Supreme Court Online Bulletin (SCOB)
Full List | Back
Appellate Division
Judgment Published in SCOB
Search by Case Number :
Search by Key Word(s) :
Serial No. Issue Year Name of the Parties/Case No and Citation Key Word(s) Short Ratio
1. 14 2020 A.T.M. Azharul Islam. Vs. The Chief Prosecutor, International Crimes Tribunal, Dhaka, Bangladesh.

14 SCOB [2020] AD

Crimes against Humanity; Genocide and War Crimes; Law of evidence; Hearsay evidence; Abetment; Form of charge in case of mass victims; Probative value of an uncrossed deposition;
The cardinal principle of assessment of evidence is that the entire evidence is to be considered as a whole and then a decision is to be arrived. There is no scope to consider one statement made in cross-examination in isolation.

It is the cardinal principle of law of evidence that hearsay evidence is to be considered together with circumstances and the material facts depicted. If hearsay evidence has probative value then it is admissible in evidence.

In order to incur criminal liability in a case of crime against humanity, the accused himself need not participate in all aspects of the criminal conduct.

It is of the essence of the crime of abetment that abettor should assist the principal culprits towards the commission of the offence. Participation de facto may sometimes be obscure in detail, it is established by the presumption Juris et de jure that actual presence plus prior abetment can mean nothing else but participation.

When a charge involves hundred of victims, it is not at all necessary for the prosecution to narrate the names of all the victims.

In a criminal case the prosecution must prove the charge brought against an accused beyond any shadow of reasonable doubt. Criminal cases are not like civil cases. In criminal case the accused may only take the plea of not guilty and the burden is entirely upon the prosecution to prove its case. Cross-examination is not also necessary on the entire deposition of a witness as it may damage the defence case. Non-cross-examination on a certain fact would not make the deposition of a witness on that point admitted facts. .
2. 14 2020 Palash Chandra Saha Vs. Shimul Rani Saha and others.


Suit for declaration, Adoption;
The adoptive father of the child to be adopted must belong to the same caste and that adoption would be valid if they belong to different sub-division of the same caste.

According to Hindu Law any act done in contravention of the Hindu texts which are in their nature mandatory cannot be said to be lawful by applying the principle of factum valet. Hence, the principle of factum valet is ineffectual in the case of adoption in contravention of the provision of legal texts.

Even if he was accepted as a family member, the legality of the adoption must be considered. The provision of Hindu Law is clear that there cannot be adoption across castes. In other words, a child from one caste cannot be legally adopted by a member of another caste.
3. 14 2020 Md. Abul Kaher Shahin Vs. Emran Rashid and another

(Hasan Foez Siddique, J)

14 SCOB [2020] AD
Dishonour of cheque, Section 118,138 of The Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 ;
Once there is admission of the execution of the cheque or the same is proved to have been executed, the presumption under section 118(a) of the Act is raised that it is supported by consideration. The category of “stop payment cheque” would be subject to rebuttal and hence it would be an offence only if the drawer of the cheque fails to discharge the burden of rebuttal. The accused person can prove the non-existence of a consideration by raising a probable defence. If the accused discharges the initial onus of proof showing that the existence of consideration was improbable or doubtful or the same was illegal, the onus would shift to the complainant. He will be obliged to prove it as a matter of fact and upon its failure to prove would disentitle him to grant of relief on the basis of negotiable instrument .

Where the amount promised shall depend on some other complementary facts or fulfillment of another promise and if any cheque is issued on that basis, but that promise is not fulfilled it will not create any obligation on the part of the drawer of the cheque or any right which can be claimed by the holder of the cheque.
4. 14 2020 Abul Kasem Md. Kaiser Vs. Md. Ramjan Ali and others.


14 SCOB [2020] AD State Vs. Abu Hanifa @ Hanif Uddin (MIRZA HUSSAIN HAIDER, J)
Pre-emption, Extinguishment of Co-sharership;
The 62 DLR case has not overruled the contention that ‘only by a partition suit or partition deed the co-sharership is extinguished’. So in this case by separating the Jama the pre-emptor and/or his predecessor having already lost her/his character of co-sharership in the case jote so the pre-emptor is no more a co-sharer and as such his right to pre-empt as a co-sharer does not exist anymore

Not only separation of Jama/Khatian by a party will cause him to cease to be a co-sharer in the jama but co-sharership will also be ceased by a final decree in a partition suit or by a registered deed of partition. That means either of the two will cause a person to cease his co-sharership in the case jote.

The appellant cannot take the plea of non-service of notice upon the other party once he has taken benefit of such mutation or separation of “Jama”. Such plea,if any, can be taken only by the party affected by it or to whose disadvantage the same has been obtained and upon whom the notice was required to be served. But not the person at whose prayer separation has been made and who takes the benefit of such separation.
5. 14 2020 Firoza Noor Khan and others Vs. Raisa Aziz Begum and others.

(Zinat Ara, J)

14 SCOB [2020] AD
Khas Mohal property of the Government; Article 104 of the Constitution; Complete Justice;
Any property owned by the Government is the property of the People’s of the Republic of Bangladesh and the citizens of this country are the actual owners of such property. Therefore, no one can dispose of valuable Government properties at his/their sweet will to anyone else unlawfully.

The power of this Court under article 104 of the Constitution is an extensive one though it is not used often or randomly. It is generally used for doing complete justice in any cause or matter pending before it in rare occasions in exceptional or extra-Ordinary cases for avoiding miscarriage of justice.. Article 104 widens our hands so that this Division is not powerless in exceptional matters. The matters (appeals/CPLA) in our hands are matters requiring exercise of this power, to save a valuable property of the Government from the clutches of greedy land/property grabbers, that too with the active collaboration and help from the Government Officials.
This Site is Visited :