 Observations-Even after receipt of the judgment of the High Court Division, the Commission issued a memo. According to that memo if Julfikar Ali had been made an accused, there would be no witness to produce and prove any document in Court. Since there was no other option, Julfikar Ali was made a witness. The views expressed in the memo are objectionable and derogatory to the observation and direction made by the High Court Division. It is not comprehensible of how the Commission took such a stand in respect of Julfikar Ali. Mafruza Sultana vs State, 67 DLR (AD) 227 Observations-Observations made by the learned Judges in respect of his competency and bonafide intention in filing the application for modification of the order by deleting directive No. 2 given while issuing the suo motu Rule, were undesirable, unnecessary and uncalled for. State vs Secretary, Ministry of Public Administration, 67 DLR (AD) 271 Observations-Pursuant to the order of the Appellate Division, ought to have straight way took cognizance against the persons without making any correction of the charge sheet and then proceed further. However, by such improper act of the learned Judge the accused persons will not be prejudiced in any manner and, as such they have nothing to be aggrieved. Hafiz Ibrahim vs State, 68 DLR 121 Observations-Government may set up an inquiry committee in the interest of public, if they feel it expedient in the circumstances of the case. So, we leave it on the government to form any kind of inquiry committee/inquiry commission to find out the truth of missing of Salauddin Ahmed. Government is at liberty to take independent decision about formation of any kind of inquiry committee/inquiry commission. Hasina Ahmed vs State, 67 DLR 343 Observations-In a case under NI Act, where the amount due under the cheque is not secured by any mortgage of pledge then the drawer's moveable and immovable properties should be liable to attachment and the bank accounts to be freezed. Provisions may be made to that effect. Otherwise, the intent of the legislatures to secure beneficial interest of the payee or a 'holder in due course' as well as the entire proceeding is bound to become, in maximum case, a mere futile exercise. Harun-or-Rashid vs State, 68 DLR 535 Observations-It is surprising that without lodging an FIR, even an unnatural death case, the dead body was sent to the village home of the victim, where he was cremated with all the marks of injuries. Whereas in the video footages, paper clippings, testimony of the eyewitnesses clearly prove several and indiscriminate blows with kirich, machete, iron rod and wooden stick and rule on his person, which continued for a considerable time. Even a lay man can logically presume that the blows given by the kirich and machete were likely to cause more than one cut injuries and that by rod and stick would cause countless swelling injuries on his person. StateMd Rafiqul Islam alias Shakil, 70 DLR 26
Court's Observations-State seeking Extinction of observations made in the judgment of the High Court Division as they are totally irrelevant and unnecessary for disposal of the appeal before the Court and they are derogatory to the entire criminal legal system of the country. On perusal of the judgment, particularly the impugned observations, it is found that they are irrelevant and totally unnecessary for the purpose of disposal of the appeal. The offending obser- vations are treated as expunged. State vs Abdul Mannan 44 DLR (AD) 173.
Observations-Even after receipt of the judgment of the High Court Division, the Commission issued a memo. According to that memo if Julfikar Ali had been made an accused, there would be no witness to produce and prove any document in Court. Since there was no other option, Julfikar Ali was made a witness. The views expressed in the memo are objectionable and derogatory to the observation and direction made by the High Court Division. It is not comprehensible of how the Commission took such a stand in respect of Julfikar Ali. Mafruza Sultana vs State, 67 DLR (AD) 227
Observations-Observations made by the learned Judges in respect of his competency and bonafide intention in filing the application for modification of the order by deleting directive No. 2 given while issuing the suo motu Rule, were undesirable, unnecessary and uncalled for. State vs Secretary, Ministry of Public Administration, 67 DLR (AD) 271
