: High Court Division Full List
 
Case Type
Case/Tender Number
Year
Parties
Short Description
 

Case Number Parties Short Description
1
Md. Nur Hossain Khan and another VS The Government of Bangladesh and others.
Disposed of with above direction
2
Md. Abul Bashar Molla and others Defendant Nos 29(Ka) to 29 (Cha)-vs- Atabur and others
Absolute
3
Discharged
4
A.B.M. Ashiquzzaman and others-Vs-Bangladesh, represented by the Secretary, Ministry of Education and others
Disposed of with direction
5
Md. Sattar Khan being dead his legal heirs- Shahnaz and others Vs. Arafat Mahmud
...
6
Md. Atiqullah Sowdagar and others -Versus- Abdul Ghani being dead substituted by his legal heirs and heiresses Jakia Begum and others
------
7
Md. Anowar Hossain and another VS. House Building Finance Corporation, Zonal Office, Rajshahi and another
First Appeal
8
Md. Jahangir Hossain ... Convict-Petitioner -Versus- Mst. Naznin Sultana and another ...Complainant-Opposite parties.
The Rule is discharged
9
Md. Munsur Ali Pramanik Vs. Most. Rezia Begum and others
Discharged
10
Dr. Shaheda Begum ... Convict-Appellant -Versus- The State and another ...Complainant-Respondents
The Appeal is disposed of
11
Abdul Jalil ... Convict-Petitioner -Versus- The State and another ...Complainant-Opposite Parties
The Rule is discharged
12
Md. Fazlur Rahman … Petitioner -VersusBangladesh Bank and others … Respondents
Absolute
13
Nurul Azim Sohel … Petitioner -Versus- Judge, Artha Rin Adalat No. 1, Dhaka and another … Respondents
Discharged
14
Josimuddin and others Vs. Idris Ali and others
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Most. Masuda Akhter @ Mina Begum being dead his heirs- Md. Rabbi Islam (Joni) and others Vs. Md. Masuduzzaman Milon and others
29
Nurunnahar Chowdhury and others Vs. dipak Banik and others
30
Md. Hamidur Rahman -Vs- The State and Anti-Corruption Commission
the entrustment of money by a person to the Post Master for opening a new Savings Bank Account would amount to `entrustment` within the meaning of Section 409, Indian Penal Code. "In the case of an offense by a public servant punishable under Section 409 IPC, the acquisition of dominion or control over the property must also be in the capacity of a public servant.....The gravamen of the offence is the dishonest misappropriation of the money or property which comes into the possession or under the control of a public servant who has the ostensible authority to receive it even though, technically speaking, from the point of view of the distribution of departmental duties under internal rules of an office, it may not be within the scope of his authority or duty to accept the money." (Para 12) "The fact that a public servant acts fraudulently in the exercise of his duties as a public servant to get dominion or control over some property will be an aggravating and not an exculpating circumstance. The `entrustment` results from what the person handing over money or property is made to think, understand, and believe about the purpose for which he hands over money or property to a public servant. If this takes place because of and due to the exercise of the official authority, the requirements of Section 409 IPC are satisfied." (Para 12) If the prosecution has discharged its burden of proving the Commission of the crime by the accused beyond any reasonable doubt, it may not be necessary to go into whether the accused has succeeded in proving the defense of alibi. "The actual manner of misappropriation, it is well settled, is not required to be proved by the prosecution. Once entrustment is proved as to how the property entrusted to him was dealt with in view of section 405 of the IPC. If the respondent had failed to produce any material for this purpose, the prosecution should not suffer therefor." the failure of the trial in not mentioning the particulars which are required to be mentioned under sections 221 and 222 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, while framing the charge, caused prejudice to the accused, and because this omission deprived him from taking a proper defense, and as such, the error in the charge definitely occasioned failure of justice. But there will be no prejudice or failure of justice where there was an error in the charge, and the Accused was aware of the error. "The defect in framing of the charges must be so serious that it cannot be covered under Sections 464/465 Code of Criminal Procedure, which
31
Naushad Imtiaz Vs. Sultana Nilufar Banu and others
Discharged
32
Abu Sufiyan Talukder Defendant No.6-appellant-petitioner Versus 1.Selina Monir and others Plaintiff-respondent-opposite party 2.Abul Kalam Azad and others Defendant-respondent-opposite parties Mr. Md. Serajul Haque, Advocate with Mr. Mohammad Abdulla Al Masud, Advocate Mr.Shibli Nomani, Advocate for the petitioners Mr. Jamir Uddin Sircar Senior Advocate with Mr. Kazi Raman (Manik), Advocate for the opposite party No.1
33
G. M. Salam Mia and aother Vs. Md. A. Gaffar and others
34
Partho Khaskel ...Convict- Petitioner. -Versus- The State and another ............... Opposite Parties.
The Rule is discharged
35
Mohammad Ali vs the state and another
36
Md. Sirajul Islam, son of late Haji Abdul Karim, of House-27, Nanda Kumar Dutta Road, Post Office: Posta, Police Station: Lalbagh, Dhaka-1211 and another.-Vs-National Board of Revenue represented by its Chairman, Rajashwa Bhaban, Plot- F1/A, Agargaon, Sher-E-Bangla Nagar, Dhaka-1207 and others
Absolute
37
Md. Shahjahan alias Md. Shahjahan Ali-Vs-Government of Bangladesh, represented by the Secretary, Ministry of Public Administration and others
Discharged
38
Md. Nasim Faruk Khan Vs, Government of Bangladesh
39
Md. Ataur Rahman Vs. Noor Jahan Begum being dead her legal heirs sons 1 (a) Muktar Ali and others.
40
Sree Nimai Chandra Mondal Vs. Sree Manik Chandra Mondal and others.
41
Sheikh Nasir Uddin being dead his heirs of 1 (a) Sheikh Rakibuzzamanwean and others Vs. Mr. Major Masud Ahmed and others
42
Md. Ismail and another Defendant-respondents-petititioner Versus Golapi Begum and others Plaintiff-appellants-opposite parties
43
Bangladesh Industrial Finance Company Limited (BIFC) versus Ibadur Rahman Chowdhury and others
Disposed of
44
The State VS. Mahmudul Alam Sikder
45
The State Vs. Most; Shaleha Khatun
46
A.K.M. Shamsul Huda Sarkar-Vs-Government of Bangladesh, represented by the Secretary, Ministry of Industries and others
Absolute
47
Habibur Rahman @ Babu ...Convict-Petitioner -Versus- The State ............... Opposite Party
The Rule is discharged
48
49
Bangal Cement Ltd and others
Dismissed
50
Rahimafrooz Global Ltd vs.
Dismissed
This Site is Visited :