সার্চ ইন্টারফেসে আপনাকে স্বাগতম

আপনি এখানে আপনার কাঙ্ক্ষিত তথ্য সহজে খুঁজে পেতে পারেন। নির্দিষ্ট শব্দ বা সংখ্যা লিখে সার্চ করুন। এরপর ডান দিকের আপ এন্ড ডাউন আইকনে ক্লিক করে উপরে নিচে যান।

হুবহু মিল
কিছুটা মিল

Notice as to Absconding Accused | Case Reference

লিগ্যাল ভয়েস


সতর্কীকরণ! কেস রেফারেন্স ওয়েবসাইটে প্রকাশিত অধিকাংশ নজীর বিভিন্ন বই ও ওয়েবসাইট থেকে সংগ্রহ করা হয়েছে। এই সকল নজীর এর সঠিকতার বিষয়ে কেস রেফারেন্স ওয়েবসাইট কোন নিশ্চয়তা প্রদান করে না। কেস রেফারেন্স ওয়েবসাইটে প্রকাশিত নজীর এর উপর নির্ভর এর আগে সংশ্লিষ্ট নজীরটির রেফারেন্স মিলিয়ে নেওয়ার অনুরোধ করা হচ্ছে।


Notice as to Absconding Accused


Notice as to absconding accused-The notice with regard to the absconding accused was not published in two widely circulated newspapers, as required under section 339B(1) of the Code, rather, it was published in two dailies, namely, 'Karatoa' and 'Nowab', of which the latter was hardly known and was far from being widely circulated. Although the daily 'Nowab' cannot be regarded as having a wide circulation, the other daily has a wide circulation. Therefore, there is substantial compliance with the provisions of section 339B(1) of the Code since prior to such publi- cation, the compliance with the provisions of sections 87 and 88 of the Code of Criminal Proce- dure is found to have been duly complied. State vs Hamidul 61 DLR 614.


The trial Court without taking steps or ascertaining about the compliance of sections 87 and 88 of the Code directed publi- cation of notice. On such facts it cannot be said that the accused was concealing himself from appearing in Court and publication of notice in news-paper and commencing the trial was in clear violation of the mandatory provision of law. So the case is sent back on remand for retrial giving opportunity to the petitioner for cross-examining the PWs already examined. Balayet Howlader vs State 49 DLR 520.


The expression 'in at least one news-paper" occurring in section 339B CrPC is mandatory and, in this view of the matter, the learned Sessions Judge ought to have condoned the delay and should not have dismissed the appeal summarily without deciding the same on merit. The order passed by the learned Sessions Judge on 19-11-1986 dismissing the appeal summarily on the ground of limitation is set aside. Moktar Ahmed vs Haji Farid Alam 42 DLR 162.

Info!
"Please note that while every effort has been made to provide accurate case references, there may be some unintentional errors. We encourage users to verify the information from official sources for complete accuracy."

Post a Comment

Join the conversation