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
41 The State-Vs-Mohammad Ali
42 The State -Vs- Md. Saiful Islam and one another
43 The State Vs. Md. Sharif and Md. Mintu Khan
44 Md. Abdullah Md. Ehtesham Vs. Secretary, Ministry of Religious Affairs , Peoples Republic of bang, Bangladesh Secretariat, Ramna, Dhaka and others
45 Liberty Fashion Wears Limited Vs. Bangladesh Accord Foundation and others
46 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 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 Begum Khaleda Zia Vs. The State and another
49 Md. Faizul Islam and another Vs. Bangladesh and others
50 Syed Mehedi Ahmed Rumi Vs. Government of Bangladesh represented by the Secretary,Ministry of Home Affairs, Bangladesh Secretariat, PoliceStation Shahbagh, Dhaka and others
51 Monir Ahmed Vs. Chairman, Labour Appellate Tribunal, Dhaka and others
52 Sarker Md. Tariqul Islam Vs.Mr. Shahiduzzaman, Director-General(Administration), Anti-Corruption Commission,Segunbagicha, Dhaka-1000.
53 Ms. Parvin Akther Vs. Bangladesh represented by the Secretary, Ministry
54 Z. I. Khan Panna Vs. Bangladesh represented by the Secretary, Ministry of
55 Md. Moniruddin Ahmed Vs. Rajdhani Unnayan Katripakkhya represented by its
56 Miah Mohammad Abdul Nayem Vs. The Review Panel represented by its Chairman, Mr. Md.
57 Dr. Muhiuddin Khan Alamgir Vs.The Government of Bangladesh represented by the
58 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 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 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.
This Site is Visited :