Case Number Parties Short Description
1
Md. Jony Chowdhury Vs. The State and another
The Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (shortly N.I. Act) is silent about compromise of offences under the Act. But the Act does not make any provision therein prohibiting such compromise. Be that as it may, since N.I. Act proceeding arises out of monetary transaction and the proceeding is a quasi civil and quasi criminal in nature and maximum sentence under the law is one year inasmuch as that our criminal administration encourages compromise at any stage of the proceeding as well as at appellate and revisional stage, I am of the view that the dispute between the parties in N.I Act proceeding may be resolved out of Court by the parties on compromise and the same should be allowed by the Court at any stage of the proceeding even at appellate and revisional stage.
2
Md. Selim and another Vs. The State
(a) The Court of Sessions/ Magistrates are empowered to grant bail to a convicted person against whom such court sentenced to imprisonment for a term not exceeding one year with a view to giving the convicted person an opportunity to prefer appeal to higher forum after fulfilling the requirements under section 426(2A) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
(b) The Court of Sessions/ Magistrates have got no jurisdiction to grant bail to a convicted person under section 426(2A) of the Code of Criminal Procedure when the sentence of imprisonment exceeds one year.
(c) No appellate court or it’s inferior court is empowered to grant bail to a convicted person whose sentence of imprisonment has been affirmed/modified in appeal by the appellate court with a view to giving the convicted person an opportunity to prefer revision to higher forum.
(d) No Magistrate shall have jurisdiction to grant a convicted person on bail against whom a sentence of imprisonment has passed by its superior court.