Judgment : High Court Division
Case Type
Case Number
Short Description

Case Number Parties Short Description
The State Vs. Md. Lavlu
Separate sentencing hearing
• Separate sentencing hearing by a trial judge is a must in view of the intention of the Legislature as inherent in sub-section (5) of Section 367 of the Cr.PC and as indicated by our Appellate Division in Ataur Mridha Case, 73 DLR(AD)-298.
• The Registrar General of the Supreme Court of Bangladesh is directed to issue a circular in this regard.
Md. Syeduzzaman vs Government of Bangladesh, represented by the Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs, Bangladesh Secretariat, Ramna, Dhaka and others.
Ahmed Kamal Chowdhury vs The State and another
মো: জহিরুল ইসলাম বনাম রাষ্ট্র গং
Dhaka Fisheries Limited Vs. Marina Park and Resort Limited and Others
Mr. Fazle Mahbub, son of Mahbubul Alam, Proprietor of M/S “Turbo Machinery Services Bangaldesh”, Vs. Government of Banglaesh and others
Md. Sajedul Haque Vs. Government of Bangladesh and others.
A H Mostofa Kamal FCA Versus Government of the People’s Republic of Bangldesh, represented by the Secretary, Ministry of Commerece and Others.
Advocate M. A. Aziz Khan Vs. The Election Commission of Bangladesh and others
Mrs. Fahmida Mizan and others vs. The State and another
The proviso to sub-section (1) of section 140 of the Act exonerates the second category of a person if he can show that the company has committed the offence without his knowledge or that he could not prevent the commission of the offence despite his endeavour to prevent the same. This will be deductible from the facts and circumstances of the case and it can only be shown and proved by evidence. The liability envisaged in sub-section (1) of section 140 of the Act is on the person who was in-charge of, and was responsible to the company for the conduct of the business of the company is fixed by the legislature because he is directly responsible for the offence. This category of persons need not have done any specific overt act or omitted to do anything to be fastened with liability. The very fact that the company has committed the offence is sufficient to make them liable. Accordingly, no averment is required to be made in the petition of complaint specifying their overt act in the commission of the offence by them.
Md. Jamaluddin Sarkar-Versus- Alhaj Mohammad Abdul Aziz being dead his heirs and others
Ramjan Dhali vs. The State.
Section 339C(2) of the Cr.P.C stipulates that a Sessions Judge, an Additional Sessions Judge or Assistant Sessions Judge shall conclude the trial of a case within three hundred and sixty days from the date on which the case is received by him for trial. Section 339C(4) of the Code also provides that if a trial cannot be concluded within the said specified time, the accused of a non-bailable offence may be released on bail. Moreover, it is settled principle that an accused cannot be detained in jail for an indefinite period without any trial.
Md. Mahmudul Hasan Vs. Bangladesh, represented by the Secretary, Ministry of Law, Justice and Parliamentary Affairs and others
মুসলিম বিবাহ ও তালাক (নিবন্ধন )বিধিমালা, ২০০৯ (নিকাহ রেজিস্ট্রার)
Md. Asif Ahammed Vs. The State
The Mobile Court Ain, 2009 does not give any authority to the Executive Magistrate or District Magistrate to proceed against a person in the name of Mobile Court for an offence which is not committed before him while he was conducting Mobile Court for the purpose, as stated above. In other words, there is no scope under the Ain, 2009 to proceed against a person for an offence covered by the Ain, in the name of Mobile Court who was apprehended or arrested or detained by the police from elsewhere and thereafter, was produced before the Executive Magistrate for proceeding against him through Mobile Court.
Md. Insan Ali and others Vs. Md. Kudrat E Khoda @ Abu Sayed and others
Since the trial Court declared in the suit that the summons has returned after service, the requirement of Court’s declaration under rule 19 of Order V of the Code has been complied with. Moreover, the process-server made declarations in respect of service of summons under rule 17 of Order V of the Code and since such declaration of the process-server shall be received as evidence of the fact as to the service of summons upon the defendant-petitioners as per rule 19A of Order V of the Code, I am of the view that the summons upon defendant Nos. 16, 32 and 33 was duly served and the onus was shifted to the defendants to prove by evidence that the summons was not duly served upon them.
Justice Md. Joynul Abedin (Rtd.) vs The State and another
Durnity Daman Commission vs Md. Selim Prodhan and another
মোঃ আব্দুস সাত্তার বনাম জাহানারা বেগম
Masud Parvez and others Vs. Md. Golam Mostafa and others
The language of the first proviso to rule 17 of Order VI of the Code of Civil Procedure is clear and unambiguous which clearly stipulates that no application for amendment of pleadings shall be allowed after the trial has commenced. However, such amendment may be allowed if the Court is of opinion that in spite of due diligence, the party could not have raised the matter before the commencement of trial. Accordingly, it is imperative for the party to make out a specific case in the application for amendment of pleadings stating that in spite of due diligence, he/she could not have filed such application before commencement of trial of the suit and before allowing such amendment, Court must form an opinion to that effect.
Mst. Oleda Begum and others Vs. Mst. Momena Khatun and others
Rule 774 of Chapter 34 of Part I of the Civil Rules and Orders (the CRO) provides list of Miscellaneous Judicial cases filed under the Civil Procedure Code. Sub-rule (a)(5) of the Rule 774 of the CRO includes section 144 of the Code of Civil Procedure in the category of Miscellaneous Judicial Cases. On perusal of Rule 774 it appears that an application under section 144 of the Code of Civil Procedure is to be registered as Miscellaneous Case.

From the above view of the appellate Division, it is clear that a party is entitled to restitution under section 144 of the Code of Civil Procedure only when he has been deprived of some right or property by an erroneous judgment, order or decree. If the higher Court comes to the conclusion that the trial Court by an erroneous judgment or order decreed the suit and thereafter, reverse the said judgment only then question of restitution will arise.
Mst. Minu Akter and others Vs. Sirajul Hoque Babu and others
In an appropriate case, the Court is not powerless to apply the provisions under the Code of Civil Procedure in a proceeding under Arbitration Act, 2001. This means that the Court may allow 3rd party to be added in an arbitration proceeding who’s interest is adversely affected by the decision of the arbitral tribunal by applying the provisions under Order I rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
বিগ বস কর্পোরেশন লিমিটেড পক্ষে সৈয়দ রেজাউল করিম ব্যবস্থাপনা পরিচালক বনাম আর্মি ওয়েল ফেয়ার ট্রাস্ট (এডব্লিউটি)
রাষ্ট্র বনাম আব্দুল্লাহ ওরফে তিতুমীর ওরফে তিতু
স্ত্রী হত্যা ও ঋণাত্মক দায়ঃ
  • ঘটনার সময় স্ত্রী তার স্বামীর হেফাজতে ছিল অর্থাৎ স্বামীর উপস্থিতি প্রমাণিত না হলে সচরাচর প্রচলিত সাক্ষ্য আইনের ১০৬ ধারার ঋণাত্মক দায় নীতিটি স্বামীর উপর প্রযোজ্য হবে না। সেক্ষেত্রে রাষ্ট্রপক্ষকে যুক্তিসঙ্গত সন্দেহের ঊর্ধ্বে প্রমাণ করতে হবে যে- (১) স্ত্রী হত্যাকান্ডের শিকার হয়েছে এবং (২) তা স্বামীর দ্বারা সংঘটিত হয়েছে।
সুরতহাল প্রতিবেদনের তথ্য/বক্তব্যঃ
  • সংশ্লিষ্ট সাক্ষীগণ আদালতে বক্তব্য দিয়ে সমর্থন না করলে সুরতহাল প্রতিবেদনের বক্তব্য/তথ্য সাক্ষ্য হিসাবে গৃহীত হবে না।
  • উক্ত প্রতিবেদনে উল্লেখিত শোনা বা ধারণাপ্রসূত বক্তব্য ফৌজদারী কার্যবিধির ১৬২ ধারা এবং সাক্ষ্য আইনের ৬০ ধারা দ্বারা সাক্ষ্য হিসাবে বারিত হবে।
A reference under Section 113 read with Order XLVI rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
Civil reference to High Court Division (Section 113, Order XLVI rule 1 CPC):
• CHT Regulation No. 1 of 1900 is a colonial special law which provides restricted operation of other laws in CHT area.
• Separate judicial system in CHT area cannot be termed as contrary to the provisions of the Constitution, particularly after the Peace Accord being signed between CHT National Committee and Janosonghoti Samity.
• Unlike the civil courts in rest of the country, the civil courts in CHT area have not been established under Civil Courts Act, 1887. Rather they have been established under Regulation No.1 of 1900, as amended by Act No. 38 of 2003.
• The civil appeals and the proceedings of civil nature, as was pending before the Divisional Commissioner and Additional Commissioner of Chattogram before coming into force of the amending Act of 2003, shall not be transferred to the District Judges of the respective hill districts. The District Judges and Additional District judges of the respective hill districts do not have jurisdiction to dispose of any such transferred appeal. However, matters disposed of already, shall be treated as ‘Past and Closed’ matters and cannot be questioned on the point of jurisdiction.
মো: উজ্জল বনাম টপ টেন ফেব্রিক্স এন্ড টেইলার্স লিমিটেড ও অন্যান্য
The State Vs. Most. Rahela Khatun
Examination under Section 342 Cr.PC:
• The trial Judge may put questions to the accused during examination under Section 342. But answers given by the accused to such questions cannot be used as evidence to base his conviction for the very reason that such answer of the accused is not given on oath and that the accused cannot be cross-examined unless and until he desires to give evidence in support of the defence case and that such answers are not evidence within the meaning of Section 3 of the Evidence Act.
The State Vs. Md. Abdus Salam Sheikh and two others
Failure to comply with Section 342 Cr.PC:
• Failure to comply with Section 342 of the Cr.PC may be cured by the Appellate Court during appeal hearing and as such the Appellate Court may further examine the convict, or the counsel appearing for the convict, and the answers to be given by the convict and/or counsel may be taken into consideration.
• The Appellate Court should not remit the matter to the trial Court for reexamination under Section 342 on account of long time already spent by the accused during trial and after his sentence.
• The State or any parties to a criminal case, including victim, should not suffer because of the mistake of the trial judge in complying with the provisions under Section 342 of the Cr.PC.
The State Vs. Md. Obaidul Islam @ Uzzal Sheikh
Accused of unsound mind:
• An accused of unsound mind must be examined by the Civil surgeon during enquiry or trial to determine the extent of unsoundness and provisions under Chapter XXXIV of Cr.PC and relevant provisions of Mental Health Act, 2018 are mandatory in nature.
• Although the accused is acquitted on the ground of his mental health, he should be detained under the supervision of Mental Health Review and Monitoring Committee of the District concerned until it is found that he is no more a threat to himself and the society.
The Government of the People’s Republic of Bangladesh Vs. Chairman, The First Court of Settlement, Segunbagicha, Dhaka and another
Mafizul Islam Vs. Md. Amin Mia and others
Abdul Latif Helaly son of Mojammad Kalu Mia, Chief Engineer(Current Charge), Rajdhani Unnayan Kattripokko, RAJUK Bhaban, Dhaka Versus Government of Bangladesh and others.
Sajon Kumar Agarwala Vs. Government of Bangladesh and others
Bilquis Jahan being dead her legal representatives VS Syed Abdul Hafiz being dead his legal representatives
Unilever Bangladesh Limited, ZN Tower, Plot No. 2, Road No. 8, Gulshan-1, Dhaka-1212,represented by its Chairman and Managing Director Mr. Rakesh Mohan Vs. The Chairman, National Board of Revenue, Rajaswa Bhaban, Segun Bagicha, Dhaka and others
The Committee for protection of Monthan Pond, represented by its Member Palash Kantinag Versus The Government of the People’s Republic of Bangladesh, represented by the Secretary, Ministry of Land, Bangladesh Secretariat, Segun Bagicha, Dhaka-1000 and others
Hazi Delowar Hossain VS The State and Another
Manoj Kumar Mandol Versus Bangladesh, represented by the Secretary, Ministry of Law Justice
Sheikh Mohmmad Zafor alias Abu Zafor and another Versus Samela Bibi being dead his heirs Sheikh Md. Siddiqur Rahman and another
Md. Sabuz Miah @ Md. Mohsin Hossain Versus Most. Rahela Akter
Md. Nur-E-Helal VS Bangladesh, represented by its Secretary, Ministry of Education
Sahida Akter Rani Versus 1(ka) Mst. Joynob Bibi and others
Md. Abdul Munim Vs. Election Commission of Bangladesh, represented by the Chief Election Commissioner, Bangladesh Election Commission Secretariat, Sher-E-Banglanagor, Agargaon, Dhaka and others.
Bangladesh Election Commission
Tania Rahman, wife of Md. Mujibur Rahman of House No. 5, Road No. 3, Block-B, Dumni, Pink City, Khilkhet, Dhaka. Vs. Bangladesh, represented by the Secretary, Ministry of Housing and Public Works and others.
Babul Howlader -Versus- Mokbul Hossain and another
Md. Hafizur Rahman alias Bazu Mia -Versus- Rawsanara Begum and others
Alekjan Bibi and others -Versus- Jabeda Bibi and others
Abdul Maleque -Versus- Md. Riazuddin and others
Abdul Kuddus Bepari and others -Versus- BinNarayan Chandra Dutta
Md. Whahed Ali and others - Versus- Most. Rahima Khatun and others
Md. Shah Jalal Khan and another -Versus- Jalal Mir and others
This Site is Visited :