Supreme Court Online Bulletin (SCOB)
Full List | Back
High Court 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. 10 2018 Bangobir Kader Siddiqui, Bir Uttom Vs. Chief Election Commissioner & ors.
(Md. Ashfaqul Islam, J.)

10 SCOB [2018] HCD 84
Constitution of the People’s Republic of Bangladesh, Article 102.
Any dispute whether that relates to acceptance or non-acceptance of the candidature of the particular candidate should be brought for a decision before an Election Tribunal as election dispute.
2. 10 2018 Catherine Masud & ors. Vs. Md. Kashed Miah
(Zinat Ara, J.)

10 SCOB [2018] HCD 30
Motor Vehicles Ordinance, 1983
It is evident that section 128 of the MV Ordinance read with rule 220 of the MV Rules requires that the claim application is to be submitted in CTA Form within six months of the accident. However, the proviso to sub-section (3) of section 128 of the MV Ordinance authorizes the Tribunal to entertain an application after the period of six months, if the Tribunal is satisfied that the claimants were prevented by sufficient cause.
3. 10 2018 CCB Foundation Vs. Bangladesh & ors.
(Farah Mahbub, J.)

10 SCOB [2018] HCD 117
Locus Standi of the Petitioner & maintainability of the Rule.
The issues being raised in the instant writ petition by the petitioner involves grave public injury as well as invasion on the fundamental right to life of the victim guaranteed under the Constitution. Accordingly, it has sought protection of this Court, the guardian and custodian of the Constitution of the People’s Republic of Bangladesh, for violation of the said right by filing application under Article 102 of the Constitution for the bereaved poor family members of the 4 years old boy named Jihad who died by falling into an uncovered deep tube well pipe of Bangladesh Railway situated at Shahjahanpur Railway Colony. As such, it cannot be said that the petitioner has no locus standi on the issue in question. In other words, this Rule is maintainable so far the locus standi of the petitioner Foundation is concerned.
4. 10 2018 Eastern Diplomatic Services Vs. Anti-Corruption Commission & ors.
(M. Enayetur Rahim, J.)

10 SCOB [2018] HCD 198
Anti-Corruption Commission Act, 2004
At the stage of inquiry, which is nothing but a fact finding process, there is no scope to arrive at a definite conclusion that the alleged allegation/offence will not fall within the preview of relevant Money Laundering Protirodh Ain, which is in the schedule of the Act of 2004. Moreover, to prevent corruption the commission has got wide and unfettered power. Section 17 (U) of the Act of 2004 contemplated that Commission has the power to do any such act to prevent corruption. The said provision is as under.
5. 10 2018 Farhana Akhter Liza & ors. Vs. The Islamic University & ors.
(Zubayer Rahman Chowdhury, J.)

10 SCOB [2018] HCD 92
Constitution of the People’s Republic of Bangladesh, Article,102(2).
The concept of “due process of law” involves two distinct elements. The first element imposes a mandatory duty upon the Authority concerned to appraise the person of the charge or offence for which a proceeding is being initiated against him. Not only that, judicial pronouncements have gone to the extent to hold that even the proposed punishment must be indicated to the person concerned at the very initial stage. The second element requires that the person, who is so charged, should be afforded an opportunity to file a reply/representation to the Authority in respect of the said allegation or charge. Non-compliance or non-observance of the second element is bound to give a “telling blow” to any subsequent action of the Authority.
6. 10 2018 Grameenphone Ltd. Vs. Chairman, First Labour Court, Dhaka & ors.
(Tariq ul Hakim, J.)

10 SCOB [2018] HCD 7
The concept of Outsourcing services in Bangladesh.
Outsourcing services is a new concept in our country. Not just labour but also professional services may be procured through outsourcing. It is a process by which the recipient of service enters into an agreement with a contractor / service provider who engages persons to render services to the service recipient. In such a situation, there is employment contract between the service recipient and the service renderer. The contract exists between the service recipient and the contractor and consideration for the services are provided by the service recipient to the contractor. If the service recipient is not satisfied with the service rendered by the persons engaged by the contractor then his remedy lies for breach of the terms and conditions of the agreement against the contractor. Likewise if the contractor does not receive adequate consideration for providing his service through his appointed employees, his remedy lies against the service recipient. The service recipient is generally not concerned who renders the service to him as long as the service sought is rendered adequately. As can be reasonably expected the service recipient may set certain criteria and conditions to be observed by the service renderer and he has a discretion to reject any person through whom the service is provided by the contractor; but in all such cases the matter is governed by the contract between the service recipient and contractor. It is a contract of services as opposed to a contract of employment.
7. 10 2018 Hayetullah & ors. Vs. Abdul Khaleque & ors.
(Khizir Ahmed Choudhury,J.)

10 SCOB [2018] HCD 309
Evidence Act, 1872,
In a civil proceeding both the parties have responsibility to prove their respective cases, although onus rests upon the plaintiff to prove his case but responsibility of the defendant is also there to substantiate his written statement’s assertion as per section 103 of the Evidence Act. But the courts below shifted the responsibility to prove the case entirely upon the plaintiffs which cannot be sustained.
8. 10 2018 Md. Abdul Hye Vs. Government of Bangladesh
(Obaidul Hassan, J.)

10 SCOB [2018] HCD 163
Enactment of Enemy Property (Continuance of Emergency Provisions) (Repeal) Act, 1974
1962 Constitution of Pakistan was not a Constitution in the eye of law at all, because the same was not given to the nation by the people`s representatives of Pakistan, rather the same was given by an usurper dictator abrogating the 1956 Constitution which was duly framed and adopted by the Constituent Assembly of Pakistan. Thus the Enemy Property Act [EPA] which was promulgated under a void Constitution of 1962 given by an usurper, the Pakistan Defence Rule 1965 and the Ordinance I of 1969 and its continuance under the grab of Act XLV of 1974 was a misnomer. Enactment of Enemy Property (Continuance of Emergency Provisions) (Repeal) Act, 1974 was a historical mistake. In view of our observations regarding 1974 Act and 1976 Ordinance we hold that measures are likely to be needed to give proper effect of the objective of the Act, 2001 (amended in 2013) and these are the matter to be dealt with by the legislature and executive.
9. 10 2018 Md. Kawsar Shikder Vs. State
(Abu Bakar Siddiquee, J.)

10 SCOB [2018] HCD 158
Narcotics Control Act, 1990 (Report of Chemical Analyzer)
There is no evidence on record to the effect that some portion of those incriminating article were being sent to the chemical analyzer for the purpose of obtaining a chemical report and no such report was marked as exhibit in such case. I have no option to hold that there is doubt so as to ascertain that those incriminating articles were Narcotics or not.
10. 10 2018 Md. Mahbubur Rahman Vs. Bangladesh & ors.
(Moyeenul Islam Chowdhury, J.)

10 SCOB [2018] HCD 104
The Constitution of the People’s Republic of Bangladesh,
Writ Court is also a Court of equity. It is a settled proposition of law that one who seeks equity must come with clean hands. In this case, the petitioner’s hands being unclean and dirty cannot invoke the writ jurisdiction of the High Court Division.
11. 10 2018 Md. Nur Hossain & ors. Vs. Bangladesh & ors.
(Md. Badruzzaman, J.)

10 SCOB [2018] HCD 299
Constitution of the People’s Republic of Bangladesh, Article 102(1):
The issue whether under Article 102(1) judicial review of a decision of authority relating to terms and conditions of service of a person serving in the Republic is maintainable is no longer a res integra.
12. 10 2018 Md. Nurul Islam & ors. Vs. Charge Officer & Appeal officer & ors.
(Sheikh Hassan Arif, J.)

10 SCOB [2018] HCD 234
Nullity of Record of Rights
We are in fact taken aback with surprise when we see that a government official has been empowered by this Rule 42 to nullify the course of parent law and send it back to an earlier stage for hearing afresh. The reason for such surprise is, when an Act of parliament has provided some specified forums for disposal of particular issues and has provided sequential steps to be taken one after another before different forums up to the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of Bangladesh, an official like a revenue officer, appointed with the additional designation of Settlement Officer, can nullify everything before final publication of record of rights. When the government even does not have any power to nullify or reverse the course of parent law, since such power has not been delegated to government by the parent law, we are of the view that, even with the existence of Rule 42 empowering such revenue officer to nullify such course of parent law, any such exercise of power by such revenue officer shall be nothing but a nullity in the eye of law.
13. 10 2018 Md. Safiqul Islam & ors. Vs. Bangladesh & ors.
(Tariq ul Hakim, J.)

10 SCOB [2018] HCD 1
Regularizing Posts
It is true that the petitioners cannot claim as of right to be regularized in their jobs. However, after having served the authority for 10-15 years as temporary contingent staffs they cannot be blamed to expect being regularized in their posts especially when their superior authority has been satisfied by their work and has recommended their regularization.
14. 10 2018 Md. Shamim Howlader Vs. The State.
(Muhammad Khurshid Alam Sarkar, J.)

10 SCOB [2018] HCD 290
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, Section 561A
Section 561A the legislature enacts a special law relating to criminal offences with a view to combating the same in the society to a tolerable stage by smoothly concluding the trials of the cases under the said special law within the stipulated time. But, because of the tendency of the accused persons to remain in abscondence at the trial stage, they compel the trial Courts to delay the completion of the trial and, ultimately, the scheme of the special law gets frustrated. Until and unless the accused-turn-convicts are made to realize that non-preferring of appeals within the statutory period of 30 (thirty) days has a severe consequence of depriving themselves of the opportunity of challenging the trial Court’s verdict, the tendency of the accused persons and their lawyers as to taking the matter lightly shall not be changed. They, at present, take it for granted that after being arrested by the police, if they file an application under Section 561A CrPC, stating some concocted reasons, they would be able to overcome the hurdle. This Court views the above prevailing situation of our country to be a fatal disease which eventually would cause collapse of the administration of criminal justice system of Bangladesh.
15. 10 2018 Article 102 of the Constitution of the People’s Republic of Bangladesh. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, Section 561A
Indeed, under our Constitutional scheme an aggrieved person, in order to agitate his claim and case in judicial review, can do so by invoking Article 102(1) and/or (2) depending on the nature of the grievance as well as of status of the perpetrator. Article 102(1) comes into play in relation to the infringement of any fundamental right guaranteed under Part III of the Constitution. Article 102(2) presupposes the availability of the various Writs that may be appealed to for reviewing actions and operations in the public domain, such actions being otherwise the preserve of the Executive organ of the State affecting the citizenry in their contacts and dealings with the Executive and its functionaries.
16. 10 2018 Muhammad Imrul Hasan & ors. Vs. Bangladesh & ors.
(Tariq ul Hakim, J.)

10 SCOB [2018] HCD 18
Definition of Legitimate Expectation
“A person may have a legitimate expectation of being treated in a certain way by administrative authority even though he has no legal right in law to receive such treatment. The expectation may arise either from a representation or promise made by the authority including an implied representation or consistent past practice.”
17. 10 2018 Naripokkho & ors. Vs. Bangladesh & ors.
(Farah Mahbub, J.)

10 SCOB [2018] HCD 140
First Information Report.
FIR is an important document in the criminal law procedure, its principal object, from the informant’s point of view, is to set the machinery of criminal law into motion and from the view of the investigating agency is to obtain information about the alleged occurrence and to take necessary steps to trace the accused and produce him before the court concern for trial.
18. 10 2018 Professor M. Samsul Alam Vs. Government of Bangladesh.
(Naima Haider, J.)

10 SCOB [2018] HCD 205
Article 102 of the Constitution of the People’s Republic of Bangladesh, Article 51 of the United Nations Convention against Corruption.
Bangladesh has a duty under international law, as laid out in Article 31 of the UNCAC, to confiscate the proceeds of crime. Article 51 of the UNCAC makes the return of assets which are proceeds of crime a fundamental principle of the UNCAC.
19. 10 2018 State Vs. Md. Manik
(Bhabani Prasad Singha, J.)

10 SCOB [2018] HCD 259
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898
On perusal of the confessional statements, no irregularities or illegalities in recording the statements are found. So, there is no difficulty to come to a finding that the confessional statements of the condemned-accused-prisoner and the other convict-accused-persons are voluntary and true and that the said statements may well form the basis for conviction of the accused-persons.
20. 10 2018 State Vs. Md. Saiful Islam & another
(Md. Ruhul Quddus, J.)

10 SCOB [2018] HCD 249
Discrepancy between medical evidence and confessional statement:
In view of the above two cases of Indian jurisdiction, we can rely on the confessions of two accused, even if it gets partial support from the medical evidence. .... However, the two accused themselves confessed commission of rape and subsequent murder of the victim and if these are believed to be true and voluntary, we do not have any reason not to rely on their confessions.
This Site is Visited :