Inherent Power of Court: Understanding Section 561A CrPC
Section 561A—
The
cause of action for prosecution will arise under clause (c) of the proviso to
section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act on the failure of the appellant
pay the amount within 15 days of the seipt of the notice of the complainant. In
the present case, the cause of action arose on 19-1-96 and the petition of
complaint was required to be filed within one month from 19-1-96 in compliance
with clause (b) of section 141 of the Act which having not been done by the
complainant the cognizance of the offence cannot be taken upon such complaint
and hence the impugned proceeding is quashed.
SM
Anwar Hossain vs Shafiul Alam (Chand) & another 4 BLC (AD) 106
Section 561A—
In
view of the provisions of section 3 of the Anti-Corruption Act, 1947 and
paragraph 59 of the Anti-Corruption Manual the investigation held by an
Assistant Inspector of the Bureau of the Anti- Corruption was not illegal and
without jurisdiction as has been rightly found by the High Court Division as
the investigation by an Assistant Inspector does not per se become without
jurisdiction and a proceeding cannot also be quashed.
Abul
Hossain (Md) vs State 4 BLC (AD) 122
Section 561A—
Unless
the auditor under section 53 of the Wakf Ordinance held that a Mutwalli was
guilty of breach of trust it would not make out a case of breach of trust on
the vague allegations as to his failure to disburse the dues due to the
beneficiaries.
Nazrul
Islam Motlick vs Khowaj Au Biswas and another 4 BLC (AD) 239
Section 561A—
Section
110 of Banking Companies Act, 1991 also provides that a Manager, Officer and
other functionaries of the Banking Company are deemed to be public servants
under section 21 of the Penal Code and hence the appellant and the respondent
are public servants and the case has been rightly instituted in the Court of Special
Judge against the respondent. Moreso, section 5 of Act II of 1947 speaks of the
offences as mentioned in the schedule of the Act to be tried by Special Judges
and in the schedule there are sections 403 and 477A of the Penal Code with
which the accused has been charged for committing misconduct as a public
servant.
International
Finance Investment and Commerce Bank Ltd vs Abdul Quayum and another 4 BLC (AD)
255.
Section 561A—
Inherent
jurisdiction can be exercised even after framing of charge against the accused
on the ground that the allegation of facts even if true do not support the
accusation or any other offence against him but while framing charge or
exercising inherent jurisdiction mixed question of fact and law cannot be
resolved in an abstract manner without the facts surfacing at the trial. As
found by the learned Third Single Judge, materials exist which allegedly
connect the petitioner with the allegations against him and it is only at the
trial that the probative value of the evidence led by the prosecution will be
examined, there is no ground for interference.
Moudud
Ahmed vs State 1 BLC (AD) 30
Section 561A—
It
is well known that guilty intention as an ingredient of an offence is required
to be proved by evidence and circumstances at the trial and this matter cannot
be considered for quashing the proceeding under section 561 CrPC. It is enough
that allegations are there in the petition of complaint constituting the
alleged offence about which there is no doubt in the present case.
Tamizul
Haque vs Anisul Haque 1 BLC (AD) 169.
Section 561A—
A
prima facie case of abetment of the alleged offences against the petitioner has
been disclosed in the petition of complaint and the provision of Criminal Law
Amendment Act, 1958 has also made abetment of the alleged offences punishable,
and as such the High Court Division rightly refused to quash the proceeding.
Abul
Hossain Abu vs State 1 BLC (AD) 173.
Section 561A—
A
criminal proceeding cannot be quashed on the basis of defence materials which
are still not part of the materials for the prosecution. The High Court
Division deviated from a well-known norm of disposal of an application for
quashing criminal proceeding by taking into account the defence version of the
case.
Rahela
Khatun vs Md Abul Hassan and others 1 BLC (AD) 176
Section 561A—
On
the allegation as made out in the FIR it has been prima facie made out that the
accused petitioners were engaged in the production or adulteration of drug and
medicine and as such a prima facie case has been made out against them. The
question as to whether the persons were really engaged in manufacturing
adulterated ampiciline at the relevant time is a matter to be decided on
evidence at the time of trial and as such the question of quashing the
proceeding does not arise.
Faziul
Hoque Bhuiyan (Md) and others vs State 1 BLC (AD) 181
Section 561A—
It
appears from the complaint-petition that from the very beginning of the
marriage demands for money were being made and that Taka 50,000.00 was demanded
as a dowry for the last time. Whether this demand constituted ‘dowry’ can be
determined on evidence during trial and, as such, it is not a fit case for
quashing the proceeding.
Lutfar
Rahman (Md) vs Khadiza Khatoon and another 1 BLC (AD) 182
Section 561A—
Upon
a plain reading of the petition of complaint it appears that a prima facie case
of criminal offence has been clearly made out. In a proceeding under section
561A CrPC. the High Court Division has little scope to scrutinise the truth or
otherwise of any document or other evidence which may be used as a defence in a
criminal proceeding. The impugned judgment and order do not warrant any
interference.
Shamol
Chandra Das vs State and another 1 BLC (AD) 140
Section 561A—
From
a plain reading of the petition of complaint it is clear that the initial
intention of cheating and the elements of criminal breach of trust have, very
well, been alleged therein and, as such, on the face of these allegations it is
difficult to say that no prima facie case has been alleged to have been
committed by the petitioners under sections 406/420 of the Penal Code. The
impugned judgment and order of the High Court Division do not suffer from any
illegality. Seeking leave to appeal without appearing in the High Court
Division is disapproved.
Habibur
Rahman (Md) and another vs State, through the Deputy commissione, Narayanganj
and another 1 BLC (AD) 146
Section 561A—
When
a prima facie case is made out and the case is at the trial stage the trial
Court should be allowed to proceed with the case and prosecution should not be
stifled. The High Court Division was correct that under the circumstances of
the case inherent powers of the court could not be exercised for quashment of
the case.
Sayed
Abu Zafar vs State and another 1 BLC (AD) 188
Section 561A—
Whether
the petitioner without competitive tender, without verifying the market price,
without approval of the concerned ministry of the Government made the
questionable purchase by abusing his position as the Administrator of the
Corporation in order to obtain for himself or for any other person pecuniary
advantage, is to be decided on evidence at the trial and as such the question
of an abuse of the process of the court does not arise at all.
Abdul
Malek vs State 1 BLC (AD) 237
Section 561A—
The
petitioner was a fugitive from justice from 1-1-96 as found by the High Court
Division and the petitioner has failed to satisfy that he was not an absconder
since 1-1-96 and also he was not aware of the judgment of the Special Tribunal
and as such he is not entitled to any relief under section 561, CrPC.
Alamgir
vs State 3 BLC (AD) 72
Section 561A—
When
there are allegations in the petition of complaint that co-accused in collusion
with the present petitioner who was a guarantor sold/removed the mortgaged
properties by breach of trust and caused financial loss to the complainant
Bank, the proceeding cannot be quashed as has been rightly found by the High
Court Division.
Ansar
Ali vs Manager, Sonali Bank 3 BLC (AD) 86.
Section 561A—
In
spite of issuance of repeated summons and warrant of arrest the respondent No.
2 did not appear before the Magistrate concerned but prayed for quashing the
proceeding before the High Court Division without praying for bail for which it
was the duty of the High Court Division to reject the quashing petition.
Mowlana
Md Yusuf vs State and another 3 BLC (AD) 171
Section 561A—
Admittedly,
petitioner was not known to the informant and none of the seizure list
witnesses recognised the petitioner while fleeing away leaving his basket nor
disclosed his name to the informant and in such facts and evidence on record
learned Special Tribunal was not justified in convicting the petitioner merely
relying upon hearsay evidence of the informant and as such the impugned
judgment is quashed.
Montas
Mia @ Montu Mia @ Montaj Ali vs State 3 BLC 308
Section 561A—
When
a duly constituted Enquiry Committee in its report opined that the accused
persons had contravened the provisions of section 17 of the Ordinance and the
Magistrate on being satisfied about the same had taken cognizane against the
accused persons they would get chance to defend themselves and as such no
failure of justice has occasioned in taking cognizance against them.
Shainpukur
Holding Ltd vs Security Exchange Commission 3 BLC 148
Section 561A—
The
allegations as alleged in the FIR prima facie constitute the offence of
cheating and forgery and that the present dispute is not a civil dispute for
which the proceeding cannot be quashed.
Aga
Kohinoor Alam vs State 3 BLC 204
Section 561A—
The
inherent powers of the High Court Division mentioned under section 561A of the
Code can be exercised only for either of the three purposes which are firstly,
to give effect to any order under the Code, secondly, to prevent abuse of the
process of the Court and thirdly, to secure the ends of justice.
Nazrul
Islam alias Amirul Islam vs State 3 BLC 246
Section 561A—
The
High Court Division under inherent power can quash the judgment of a Tribunal
if the case is of “no evidence”. While exercising such inherent power the High
Court Division would not embark upon an enquiry as to whether the evidence is
reliable or not alike the functions performed by the Court/Tribunal or the
Appellate Court/Appellate Tribunal.
Nazrul
Islam alias Amirul Islam vs State 3 BLC 246.
Section 561A—
As
the Tribunal got the jurisdiction to hold the trial, the facts alleged against
the accused petitioner did constitute criminal offence and the conviction had
not been, also, based upon “no evidence” for which it cannot be said that there
is no foundation for the conviction and sentence of the petitioner.
Nazrul
Islam alias Amirul Islam vs State 3 BLC 246.
Section 561A—
Since
the search and the recovery was not conducted in presence of independent
witness and the absence of seizure list witness together with absence of
incriminating articles allegedly recovered from the control and possession of
the
accused
petitioner and others has made the whole prosecution case unworthy to believe
and as such the impugned judgment and order of conviction is quashed.
Abu
Taleb vs State 3 BLC 292
Section 561A—
Although
no illegality was committed by the trial Court in trying the petitioners in
absentia but the charge brought against the petitioners was not proved at all
as the petitioners were charged for demanding subscription from Arman but the
prosecution gave out a different case in Court for which the impugned judgment
and order of conviction and sentence are set aside.
Anwar
and another vs State 3 BLC 363
Section 561A—
Considering
the facts and circumstances of the case it appears that neither there is any
mens rea on the part of the petitioner nor is there any ingredients of sections
406/420 of the Penal Code resulting thereby the proceeding against the
petitioner is quashed.
Nurul
Huq Ruzbu vs State and another 3 BLC 374
Section 561A—
The
allegations as disclosed in the FIR or in the charge-sheet do not disclose any
offence either under the Special Powers Act or any other law and as such the
proceeding is an abuse of the process of Court and for ends of justice it is
quashed.
Atiqur
Rahman Chowdhury (Md) vs State 3 BLC473
Section 561A—
Taking
into consideration the opening given by the Legal Adviser for releasing the
property from the list of rested property it was recommended by the Additional
Deputy Commissioner (Rev) to the
Ministry concerned who enquired into the matter and became satisfied that the
property in question was not vested or abandoned property and thereby released
the same. In such circumstances the Legal Adviser committed no offence of
forgery and criminal breach of trust in giving his opinion for releasing the
property and the proceedings was quashed.
Abdus
Samad (Md) vs State 1 BLC 63
Section 561A—
When
there is a prima facie case regarding purchase of sodium light by the
Administrator of Dhaka City Corporation by abusing his official power this
court would not embark upon an enquiry as to whether the allegation is reliable
or not and would not stifle the proceeding before the prosecution gets an
opportunity to bring evidence in support of their case and it cannot be said
that the prosecution is barred by law or that the Court has no jurisdiction to
try the case whereby no interference is called for to secure the ends of justice
or to prevent an abuse of the process of the Court.
Abdul
Malek vs State 1 BLC 446.
Section 561A—
In
exercising the power under section 561A of the Code of Criminal Procedure to do
real justice this Court cannot help a person who is flouting an order of a
Court on mere technical ground and thereby helping in avoiding the payment of
fine imposed by a village Court which shall be recovered by Union Parishad
concerned in accordance with Local Government Ordinance, 1976.
Nur
Mohammad Khan vs Abdul Jabber Munshi and State 1 BLC 17.
Section 561A—
Inherent
power can be exercised even after failure to condone the delay in filing the
criminal appeal and as it is a case of no evidence relating to the petition the
conviction and sentence is quashed as it amounts to abuse of the process of the
Court.
Faziul
Haq Sikder vs State 1 BLC 173
Section 561A—
The
allegations as made in the FIR, even taken as it is, the same does not disclose
any offence under section 409 of the Penal Code and section 5(2) of the Act II
of 1947 and there is also nothing to show that the petitioner was entrusted
with the money which is alleged to have been paid in excess or the petitioner
had domain over the said amount or that the petitioner misappropriated the said
amount for his own benefit or benefit of others and as such the continuation of
the proceeding is nothing but an abuse of the process of the court and as such
liable to be quashed.
ARM
Rafiqul Islam vs State 1 BLC 531
Section 561A—
The
power to be exercised under section 561.A CrPC is highly discretionary. Such an
extraordinary and discretionary power cannot be exercised in favour of the
persons who have themselves disrespected the Court complained of.
Dr
Ahmed Sharif vs State and another 1 BLC 563
Section 561A—
It
appears from the petition of complaint that element of offence under section
420 of the Penal Code is made out, though cognizance was taken and charge was
framed under sections 406/423/109 of the Penal Code. Court is competent to
alter or amend the charge at any stage of the proceeding before pronouncing the
judgments and as such no illegality in the I impugned order framing charge
against the accused person under some wrong sections of the Penal Code.
Abu
Yusuf Mia (Md) and another vs Md Khorshed Anwar 1 BLC 553
Section 561A—
As
in the petition of complaint it has been categorically stated that by deceitful
means the accused induced a belief in the mind of the complainant that she is
lawfully married to him by exchanging garlands and developed carnal
relationship with her disclosing a prima facie case of an offence under section
493 of the Penal Code and the trial had already commenced and recorded the
evidence of PW 1 and as such the proceeding cannot be quashed at this stage.
Arzoo
Mia (Md) vs State and another 4 BLC 39.
Section 561A—
Section
3(2) of the Anti- Corruption Act, 1957 provides that subject to any order of
the Government, officers of the Bureau of Anti-Corruption shall have power to
enquire or hold investigation throughout Bangladesh and shall have such powers
which the police officers are empowered in connection with investigation and
further the paragraph 59 of the Anti-Corruption Manual expresses that the
investigation held by an Assistant Inspector was not without jurisdiction and
as such the proceeding cannot be quashed.
Abu
Sufian Mia vs State 4 BLC 193
Section 561A—
Hartal
is an unlawful assembly if criminal force is applied in its favour or to oppose
it -While a hartal is observed by an assembly of five or more persons and their
associates without holding procession or picket it will not be an unlawful
assembly but if any criminal force is applied to observe such hartal then the
members of the unlawful assembly falling within the purview of the fifth clause
to section 141 of Penal Code will be liable to be punished under section 143 of
Penal Code. Hence the procession or other activities in support of applying
force to observe hartal shall be unlawful assemblies including to oppose such
hartal.
State
vs Md Zillur Rahman and others 4 BLC 241
Section 561A—
The
alleged allegation against the petitioner is that she took money twice for the
same work through bill No. 3 but it is contended on behalf of the petitioner by
placing the rule application wherein it has been stated that the bill No. 3 in
question was paid in part and its errors were corrected by bill No. 4 long
before the initiation of the impugned criminal case when IPSA did not make any
complaint in the matter and when the final bill was yet to be submitted it is
not understood the necessity of lodging the FIR without the concurrence of IPSA
and hence the proceedings is quashed.
Lailun
Nahar Ekram vs State 4 BLC 366
Section 561A—
The
Labour Court took cognizance of offence under section 20 of Payment of Wages
Act as the accused petitioner contravened sections 4, 5, 7 and 25 of the Act
but alike the provisions of IRO the Labour Court under the Payment of Wages
Act, has not been given the same powers as are vested in the Court of
Magistrate, First Class under the Code of Criminal Procedure for the purpose of
trying an offence and hence the Labour Court cannot take cognizance of the said
offence and as such the proceeding is quashed.
PM
August, Director Operations vs Chairman, First Labour Court 4 BLC 402
Section 561A—
The
Court under section 561A, Code of Criminal Procedure could examine the admitted
documents of the accused. In the instant case on a plain reading of the first
information report and charge sheet it would appear that the facts stated
therein clearly and manifestly fail to prove the alleged charge against the
petitioner is an abuse of the process of Court and interference is required
under its inherent jurisdiction to secure the ends of justice and hence the
proceeding is quashed.
Shokrana
(Md) vs State 5 BLC 611
Section 561A—
The
learned Judges of the High Court Division while delivering earlier judgment did
not take into consideration two leading decisions wherein it has been held that
where an Act repeals an earlier Act, and a different intention appears, the
repeal shall not affect any liability incurred or punishment incurred in
respect of any offence committed against any enactment so repealed and hence
the earlier judgment of the High Court Division was given “per incuriam” and
hence it is directed that the Special Tribunal then constituted for trial of
the cases under the Cruelty to Women (Deterrent Punishment) Ordinance, 1983 to
proceed with case then pending in the Court of Special Tribunal No. 18, Dhaka
from the stage it was quashed by the High Court Division earlier exercising the
inherent powers reviving the proceeding
in Special Tribunal Case No. 458 of 1996. Where there is a conflict between two
decisions of the High Court Division the latest decision will prevail.
Abul
Kalam Khan vs Reaz Morshed and another 5 BLC 528
Section 56 1A—
The
publication of notice under section 27(6) of the Special Powers Act is not
required in this case as the convict petitioner and two others absconded after
being enlarged on bail and it cannot in any way be said that there is no evidence
for implicating the petitioner and two others and the petitioner was a fugitive
from justice and hence the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence cannot
be quashed.
Toffazel
Hossain vs State, represented by the Deputy Commissioner 5 BLC 44
Section 561A—
If
there is any provision in the Customs Act for levying any tax or customs duty
upon the petitioner for purchasing the car that may be brought into action
under that Act and not under the criminal law or Penal Code and, as such, the
proceeding is quashed as the trial of the petitioner will be an abuse of the
process of law and court and the petitioner will be harassed unnecessarily.
Golam
Sarwar vs State 5 BLC 125
Section 561A—
In
the quashing proceeding the High Court Division is only to see whether there
are materials on record to show that the allegations made in the FIR and the
charge-sheet do in fact constitute an offence but it cannot perform the
function of a trial Court in quashing the proceeding.
Ali
Akkas vs Enayet Hossain and others 2 BLC (AD) 16
Section 561A—
It
is contended that the petition of complaint does not disclose any material
which constitutes the offences under sections 493 and 313 of the Penal Code but
upon a plain reading of the petition of complaint, the Court is satisfied that
it was not a proper case where the High Court Division could have rightly
exercised its inherent power for quashing the proceeding and in a revision the
petitioner had no vested right of being heard.
Aminul
Islam vs Rokeya Begum and another 2 BLC (AD) 60
Section 561A—
While
discharging the Rule for quashing the order of personal appearance the High
Court Division directed the Authorised Officer, KDA to demolish the
unauthorised construction in question which the appellant wants to expunge.
While the proceeding under section 12(1) of the Building Construction Act is
still pending in the Court of the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Khulna and
awaiting decision on merit as to whether any direction will at all be necessary
upon the KDA to dismantle the alleged unauthorised construction which was not
the subject matter under consideration before the High Court Division in the
revision case and accordingly, the impugned unwarranted direction was expunged.
Champak
Ranjan Saha vs Authorised Officer Khulna Development Authority and others 2 BLC
(AD) 110.
Section 561A—
As
the misappropriation of school money by all the accused persons having been
alleged in the petition of complaint and the same allegation has also been made
by the complainant under section 200 CrPC, the High Court Division has rightly
refused to quash the proceeding.
Habibur
Rahman vs Md Fazlur Rahman and another 2 BLC (AD) 152.
Section 561A—
As
the allegations made in the FIR constituted offence under sections 25B and 25D
of the Special Powers Act, 1964 and the charge had already been framed, the
High Court Division committed no illegality in refusing to quash the proceeding
and that the submission of seizure took place 30 miles away from Indian border
is not enough to stifle the prosecution without evidence being led.
Kabir
alias Bakiruddin and others vs State 2 BLC (AD) 178
Section 561A—
The
Sessions Judge cannot direct the Magistrate to take cognizance of the offence
and the impugned order so far it relates to such direction is set aside and
quashed.
Abdur
Rouf and others vs State and another 5 BLC 178
Section 561A—
Although
it appears to be a condition precedent of the bail but nevertheless it was an
agreement by the petitioners by way of undertaking to the opposite party No. 2
and hence no illegality was committed by the learned Metropolitan Sessions
Judge in rejecting the prayer to delete taka one lac from the order granting
bail to the petitioners.
Rezaul
Haque Milky and another vs State and others 5 BLC 435
Sections 561A—
Admittedly,
several documents have been created by different persons showing transfer of
the case land and for the reasons that the petitioners also got their deed
rectified after filing a civil suit where the complainant unsuccessfully tried
to be impleaded as party and that the complainant also purchased a portion of
the case land and in such circumstances only civil suit can resolve the legal
conflict finally and effectively and no criminal liability can be saddled upon
the accused-petitioners and hence the proceedings against the petitioners are
abuse of the process of the Court.
Moulana
Abdul Hakim and ors vs Md Siddiqur Rahman and another 5 BLC 422
Section 561A —
As
the present case was neither heard nor disposed of on merit, the application
for restoration is allowed recalling the order of discharge for default
restoring to its original file and number.
Shamsul
Alam vs State 5 BLC 601
Section 561A—
On a
perusal of the First Information Report and the charge sheet it prima facie
appears that the offence alleged against the accused petitioner is an economic
offence against the State and society as a whole attracting a clear prima facie
offence under section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 and hence
the proceeding cannot be quashed.
Group
Captain (Retd) Shamim Hossain vs State and another 5 BLC 662.
Section 561A—
In
this case talak was pronounced on 8-9-99 but the notice was served upon the
complainant only on 14-1-99 but no notice was served on the Chairman of the
Arbitration Council concerned and hence there was no legal divorce on 14-1-99.
As there is element of the offence under section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition
Act, the proceeding cannot be quashed.
Giasuddin
Khan (Md) vs Beauty Begum & anr 5 BLC 670.
Section 561A—
The
FIR discloses a strong prima facie case against the petitioner for which
without holding trial his innocence cannot be proved by an application under
section 561 A of the Code.
Imam
Anwar Hossain vs Dr Hasmat Ara Begum, State 2 BLC 152.
Section 561A—
As
the petition of complaint discloses an initial intention to deceive the
complainant, who was, persuaded to advance a large amount of money to the
accused persons and, as such, there is no ground for quashing the proceeding.
Kamrul
Islam (Md) vs Atikuzzaman 2 BLC 227
Section 561A—
As
the allegation of demanding dowry with threat to divorce comes within the
mischief of section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act and not under section 3 for
which the trial Court is directed to frame charge against the petitioner Nos. 2
to 5 under section 4 of the Act alike the petitioner No. 1.
Moniruzzaman
(Md) (Dablu) and others vs State 2 BLC 413
Section 561A—
Quashing
proceeding in the stage of investigation—As the victim girl was above the age
of 18 years and her affidavit before a Notary Public shows that she had
voluntarily at her free will gone out with the petitioner and had married him
in accordance with Muslim Law of Marriage and in support of that a copy of
Nikahnama was filed for which there is prima facie no ingredients to proceed with
the case under section 366 of the Penal Code or under the Cruelty to Women and
Children (Special Enactment), 1995 and such proceeding is an abuse of the
process of law and it is quashed even in the stage of investigation.
Manik
(Md) alias Md Akkash Khan (Manik) vs State 2BLC 418
Section 561A—
Trial
in absentia without publication vitiates the trial—case remanded to the trial
Court—The petitioner was tried in absentia by the Special Tribunal but the
provisions of section 27(6) of Special Powers Act was complied with by the
Magistrate concerned. The petitioner was apprehended 3 years after the
pronouncement of the judgment which is under challenge under section 561A of
the Code. The High Court Division under inherent powers to secure ends of
justice can send back the case on remand to the trial Court for giving an
opportunity to the petitioner to cross examine the PWs and to try the case of
the petitioner only in accordance with law as the retrial was vitiated for
non-compliance of the mandatory provision of law by the Special Tribunal.
Abdul
Khalique alias Mona vs State 2 BLC 423
Section 561A—
The
Sessions Judges are not ex-officio Special Judges and unless they are appointed
under section 3(1) of the Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1958 by notification made
in the official gazette they cannot try cases as Special Judges but it cannot
be a ground for quashing the proceeding. Since no notification in the official
gazette is forthcoming appointing the Sessions Judge, Jhalakati as Special
Judge the case should be sent to the Divisional Special Judge, Khulna for
disposal instead of trying the same by the Sessions Judge, Jhalakati.
Mozahar
Ali Howlader vs Lal Mia Talukder 2 BLC 581.
Section 561A—
Failing
to get an order of Division I in the jail from the CMM on a number of times the
petitioner when applied for Class I status in the jail in the month of March,
1997 whereupon the CMM called for a report from the Officer-in-Charge, Gulshan
Police Station about the status and condition of the petitioner which having not
been supplied by the said police officer, the petitioner ultimately failed to
obtain favourable order from the CMM moved unsuccessfully the Sessions Judge
who rejected the application on the ground that it was premature. The
petitioner had no other alternative but to invoke the inherent jurisdiction
under section 561A, CrPC for ends of justice and such application is quite
maintainable.
Major
(Retd) M Khairuzzaman vs State 2 BLC 646.