3
Judgment : Appellate 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
1 Ataur Mridha alias Ataur -Vs- The State From the judgment and order dated 14.02.2017 passed by Appellate Division in Criminal Appeal No.15 of 2010.
2 Md. Iqbal Hossain Talukder Vs Md. Joinal Abedin Talukder From the judgment and order dated 20.08.2002 passed by the High Court Division in Civil Revision No.2113 of 1998
3 Aziz and others Vs The State From the judgment and order dated 29.11.2012 passed by the High Court Division in Death Reference No.53 of 2007 with Jail Appeal Nos.763, 764, 765 of 2007 and Criminal Appeal No.3341 of 2007
4 Kanai Chandra Das =Vs = Sree Nipendra Chandra Mondal From the judgment and order dated 13.10.2008 passed by the High Court Division in Civil Revision No.1576 of 2003
5 Maves Jasmin and others Vs Md. Ruhul Amin-3 and others From the judgment and order dated 09.03.2006 passed by the High Court Division in Writ Petition No.4714 of 2001.
6 Saudi Arabian Airlines Corporation represented by its Country Manager, Dhaka Office =Vs= M/S Saudi Bangladesh Services Company, Ltd. Orchard Plaza, 71 Nayapaltan (VIP Road), Dhaka and represented by its Managing Director From the judgment and order dated 15.01.2009 passed by the High Court Division in Arbitration Case No.02 of 2006
7 Zahid Hossain being dead his heirs- Nadim Hossain and another
Vs
Syed Fazlul Kader being dead his heirs- Halima Kader and others
From the judgment and order dated 12.02.2009 passed by the High Court Division in Civil Revision No.3795 of 2003
8 Md. Humayun, son of Motaleb Vs. The State In this case, apart from the oral evidence of the prosecution witnesses, there are the confessional statements of the present appellant Md. Humayun and accused Mohan. Since the appellant Md. Humayun preferred appeal, his confessional statement is relevant in the instant case and hence, his confessional statement is discussed thereof. During recording the confessional statement, the Magistrate followed the procedure instructed to be followed by the Supreme Court of Bangladesh. From the reading of confessional statement, it is found that the confessional statement was made voluntarily and it is true and it can well form the basis of conviction of the appellant. Moreover, the confessional statement of the appellant supports the evidence of the eye witnesses i.e. PWs 14 and 15. It is well settled that the confessional statement can be the sole basis of conviction if it is made voluntarily and it is true. In the instant case, the confessional statement of the appellant is voluntary and true as well as this confessional statement supports the depositions of eye witnesses, PWs 14 and 15.
9 Zamir and others Vs The State • If it appears that the confessional statement was made by the accused out of fear, threat and coercion, then confession would be irrelevant in the court proceedings to convict the accused based on that confession. • In a case of conspiracy the subsequent behavior of the conspirators are considered as important factors. In the instant case, the prosecution tried to prove the above mentioned conduct of convict-appellants Sirajul Islam, Sohel and Rajib that lead us to conclude that the convict Sirajul Islam, Sohel and Rajib with Zamir conspired to kill the deceased Aktar Hossain and all of his family members. In case of conspiracy the conspirators conspire among themselves, there remains no eye witness. They make design and prepare plan to execute the same and in furtherance of their conspiracy and common intention execute the plan. In the instant case, the motive, behavior of the convict-appellants are very much clear to execute the alleged killing in a planned way and as per Section 10 of the Evidence Act, 1872 the convict-appellants Sirajul Islam, Sohel and Rajib are guilty for committing the occurrence. • If the evidence is analyzed, we can find the chain of circumstances linking one fact with the others about the complicity of the convict-appellants. The first chain was the strained relationship of Sirajul Islam with Aktar Hossain over the share of paternal properties. The second chain was inflicting slap by Aktar to Monowara Begum which angered Sohel and Rajib. The third chain was the presence of Sohel and Rana at late night at about 1:45 am on the road of West Medda Madrasa for which they could not assign any reasonable cause. The fourth chain was the lodging of FIR being so much interested claiming the occurrence committed by the dacoits. The fifth chain was the normal behavior of Sirajul Islam, Sohel and Rajib after the occurrence. The next chain was Rajib got the long hair cut after the occurrence. If one’s uncle with his all family members died, then it is unusual to get the hair cut without being sad. If these facts are considred together, an inevitable conclusion can be drawn up that the convict-appellants Sirajul Islam, Sohel and Rajib became successful to materialise their plan to kill the deceased Aktar Hossain and all of his members out of their previous enmity. • The confessional statement should be retracted at the very earliest opportunity and the belated retraction of confessional statement during examination under section 342 had of no value if it appears before the court that the confessional statement was made voluntarily and it was true… • A confessional statement is evidence against its maker but is not sufficient evidence to convict the other co-accused unless corroborated by other evidence. • The principle of circumstantial evidence to prove the guilt of an accused is that the prosecution has to prove the circumstantial evidence beyond reasonable doubt and the chain of circumstances should be cogent and consistent showing that the accused is compatible with the circumstances. To prove the guilt of an accused based on circumstantial evidence, two categories of circumstances have to be considered. Circumstances before occurrence and circumstances after occurrence.
10 Shahan Shah Sikder (Tito) and another Vs. The State o In a murder case, the Court is charged with the supreme duty of making proper appreciation of evidence and of law before reaching the finding that the case proved is culpable homicide amounting to murder. The well settled principle is that if, after an examination of the whole evidence, the Court is of the opinion that there is a reasonable possibility that the defence put forward by the accused might be true, it is clear that such a view reacts on the whole prosecution case. In these circumstances, the accused is entitled to the benefit of doubt, not as a matter of grace, but, as of right, because the prosecution has not proved its case beyond reasonable doubt. The prosecution story must be true. Between “may be true” and “must be true” there is travel and the whole of this distance must be covered by legal, reliable and unpeachable evidence. Proof “beyond reasonable doubt” is a guide line and not a fetish. o Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of Bangladesh is uniquely provided the authority under Article 104 of the Constitution to consider all reasons in order to ensure complete justice. The preamble of the Constitution and Part-III promises to uphold and enumerates fundamental rights, including that of the right to life. It is of utmost importance that the apex Court is allowed the opportunity to award punishment as seen fit for the purposes of administering complete justice. If the law, is contrary to the notion of justice, it is important that the intent of the law be taken into account. Principles of Criminal Justice focus on all aspects of punishment, restitution, retribution, rehabilitation, deterrence and incapacitation. The penalty of death eliminates possibility all of such beyond retribution. Hence, it must be allowed for the Appellate Division of Supreme Court to consider and award punishment that posits all possible outcomes of any punishment rendered. An Act/Or Any Law that confines such notions of justice to only seeking retribution, is ultra vires to the Constitution. This Division has discretion to award any sentence either imprisonment for life or death penalty upon the accused, who committed offence under Section 11(Ka) of the Nari–O-Shishu Nirjatan Daman Ain, 2000, (Ain 2000).
11 Md. Mujibur Rahman alias Mujibur Rahman Vs. The State and another The High Court Division altered the conviction from Section 10 to Section 9(4)(kha) of the Nari O Shishu Nirjatan Daman Ain, 2000 (as amended in 2003) and thereby enhanced the sentence imposed upon the convict-petitioner without giving show cause notice or issuing any Rule upon him and such enhancement has been done without following the due process of law as provided in the statute.
12 Government of Bangladesh, represented by the Secretary, Ministry of Commerce, Bangladesh Secretariat, Dhaka and another. vs. Md. Nazrul Islam and another The question of legitimate expectation does not arise at all. The question whether the writ-petitioners completely failed to perform their part in the contractual obligations in making the payments in accordance with the terms and conditions as specifically spelt out in the memo dated 09.04.1984 can be decided by a civil court after taking evidence. As the instant case is not maintainable under Article 102 of the Constitution, so the question of the obligations, duties of the parties are not to be dealt with in this forum. We have already discussed in the preceding paragraphs that the issue involves the question of the determination of facts which cannot be decided without taking evidence or examining the parties. The writ petition was not at all maintainable under Article 102 of the Constitution.
13 Md. Syedul Abrar, son of late Ahmed Hossain Vs.Government of Bangladesh, represented by the Secretary Ministry of Primary and Mass Education, Bangladesh Secretariat, Dhaka and others The respondents claimed that the date of hearing was informed to the petitioner, but from the materials on record, it appears that the respondents had not produced any copy of notice given to the petitioner fixing the date of hearing and the petitioner was not given any opportunity to be heard. The inquiry proceeding was held ex-parte, which was not in accordance with law. At the same time the petitioner was not given opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses or to produce evidence in his favour according to Rule 10 of the Government Servants (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1985.
14 Government of Bangladesh, represented by the Secretary, Ministry of Land, Bangladesh Secretariat, Dhaka and others. Vs. Sadeque Ahmed Nipu, son of late Mohiuddin Ahmed and another Fraud vitiates everything. If fraud is practiced upon the Court for obtaining any order, then the order of the Court is liable to be set aside. In this present case, it has been proved that the respondents obtained judgment and decree practicing fraud upon the High Court Division. The High Court Division made a serious error of law making the Rule absolute based on fictitious judgment and decree passed in Title Suit No.587 of 1970 dated 15.03.1971, which has no existence at all. So, we are constraint to interfere with the judgment and order passed by the High Court Division in Writ Petition No.6053 of 2008 on 17.12.2009. Accordingly, the judgment and order passed in Writ Petition No.6053 of 2008 on 17.12.2009 is set aside.
15 Abdus Samad @ Md. Abdus Samad vs.The State The appellant inflicted ‘shabol’ blow on the head of the deceased with the intention of causing grievous injuries, which were likely to cause death, but the ‘shabol’ blow was inflicted at the spur of the moment in a sudden fight between the parties without any premeditation, as well being provoked by the deceased the appellant lost self-control. Moreover, the act of the appellant falls within the purview of Exception Nos.1 and 4 of Section 300 that is punishable under section 304 Part-I of the Penal Code, which provides that the act by which the death is caused is done with intention of causing death or such bodily injury as is likely to cause death. The High Court Division committed an error of law in convicting the appellant under Sections 302/148 of the Penal Code in holding that “the weapon used was sabol. The accused dealt sabol blow on the vital part of the body. All these show that the accused had intention to kill Khorshed.” The High Court Division failed to consider that, though the appellant has caused the death with the intention, he did the same in a sudden fight, in the heat of passion being provoked by the victim.
16 Mohammad Amir Ali Mostafa vs Shah Md. Nurul Alam and others Only because of the subject matter of the criminal case and civil litigation being the same, it will not be a bar for continuation of the criminal proceeding, rather the criminal case will run in its own way. In this case, the respondents should have exhausted the procedure of Section 241A of the Code of Criminal Procedure before making application for quashing of C.R. Case under Section 561A of the Code.
17 Md. Masumur Rahman and others Vs. Mrs. Shahar Banu Begum When the relationship does not exist between the tenant and landlord.
18 Md. Abdul Mannan @ Mannan, Md. Afsor Ali Sheikh Vs. The State In this case the appellants retracted their confessional statement during examination under Section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, but in view of the above decision this kind of delayed retraction has no value in the eye of law, if the confessional statement is found true and voluntary.
19 নূর মোহম্মদ বনাম সরকার এবং অন্যান্য মানুষের ছোটখাটো ঝগড়া বিবাদের ফলে উদ্ভুত মামলাসমূহ বিচারের সময় বিচারিক আদালত যদি প্রবেশন অভ অফেন্ডার অর্ডিন্যান্স ১৯৬০ এর ধারা ৫ বিবেচনায় রাখেন তাহলে এ ধরণের ছোট মামলা সমূহ আপীল বিভাগ পর্যন্ত আসত না ফলে আপীল বিভাগ অন্যান্য গুরুত্বপূর্ণ মামলা পরিচালনায় যথেষ্ট সময় পেতেন। এই "প্রবেশন অব অফেন্ডার্স অর্ডিন্যান্স, ১৯৬০" -এর বিধানাবলী বিচারিক আদালত, আপীল আদালত এবং হাইকোর্ট বিভাগ কর্তৃক প্রয়োগযোগ্য। দায়রা আদালত হিসেবে ক্ষমতাপ্রাপ্ত যেকোন আদালত বা ট্রাইব্যুনাল এবং ১ম শ্রেনীর ম্যাজিস্ট্রেটের ক্ষমতাপ্রাপ্ত যেকোন আদালত বা ট্রাইব্যুনাল -এই আইনের বিধান প্রয়োগ করতে পারবে। সুতরাং বিশেষ ক্ষমতা আইন, ১৯৭৪ (Special Powers Act, 1974) -এর ধারা ২৯, সন্ত্রাস বিরোধী আইন, ১৯৯২ (Anti-Terrorism Act, 1992) -এর ধারা ১৫(১), সন্ত্রাস বিরোধী আইন, ২০০৯ (Anti-Terrorism Act, 2009) -এর ধারা ২৭(৩), নারী ও শিশু নির্যাতন (বিশেষ বিধান) আইন, ১৯৯৫ -এর ধারা ২৩(১), জন নিরাপত্তা (বিশেষ বিধান) আইন, ২০০০ -এর ধারা ২১(১), নারী ও শিশু নির্যাতন দমন আইন ২০০০-এর ধারা ২৫(১), ক্রিমিনাল ল এ‌্যামেন্ডমেন্ট এ‌্যাক্ট, ১৯৫৮ -এর ধারা ৬(১)(ক) এবং ফরেন এক্সচেঞ্জ রেগুলেশন এ‌্যাক্ট, ১৯৪৭ -এর ধারা ২৩ক(৩) -এ উল্লেখিত বিধান অনুসারে ক্ষেত্রমতে ট্রাইব্যুনাল অথবা আদালতসমূহ দায়রা আদালত বলে গণ্য হবে। দ্রুত বিচার আইন, ২০০২ -এর ধারা ১২(২) অনুসারে ১ম শ্রেণীর ম্যাজিস্ট্রেট আদালত বলে গণ্য হবে এবং ফরেন এক্সচেঞ্জ রেগুলেশন এ‌্যাক্ট, ১৯৪৭ -এর ধারা ২৩ক(৩) অনুসারে ক্ষেত্রবিশেষ ট্রাইব্যুনাল ১ম শ্রেণীর ম্যাজিস্ট্রেট আদালত অথবা দায়রা আদালত বলে গণ্য হবে।
20 মোঃ মাসুদুর রহমান বনাম মোঃ নজরুল ইসলাম ইহা হাইকোর্ট বিভাগের ৭৫৪৭/২০০৩ নং রীট মামলার রায় ও আদেশের বিরুদ্ধে একটি আপীল যাহা আপীল বিভাগ কর্তৃক খারিজ হয়। অত্র মামলায় কোর্ট লীজ/ ইজারা সম্পর্কিত বিষয়ে বলেন বিরোধীয় ইজারাকৃত জমির ব্যাপারে যথাযথ কর্তৃপক্ষের নিকট আপীল চলাকালীন সময়ে পূর্বে লীজ গ্রহীতার লীজ বাতিল করা সম্পূর্ণ বেআইনী। কোর্ট আরো বলেন, কোনো ব্যক্তি তার নিজের পক্ষে বিচারক হইবেনা। কারণ অত্র মামলায় প্রতিবাদী নজরুল ইসলামের অনূকুলের লীজ জেলা প্রশাসকের মৌখিক আদেশে ইউ.এন.ও কর্তৃক বেআইনিভাবে বাতিল করা হয় যার ফলে ঐ বাতিল আদেশের বিরুদ্ধে আনীত আপীলে জেলা প্রশাসক আপীল কর্তৃপক্ষ হওয়া ও বেআইনী।
21 মোঃ নুরুল ইসলাম বনাম সফুরুন্নেসা এই সিভিল পিটিশন ফর লিভ টু আপীলটি হাইকোর্ট বিভাগের ২৪৯৪/২০১৪ নং সিভিল মামলার রায় ও আদেশের বিরুদ্ধে। ইহা একটি অগ্রক্রয়ের মামলা। আপীল বিভাগ তাঁর সিদ্ধান্তে বলেন যে মিউনিসিপ্যালিটি/ পৌরসভার বাহিরে রায়তের বসতবাড়ি অধিগ্রহণ ও প্রজাস্বত্ত্ব আইন ১৯৫০ এর ধারা ৯৬ প্রযোজ্য হবে। অর্থাৎ গ্রামাঞ্চলের বসতবাড়ির জমি বসতবাড়ি হওয়া স্বত্ত্বে ও রাষ্ট্রীয় অধিগ্রহণ ও প্রজাস্বত্ত্ব আইন ১৯৫০ এর ধারা ৯৬ অনুসারে অগ্রক্রয়যোগ্য
22 Md. Abul Kaher Shahin
Vs
Emran Rashid and another
[Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881]
[From the judgment and order dated 31.08.2016 passed by the High Court Division in Criminal Appeal Nos.2116-2119 of 2016.]
These Criminal Appeals being Appeal Nos. 63-66 of 2017 are directed against the common judgment and order dated 31.08.2016 passed by the High Court Division in Criminal Appeal Nos.2116-2119 of 2016 reversing those dated 17.02.2016 passed by the learned Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Sylhet in Sessions Case Nos.3079 of 2013, 172 of 2014, 174 of 2014 and 3080 of 2013.
23
24 The Director General, represented by Bangladesh Rural Development Board (BRDB), Dhaka VS Md. Rabeul Karim and others
25 Secretary, Ministry of Agriculture, Bangladesh Secretariat Dhaka and others VS Mohammad Hasan and others
26 Mahbubul Anam Vs Ministry of Land, represented by its Secretary Government of the People’s Republic of Bangladesh and others Cancellation of long term lease granted by the government for the purpose of constructing hotels in the hotel/motel zone of Cox’s Bazar:
Dismissing the review petitions, the Court directed that all leases within Jhilanja Mouza of Cox’s Bazar granted after 19.04.1999 be cancelled in the same way as those of the writ-petitioners and any constructions made thereon be demolished; the leaseholders shall be compensated for their loss due to such cancellation/ demolition.
It was further directed that henceforth no lease shall be granted within Jhilanja Mouza or any area which has been classified as ecologically critical area.
27 The Secretary, Ministry of Fisheries and Livestock and others Vs Abdur Razzak and others
28 Kazi Rafiqul Islam Vs Md. Anwar Hossain Advocate and another
29 Hosneara Begum, Advocate Vs A.K.M. Bahauddin alias Bahar and others
30 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 Vs Shah Jamal Mollah and another
31 The Government of Bangladesh, represented by the Secretary, Ministry of Law, Justice and Parliamentary, Bangladesh Secretariat, Dhaka Vs S.M. Abdur Rauf and another
32 S.M . Masud Hasan @ Masud Vs Judge, Artha Rin Adalat No.3, Dhaka and others
33 Kazi Fazlus Sobhan being dead his heirs: Kazi Fazle Rabbi and others Vs Government of Bangladesh and others
34 Government of Bangladesh, represented by the Secretary, Ministry of Works, Bangladesh Secretariat, Ramna Dhaka
35 Government of Bangladesh represented by the Secretary, Finance Department, Ministry of Finance, Bangladesh Secretariat Building, P.S.Shahabagh, Dhaka and others Vs Md. Salim Khan
36 Rana Surong Vs Government of Bangladesh and others:
37 Khalishpur Jute Mills Ltd. Vs Rajdhani Unnayan Kartipakkha
38 Managing Director, Rupali Bank Ltd., Head Office, Dhaka Vs Md. Shahrier Perves and others
39 National Bank Limited and another Vs M.R. Trading Company, represented by Alhaj Md. Mizanur Rahman and others
40 The State Vs. Professor Dr. Morshed Hasan Khan
41 Mohammad Alauddin
42 Election Commissoin for Bangladesh VS Md. Golam Mostafa and others
43 The Public Service Commission VS Ripon Chandra Shil and others
44 Mrs. Jahanara Hossain and others VS Surajit Kumar Das and others
45 Bangabandhu Sheikh Mujib Medical University VS Dr. Zahidul Haq
46 Biman Bangladesh Airlines and others Vs. Al Rojoni Enterprise
47 Md. Hafizuddin Vs. Mozaffor Mridha being dead his heirs:
48 Bangladesh Railway, Dhaka Vs. Most. Monowara Begum and others
49 Secretary, Ministry of Housing and Public Works, Government of Bangladesh, Bangladesh Secretariat, Dhaka
50 Monjur Morshed Khan and others Vs. Durnity Daman Commission(Anti Corruption Commission)and another
This Site is Visited :