Mohammad Ali @ Sakil
Vs
The State

During recording of his confessional statement under section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the condemned-appellant Mohammad Ali @ Shakil stated that he was aged about 21 years. Having considered the evidence on record, the confessional statement as well as the statement recorded under section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, we are of the view that the condemned-appellant was not a minor at the time of commission of the offence. Therefore, he was not entitled to get the privilege under the Children Act, 1974 so far as those relate to youthful offenders.

Bangladesh and Others
Vs
Ocean Containers Limited

From the SRO 354 dated 02.12.1999 it appears that the gazette notification was not operated by giving retrospective effect as such applications seeking exemption by the petitioner company were rejected justly and correctly by the NBR inasmuch as the ‘container terminal’ of the petitioner company was not entitled to get tax exemption before publication of gazette notification dated 02.12.1999. As the ‘container terminal’ in question was not within the purview of physical infrastructure facility when the petitioner company filed application seeking tax exemption and thus the NBR justly and legally rejected the application for exemption and also correctly rejected the review application dated 31.01.2000 seeking review of earlier order dated 18.10.1999 since there left no scope to review of that application by the NBR. Accordingly, we hold that the SRO No.354-Ain/99 dated 02.12.1999 having effect from the date of its publication left no scope to allow tax exemption to the ‘Unit-2’ of the respondent company and the NBR justly and legally rejected the applications filed by the respondent company.

Bangladesh and Others
Vs
Pragati Insurance Limited and others

It is apparent that budget speech by the Finance Minister is not enactment of Parliament but only financial proposals. The law is enacted when it is legislated by the Parliament and assented by the President of the Republic....
It is cardinal principle of construction that every statute is primafacie prospective unless it is expressly or by necessary implication made to have a retrospective operation.....
Admittedly, in the cases in hand competent VAT authority issued demand cum show cause notice upon the respondent-companies under section 55(1) of the VAT Act. Respondent companies prayed time for reply on the plea of pending representation of their Association to the NBR regarding explanation on the issue of charging VAT on “Insurance Commission Agent”. Waiting for few months, VAT authority issued notice fixing date of hearing. But the respondents without appearing in the hearing invoked the writ jurisdiction under Article 102 of the Constitution. From the demand cum show cause notice it is apparent that an adjudication process was initiated and the respondents sought time in writing to reply and thus the process awaiting adjudication. Against the adjudication order, forum of appeal is prescribed in the VAT Act. At this juncture, the writ petitions filed by the respondents as petitioners are not maintainable.

Government and others
Vs
Md. Mainul Haque and others

As per the relevant Nitimala there is no scope to give MPO to a teacher who has been appointed out of pattern and the writ petitioners having been appointed as a non-MPO post against the section teacher and their claimed of MPO benefit by avoiding the said ‘Nitimala’ cannot be enforced.

Hazrat Ali
Vs
The State, represented by the Deputy Commissioner, Dhaka

Evidence on a point is to be judged not by the number of witnesses produced but by its inherent truth.

Rafiqul Islam Sheikh,
Md. Mohon Khalifa,
Md. Mohon Khalifa and others.
Vs
The State.

In the instant case there is some inconsistency between confessional statements and postmortem report of the victim regarding the manner of killing. But this inconsistence does not create any doubt for the prosecution to prove its case as because the surrounding circumstances couple with confessional statements made by the condemned prisoners made them guilty in this case, thus, the inconsistency between postmortem report and confessional statements will not make any hindrance to establish this case for the prosecution.

Abdul Gaffar (Officer-in-Charge, Tejgaon Police Station, Dhaka) and another
=Vs=
Md. Mohammad Ali (Writ Petitioner) and others.

Since both the appellants filed application admitting that being junior police officer they could not dealt with the matter in appropriate manner and tenders unconditional apology and also considering their entire service career, we are inclined to condone the compensation amount of Tk.5000/- as directed by the High Court Division to pay by each of the appellant nos.1 and 2 to the petitioner. The police personnel should keep in mind that the police force being specially trained as disciplined force and enjoys extra benefits and protection are maintained by the Government with tax money of the public for the purpose to serve the public as such the police personnel should be more cautious to maintain dignity of their profession as well as protect human rights of the citizens along with other rights enshrined in the constitution.

Abdur Rashid, Opposite Party No. 6 being dead his heirs Mohammad Hossain and others
=Vs=
Nurul Amin alias Abu Taher and others

In the present case the vendor-opposite party Sekandar Mia sold the case land to pre-emptee-opposite party Feroj Mia who was a stranger in the case land and said Feroj Mia transferred the land to opposite party no.6 Abdur Rashid, predecessor of the present appellants, on 21.06.1992 who was a co-sharer in the holding as such considering the view taken by their lordship in the case of 50 C.W.N. 806 as well as 35 DLR 238 and also distinguishing the facts of 35 DLR (AD) 225, We have no hesitation to hold that even after subsequent transfer by the stranger pre-emptee to another co-sharer of the holding, the pre-emptory right of a cosharer pre-emptor will not be defeated as because the subsequent transfer is subject to the right available against the original transfer and the subsequent transferee would be impleaded as party in the pre-emption proceeding and he would be entitled to get the consideration and compensation money as deposited by the pre-emptor.

Commissioner, Customs, Excise and VAT Commissionerate, Jassore and others
=Vs=
M/S. Perfect Tobacco Company Ltd., represented by its Managing Director

In the instant case the writ-petitioner impugned adjudication order dated 15.08.2007 passed by the writ-respondent no.2 Assistant Commissioner, Customs, Excise and VAT Division, Kushtia which is an appealable order under section 42(1)(Ka) of the VAT Act and section 42(2)(Ka) mandates that 10% of the demanded VAT is to be deposited at the time of filing of the appeal. When there is a statutory provision to avail the forum of appeal against an adjudication order passed by the concern VAT Official then the judicial review under Article 102(2) of the constitution bypassing the appellate forum created under the law is not maintainable.