|
Case Number
|
Parties |
Short Description |
|
41 |
Death Reference 49/2011
(Death Reference 49/2011 (Criminal Appeal No. 5763 of 2011 and Jail Appeal No. 245 of 2011)) |
The State-Vs-Mohammad Ali |
|
|
42 |
Death Reference 6/2009
(DeathReference06/2009) |
The State -Vs- Md. Saiful Islam and one another |
|
|
43 |
Death Reference 92/2015
(Crl. Apl. 9051 of 2015 with Crl. Apl. 9170 of 2015) |
The State Vs. Md. Sharif and Md. Mintu Khan |
|
|
44 |
Writ Petition 10023/2016 |
Md. Abdullah Md. Ehtesham Vs. Secretary, Ministry of Religious Affairs , Peoples Republic of bang, Bangladesh Secretariat, Ramna, Dhaka and others |
|
|
45 |
Writ Petition 10929/2015 |
Liberty Fashion Wears Limited Vs. Bangladesh Accord Foundation and others |
|
|
46 |
Criminal Misc 2893/2016
(Criminal Misc 2893, 2895, 2896, 2897, 2898 and 2899 of 2016) |
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. |
|
47 |
Criminal Revision 1440/2016 |
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) |
|
48 |
Criminal Revision 101/2017 |
Begum Khaleda Zia Vs. The State and another |
|
|
49 |
Writ Petition 10127/2015 |
Md. Faizul Islam and another Vs. Bangladesh and others |
|
|
50 |
Writ Petition 9864/2015 |
Syed Mehedi Ahmed Rumi Vs. Government of Bangladesh represented by the Secretary,Ministry of Home Affairs, Bangladesh Secretariat, PoliceStation Shahbagh, Dhaka and others |
|
|
51 |
Writ Petition 9378/2015 |
Monir Ahmed Vs. Chairman, Labour Appellate Tribunal, Dhaka and others |
|
|
52 |
Writ Petition 2617/2015 |
Sarker Md. Tariqul Islam Vs.Mr. Shahiduzzaman, Director-General(Administration), Anti-Corruption Commission,Segunbagicha, Dhaka-1000. |
|
|
53 |
Writ Petition 6756/2007 |
Ms. Parvin Akther Vs. Bangladesh represented by the Secretary, Ministry |
|
|
54 |
Writ Petition 7650/2012 |
Z. I. Khan Panna Vs. Bangladesh represented by the Secretary, Ministry of |
|
|
55 |
Writ Petition 13689/2012 |
Md. Moniruddin Ahmed Vs. Rajdhani Unnayan Katripakkhya represented by its |
|
|
56 |
Writ Petition 13389/2012 |
Miah Mohammad Abdul Nayem Vs. The Review Panel represented by its Chairman, Mr. Md. |
|
|
57 |
Writ Petition 9150/2007 |
Dr. Muhiuddin Khan Alamgir Vs.The Government of Bangladesh represented by the |
|
|
58 |
Writ Petition 8252/2015 |
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 |
|
|
59 |
Criminal Revision 1062/2016 |
Durnity Daman Commission VS Monjur Morshed Khan and others |
It is our considered opinion that the Court cannot play into the hands of the investigating officer who designedly made a perfunctory investigation and misled the Commission and Court should act objectively in a correct perspective. |
|
60 |
Criminal Revision 2610/2016 |
Durnity Daman Commission Vs. Hussain Mohammad Ershad and others |
On perusal of the impugned order and materials before us, we have no hesitation to observe that the concerned public prosecutor as well the Commission have failed to show their due diligence in conducting the case and their negligence is not excusable. But, if we consider the allegations made against the accused persons that they incurred loss of taka more than 64 crore of State money for their personal gain and for the gain of others abusing their high position, then we have no other option but to hold that the prosecution should be given a chance to prove its case for the greater interest of the country. Because, the victim of financial crime is the every citizen of the country. |
