A review is maintainable from the judgment of the Appellate Division subject to the condition that where the error is so apparent and patent that review is necessary to avoid miscarriage of justice.
The Appellate Division reiterated that a review cannot be equated with an appeal. It does not confer a right in any way to a litigant. The Appellate Division unequivocally expressed that it is now well settled that a review of an earlier order is not permissible unless the Court is satisfied that material error, manifest on the face of the order, undermines it's soundness or results in miscarriage of justice. The Appellate Division observed that a review of judgment is a serious step and the Courts are reluctant to invoke their power except where a glaring omission or patent mistake or grave error have crept in earlier by judicial fallibility. Power of review is not an inherent power the it must be conferred by law either specifically or by necessary implication and that despite there being no provision in the Act or the Rules for review from the judgment of the Appellate Division on appeal, by fiction of law a review is maintainable from the judgment of the Appellate Division subject to condition that where the error is so apparent and patent that review is necessary to avoid miscarriage of justice. [আপীল বিভাগে আপীল দায়ের করা আর পর্যালোচনার দরখাস্ত দায়ের করা এক নহে। আপীল বিভাগে আপীল দায়ের করা সংক্ষুব্দ ব্যক্তির অধিকার কিন্তু পর্যালোচনার দরখাস্ত দায়ের করা অধিকার নহে।] Muhammad Kamaruzzaman -Vs.- Chief Prosecutor, International Crimes Tribunal 6 ALR (AD) 2015 (2)95
Review is maintainable-A review of judgment in a case is a serious step and the court is reluctant to invoke its power-it is only where a glaring omission or patent mistake or grave error has crept in by judicial fallibility. Despite there being no provision in the Act of 1973 for review from the judgment of this Division on appeal, securing ends of justice a review is maintainable in exercise of the inherent powers from the judgment of this Division subject to the condition that where the error is so apparent and patent that review is necessary to avoid miscarriage of justice and not otherwise, and the execution of a sentence shall be suspended till the disposal of the review petition if the same is filed within the period. Abdul Quader Mollah vs Chief Prosecutor, International Crimes Tribunal, Dhaka, 66 DLR (AD) 289
Review-A review in a criminal matter can be made on the ground of an error apparent on the face of the record. a review cannot be equated with an appeal. It does not confer a right in any way to a litigant. A review of an earlier order is not permissible unless the Court is satisfied that material error, manifest on the face of the order, undermines it's soundness or results in miscarriage of justice. A review of judgment is a serious step and the Courts are reluctant to invoke their power except where a glaring omission or patent mistake or grave error have crept in earlier by judicial fallibility. Kamaruzzaman vs Government of Bangladesh Dhaka, 67 DLR (AD) 157
No review lies except on ground of error apparent on the face of the record or miscarriage of justice.
The Appellate Division held that the learned Counsel could not show any error in the decision in arriving at the conclusion that the plea of alibi has not been substituted or that the reasons assigned by the Appellate Division are contrary to the evidence on record or that there are error apparent on the face of the record. No review lies in this court except on ground of error apparent on the face of the record or miscarriage of justice. The basic philosophy inherent in it is the universal acceptance of human fallibility. The learned Counsel fails to point out any error which has been cropped up on analysis of the evidence on record. Since the learned Counsel did not argue on the merit of the 13 matter, and stresses upon the plea of alibi, which has been rejected on a full flagged hearing, at the late stage the petitioner has renewed the plea by producing a spurious document. Further, the learned Counsel having not argued on merit pointing any error in the impugned judgment, it is apparent that there is no error of law in the impugned judgment for the Appellate Division interference. The Appellate Division found no cogent ground to review our judgment. The review petition is accordingly dismissed. Salauddin Qader Chowdhury -Vs.- Bangladesh 6 ALR (AD) 2015 (2)133
Review-Power of review is not an inherent power-it must be conferred by law either specifically or by necessary implication and that despite there being no provision in the Act or the Rules for review from the judgment of this Division on appeal, by fiction of law a review is maintainable from the judgment of this Division subject to the condition that where the error is so apparent and patent that review is necessary to avoid miscarriage of justice. Kamaruzzaman (Md) vs Government of Bangladesh represented by the Chief Prosecutor, International Crimes Tribunal, Dhaka, 67 DLR (AD) 157
Review- The review petitions are maintainable. A review petition should not be equated with an appeal. In criminal matters, the power of review must be limited to an error which have a material, real ground on the face of the case. The finality attached to a judgment at the apex level of the judicial hierarchy upon a full fledged hearing of the parties should be re- examined in exceptional cases and a review is not permissible to embark upon a reiteration of the same points. Abdul Quader Mollah vs Chief Prosecutor, International Crimes Tribunal, 66 DLR (AD) 289
Period of Limitation is 15 days-The period of limitation is fifteen days and the review petition should be disposed of on priority basis. If a warrant of death for execution is communicated to the jail authority after it is confirmed or imposed by this Division, the condemned prisoner should be afforded an opportunity to file a mercy petition and he should also be afforded an opportunity to meet his near ones before the execution of the sentence. If the jail authority fixes a date for execution of the sentence, the same cannot be taken as has been done hurriedly. Abdul Quader Mollah vs Chief Prosecutor, International Crimes Tribunal, Dhaka, 66 DLR (AD) 289
Period of limitation for filing review-Since the scheme and object of the law manifest that the proceedings shall be concluded expeditiously, the period of limitation for filing such review petition shall be as early as possible. As per rules of this Division review petitions shall be filed within thirty days but this period of limitation is not only inconsistent with the provisions of the Act but also not applicable. Fifteen days' time will be a reasonable time. This will secure the ends. of justice. Abdul Quader Mollah vs Chief Prosecutor, International Crimes Tribunal, Dhaka, 66 DLR (AD) 289
Review is maintainable-A review of judgment in a case is a serious step and the court is reluctant to invoke its power-it is only where a glaring omission or patent mistake or grave error has crept in by judicial fallibility. Despite there being no provision in the Act of 1973 for review from the judgment of this Division on appeal, securing ends of justice a review is maintainable in exercise of the inherent powers from the judgment of this Division subject to the condition that where the error is so apparent and patent that review is necessary to avoid miscarriage of justice and not otherwise, and the execution of a sentence shall be suspended till the disposal of the review petition if the same is filed within the period. Abdul Quader Mollah vs Chief Prosecutor, International Crimes Tribunal, Dhaka, 66 DLR (AD) 289
Review-A review in a criminal matter can be made on the ground of an error apparent on the face of the record. a review cannot be equated with an appeal. It does not confer a right in any way to a litigant. A review of an earlier order is not permissible unless the Court is satisfied that material error, manifest on the face of the order, undermines it's soundness or results in miscarriage of justice. A review of judgment is a serious step and the Courts are reluctant to invoke their power except where a glaring omission or patent mistake or grave error have crept in earlier by judicial fallibility. Kamaruzzaman vs Government of Bangladesh Dhaka, 67 DLR (AD) 157
Review-Power of review is not an inherent power-it must be conferred by law either specifically or by necessary implication and that despite there being no provision in the Act or the Rules for review from the judgment of this Division on appeal, by fiction of law a review is maintainable from the judgment of this Division subject to the condition that where the error is so apparent and patent that review is necessary to avoid miscarriage of justice. Kamaruzzaman (Md) vs Government of Bangladesh represented by the Chief Prosecutor, International Crimes Tribunal, Dhaka, 67 DLR (AD) 157
No error detected to warrant review– We have narrated above the review petition reveals nothing to say that any error is apparent in our appellate judgment. Indeed Mr. Khandakar, quite candidly submitted that he is aware of the limitations that a review petition faces. ...Muhammad Kamaruzzaman =VS= Chief Prosecutor. International Crimes Tribunal, Dhaka, [4 LM (AD) 392]
