3
Judgment : High Court Division
(If you feel problem with font, please, download Bangla font from Downloads Link)
 
Case Category : 
Case Type
Case Number
Year
Parties
Short Description
 

Case Number Parties Short Description
151 Lokman Vs Ayub Ali and the State Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 Section 118(a) and 138: Cheque is a negotiable instrument (section 13). In the instant case, the prosecution story as narrated in the petition of complaint and the deposition of the complainant as PW1 sharply contradicts each other as to when the complainant paid the money to the accused against which the cheque was issued to repay the same. The petition of complaint is silent about the date of monetary transaction, but states that the cheque was issued by the accused subsequently. In deposition, the complainant stated that the payment of money and issuance of the cheque took place on the same date which creates a doubt as to passing off consideration to the complainant against which the cheque was issued. Therefore, the presumption under section 118(a) of the Act, 1881 as to consideration has been successfully rebutted by the defence. ...(Para 14) Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 Section 9: In my view, the trial Court has correctly found that the complainant is not the holder of the cheque in due course. ...(Para 17)
152 The State-Vs- Qamrul Islam and others
153 Kamruzzaman Khan Vs.Bangladesh represented by the Secretary, Ministry of Law,Justice and Parliamentary Affairs, Bangladesh Secretariat,Ramna, Dhaka and others
154 The State Vs. Md. Foysal Bin Nayem @ Dip and Redoyanul Azad @ Rana
155 Rama Prasanna Bhattacharjee vs. Government of Bangladesh and others DO letter is not an official communication made by any machinery of the Republic.
156 Dr. Zubaida Rahman vs. The State and another
157 Moudud Ahmed vs. The State and another
158 Raghib Rauf Chowdhury vs. Government of Bangladesh and others Regarding the appointment of Judges of the Supreme Court of Bangladesh
159 Association of Ship Recycling in Bangladesh and another Vs. The Government of Bangladesh represented by the Secretary, Ministry of Commerce, Bangladesh Secretariat, Dhaka and others
160 Md. Milad Hossain @ Milad Uddin Vs. The State Therefore, the Registrar General of the Supreme Court of Bangladesh is directed to constitute a Monitoring Cell headed by him or the Registrar of the High Court Division along with the Secretary or his representative not below the rank of Additional Secretary of the Ministry of Home Affairs and Law and Justice Division, Ministry of Law, Justice and Parliamentary Affairs. The Monitoring Cell shall monitor this aspect and shall submit report from time to time to the concerned authorities of the responsible persons for taking appropriate action in accordance with section 31Ka (3) of the Act, 2000 with a copy thereof to the Monitoring Committee for the Subordinate Judiciary of the Supreme Court.
161 The State -Vs- Abul Kashem Kha
162 The State -Vs- Zakir Hossain and another
163 The State-Vs- Md. Ramjan Sheikh and another
164 The State-Vs-Mohammad Ali
165 The State -Vs- Md. Saiful Islam and one another
166 The State Vs. Md. Sharif and Md. Mintu Khan
167 Md. Abdullah Md. Ehtesham Vs. Secretary, Ministry of Religious Affairs , Peoples Republic of bang, Bangladesh Secretariat, Ramna, Dhaka and others
168 Liberty Fashion Wears Limited Vs. Bangladesh Accord Foundation and others
169 Md. Sirajuddwla VS The State and another It is not an invariable rule that there cannot be any parallel proceedings on the same facts in Criminal and Civil courts. At the same time, section 344 of the Cr.P.C. vests power upon the Court to postpone or adjourn criminal proceedings ‘for any other reasonable cause’. Thus, proceedings in Criminal Court should be stayed or adjourned where identical issues based on same facts as in criminal cases are involved in suits pending in Civil Court.
170 Md. Abdul Mazed Vatt @ Md. Yousuf Vs The State Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 Section 540: Section 540 aims to arm a Court with vast discretion to find out the truth in a given case. The entire purpose of this enabling provision is to arrive at the truth or otherwise of the fact under investigation. Thus the section confers a wide discretion to the Court to act as the exigencies of justice require. But the discretion cannot be allowed to be used to fill up the gaps in the evidence of a party who seeks recourse to the use of this provision. Power under the section can be exercised by the Court for judicial consideration only and not to advance the case of prosecution or that of the defence. The power can be exercised to know about something which is not present on the record already due to the failure of either party or due to the reasons beyond the control of any of the parties, or on account of something which has come to light during the trial. The party invoking the jurisdiction of the Court for exercising power in its favour shall satisfy the Court about the existence of lacuna or of the circumstances, which palpably justify such action. Mere quoting the words of section 540 in the application is not enough for exercising such powers. … (Para 17)
171 Begum Khaleda Zia Vs. The State and another
172 Md. Faizul Islam and another Vs. Bangladesh and others
173 Syed Mehedi Ahmed Rumi Vs. Government of Bangladesh represented by the Secretary,Ministry of Home Affairs, Bangladesh Secretariat, PoliceStation Shahbagh, Dhaka and others
174 Monir Ahmed Vs. Chairman, Labour Appellate Tribunal, Dhaka and others
175 Sarker Md. Tariqul Islam Vs.Mr. Shahiduzzaman, Director-General(Administration), Anti-Corruption Commission,Segunbagicha, Dhaka-1000.
176 Ms. Parvin Akther Vs. Bangladesh represented by the Secretary, Ministry
177 Z. I. Khan Panna Vs. Bangladesh represented by the Secretary, Ministry of
178 Md. Moniruddin Ahmed Vs. Rajdhani Unnayan Katripakkhya represented by its
179 Miah Mohammad Abdul Nayem Vs. The Review Panel represented by its Chairman, Mr. Md.
180 Dr. Muhiuddin Khan Alamgir Vs.The Government of Bangladesh represented by the
181 S. M. Masud Hossain Dolon and others Vs. Government of the People’s Republic of Bangladesh represented by the Secretary, Ministry of Law, Justice and Parliamentary Affairs, Bangladesh Secretariat, Ramna, Dhaka and others
182 Durnity Daman Commission VS Monjur Morshed Khan and others It is our considered opinion that the Court cannot play into the hands of the investigating officer who designedly made a perfunctory investigation and misled the Commission and Court should act objectively in a correct perspective.
183 Durnity Daman Commission Vs. Hussain Mohammad Ershad and others On perusal of the impugned order and materials before us, we have no hesitation to observe that the concerned public prosecutor as well the Commission have failed to show their due diligence in conducting the case and their negligence is not excusable. But, if we consider the allegations made against the accused persons that they incurred loss of taka more than 64 crore of State money for their personal gain and for the gain of others abusing their high position, then we have no other option but to hold that the prosecution should be given a chance to prove its case for the greater interest of the country. Because, the victim of financial crime is the every citizen of the country.
184 /
185 Robin Chowdhury @ Misba Uddin Vs. Anti-Corruption Commission and others In other words, international law must be specially adopted or incorporated within the municipal legal system by way of implementing act of the legislature. Since the principle of ‘International Double Jeopardy’ has not been incorporated in the Ain of 2012 and as such there is no scope to enforce the said principle within our domestic legal system.
186 Writ Petition 594/2001
187 Writ Petition 594/2001
188 The State Vs. Executive Magistrate Mohammad Rafiqul Islam also the Upazilla Nirbahi Officer of Sakhipur, Tangail and another
189 Md. Abul Kalam and others VS Md. Entaj Ali Sheikh and others Because of any fancy evasive objection or statement of the preemptee, it is not at all obligatory for the Trial Court to hold any inquiry to assess the actual consideration money of the case land under section 96(3)(b) of the State Acquisition and Tenancy Act. On the plea of a minor mistake or error of calculation caused due to latches of any particular lawyer, no Court shall deprive a party to the pre-emption case from exercising his statutory right, to which he is otherwise entitled to.
190 Badiul Alam Majumdar and others Vs. Information Commission, Bangladesh
191 Hazi Safiuddin Ahmed Vs. The Administrator of Waqfs Bangladesh and others Sections 32(4), 34, 43, 44 , 51 of the Waqfs Ordinance, 1962 Power of the Administrator in respect of appointment of Mutawalli : The Waqfs Ordinance does not empower the Administrator of Waqfs to appoint mutawalli of a waqf estate in a casual manner or as a routine work. Save under exceptional situations/circumstances detailed in the various provisions of the Waqfs Ordinance as discussed above the Administrator has no authority or jurisdiction to appoint mutawalli of any waqf estate. In a normal situation i.e where the terms of the waqf deed in respect of appointment of mutawalli is clear and unambiguous and not inconsistent with Mahomedan Law or there is no dispute to be settled by the Court the prospective mutawalli would assume the office of mutawalli in terms of waqf deed and in that case the provisions of section 51 would follow.
192 Criminal Appeal 7225/2013 Durnity Daman Commission Vs. Md. Tarique Rahman (absconding) and the State with Criminal Appeal No.7469 of 2013 Md. Gias Uddin Al- Mamun Vs. The State and another
193 Afangir @ Kalu Vs. The State Explosive Substance Act, 1908 Section 4/6: Mere knowledge of an accused or his equivocal disclosure about existence of bomb-making powders during his police custody shall not expose him to any criminal liability of possessing or controlling that illegal substance. ... (Para 24)
194 The State Vs. Nurul Islam Sarkar and Others.
195 Md Majharul HoqueMonsur Vs Mir Kashim Chowdhury Section 138 of the N.I. Act:The proceedings initiated on thepetition of complaint under section 138 of the N.I. Act cannot be hindered byor shackled with any proceeding initiated on an arbitration clause. Section 265C of the Code of CriminalProcedure, 1898 andSection 138 of the N.I. Act:Whether the cheque in question wasdrawn against any liability or not is a pure question of fact and withoutawarding ample opportunity to sift those facts, anyone cannot be allowed toobstruct the course of justice depriving the complainant-opposite party, whomay prove his claims and allegations on trial.
196 Md. Golam Faruque Vs Md. SalimReza All particulars relating to the date of receipt or the manner ofservice of the legal notice including other relevant parenthetical informationare bundle of facts and any discourse on those facts or their unerring decisionrequires in-depth scrutiny and threshing of the evidence to be produced intrial. So, mere non-disclosure of those facts in the petition of complaintcannot be a valid cause to make the entire proceedings liable to be quashed,which in true sense will deprive the complainant to prove his case on evidence.
197 Advocate Asaduzzaman Siddiqui and others Vs. Bangladesh represented by the Cabinet Secretary, Cabinet Division, Bangladesh Secretariat
198 Lt. Sheikh Jamal Dhanmondi Club Ltd. Vs. The Secretary, Ministry of Youth and Sports, Government of the Peoples Republic of Bangladesh and others
199 Samia Rahman and others Vs. Bangladesh represented by the Secretary, Ministry of Health and Family Welfare and others
200 Birampur Sonali Matshajibi Samabay Samity Ltd. Vs Government of Bangladesh and others Demi-official letter: Its meaning, legal force etc.
Demi-official letter or official correspondence / communication, information, interchange has got no legal force nor have any binding effect or in other words, the recipient of a D.O letter is not legally bound to act in accordance with such letter. Where determination of rights, privilege etc. of person(s) are enshrined in law itself, the same cannot be curtailed or taken away by a mere request/recommendation of the member of Parliament or any other dignitary in the form of D.O letters or any other manner whatsoever.

Amendment of Quotation for Lease: Its Legal Effect
In the case of Niamatpur Matsajibi Samabya Samity vs. Government of Bangladesh and others ( Writ Petition No. 10603 of 2013) the point was raised and we ( to which both of us were parties, judgment delivered on 1.6.2014) observed that “viewed in this light, it is clear that in the bidding process initiated for lease of fisheries there is no scope for amendment / modification, alteration of or varying from the original bid quoted with the initial application or to file fresh application or submit fresh project subsequent to filing of the initial ones”. We see no reason to take departure from the view already taken by us.

Member of Parliament: Are oath bound not to allow their personal interest.
Members of parliament, according to the ‘Clause 5’ of THIRD SCHEDULE of the Constitution, are oath bound not to allow their personal interest to influence the discharge of their duties as members of Parliament. They are not above the law and must act in accordance with law. They are peoples’ representatives, which does not mean that by issuing D.O letters they can favour or dis-favour any particular people or group of people as and when they desire in disregard of law and the interest of the people in general.
This Site is Visited :