3
Judgment : High Court 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
21 The State -Vs- Zakir Hossain and another
22 The State-Vs- Md. Ramjan Sheikh and another
23 The State-Vs-Mohammad Ali
24 The State -Vs- Md. Saiful Islam and one another
25 The State Vs. Md. Sharif and Md. Mintu Khan
26 Liberty Fashion Wears Limited Vs. Bangladesh Accord Foundation and others
27 Md. Abdullah Md. Ehtesham Vs. Secretary, Ministry of Religious Affairs , Peoples Republic of bang, Bangladesh Secretariat, Ramna, Dhaka and others
28 Md. Sirajuddwla VS The State and another It is not an invariable rule that there cannot be any parallel proceedings on the same facts in Criminal and Civil courts. At the same time, section 344 of the Cr.P.C. vests power upon the Court to postpone or adjourn criminal proceedings ‘for any other reasonable cause’. Thus, proceedings in Criminal Court should be stayed or adjourned where identical issues based on same facts as in criminal cases are involved in suits pending in Civil Court.
29 Md. Abdul Mazed Vatt @ Md. Yousuf Vs The State Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 Section 540: Section 540 aims to arm a Court with vast discretion to find out the truth in a given case. The entire purpose of this enabling provision is to arrive at the truth or otherwise of the fact under investigation. Thus the section confers a wide discretion to the Court to act as the exigencies of justice require. But the discretion cannot be allowed to be used to fill up the gaps in the evidence of a party who seeks recourse to the use of this provision. Power under the section can be exercised by the Court for judicial consideration only and not to advance the case of prosecution or that of the defence. The power can be exercised to know about something which is not present on the record already due to the failure of either party or due to the reasons beyond the control of any of the parties, or on account of something which has come to light during the trial. The party invoking the jurisdiction of the Court for exercising power in its favour shall satisfy the Court about the existence of lacuna or of the circumstances, which palpably justify such action. Mere quoting the words of section 540 in the application is not enough for exercising such powers. … (Para 17)
30 Begum Khaleda Zia Vs. The State and another
31 Md. Faizul Islam and another Vs. Bangladesh and others
32 Syed Mehedi Ahmed Rumi Vs. Government of Bangladesh represented by the Secretary,Ministry of Home Affairs, Bangladesh Secretariat, PoliceStation Shahbagh, Dhaka and others
33 Z. I. Khan Panna Vs. Bangladesh represented by the Secretary, Ministry of
34 Miah Mohammad Abdul Nayem Vs. The Review Panel represented by its Chairman, Mr. Md.
35 Ms. Parvin Akther Vs. Bangladesh represented by the Secretary, Ministry
36 Dr. Muhiuddin Khan Alamgir Vs.The Government of Bangladesh represented by the
37 Sarker Md. Tariqul Islam Vs.Mr. Shahiduzzaman, Director-General(Administration), Anti-Corruption Commission,Segunbagicha, Dhaka-1000.
38 Monir Ahmed Vs. Chairman, Labour Appellate Tribunal, Dhaka and others
39 Md. Moniruddin Ahmed Vs. Rajdhani Unnayan Katripakkhya represented by its
40 S. M. Masud Hossain Dolon and others Vs. 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
This Site is Visited :