Article 7—Like the lawyers, equally the citizens also have their Constitutional responsibility to ensure the maintenance of the Constitutional norms in the matter of appointment of judges of this Court. State vs Chief Editor, Manabjamin 57 DLR 359.
Article 28(4)—Nari-o-Shishu Nirjatan Daman Ain would not override the provisions of the Children Act, 1974, so far as it relates to the prosecution of youthful offenders, since it encompasses the spirit of Article 28(4) of the Constitution. State vs Md Roushan Mondal Hashem 59 DLR 72.
Article 28(4)—When an accused claims to be below 16 years of age, a duty is cast upon the court to .direct an enquiry to satisfy itself as to whether the accused is a child below 16 years of age on the day of framing charges against him. Rahamatullah (Md) vs State 59 DLR 520.
Article 32—”Save in accordance with law” as mentioned in Article 32 not only refers to criminal law but also civil law which provides for arrest and detention, namely, for recovery of decretal dues and public dues. State vs Faisal Alam Ansari 53 DLR (AD) 43.
Article 32—Keeping of any prisoner in jail after he served out the sentence amounts to violation of Human Rights and Fundamental Rights guaranteed by the Constitution. Faustina Pereira, Advocate Supreme Court vs State 53 DLR 414.
Article 33(1)—Any person accused of an offence before a Criminal Court, or against whom proceedings are instituted under this Code in any such Court, may of right be defended by a pleader.
The law has not given any authority to the learned Sessions Judge to limit the appointment of lawyer by each accused. The order limiting the appointment of lawyer by each accused is absolutely without jurisdiction. Section 352 of the Code of Criminal Procedure provides that the learned Judge of the Court will consider the accommodation of the general public in the Court room. If one accused engages for himself one hundred lawyers, the lawyers are entitled to defend the accused and as regards sitting arrangement the Judge will control, but he cannot pass any order limiting the appointment of lawyer. Hossain Mohammad Ershad [former President Lieutenant General (Retd)] vs State 48 DLR 95.
Article 33(4)―This decision deals with the implication of sections 10, 11 and 12 of the Special Powers Act read with Article 33(4) of the Constitution regarding the placing of the case of the detenu within the statutory period of 120 days (as per section 10) before the Advisory Board, sending of the report of the Advisory Board containing its opinion to the Government within 170 days as per section II and the legal necessity of the Government to confirm or revoke the order of detention (and in case of confirmation pass further order for continuation of detention serving the same on the detenu) which in effect means that continuation of an order of detention for indefinite period, even if initially otherwise valid, becomes illegal either on 120th day due to contravention of section 10, or, on 170th day due to the contravention of the provisions of sections 11 and 12 of tbe Special Powers Act or. on 180th day if the provision of section 12 of the said Act read with Art 33(4) of the Constitution is not complied with. Md Mansur vs Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs 42 DLR 272.
Article 33(5)—Preventive detention— Detaining authority must keep in view Article 33(5) of the Constitution—Grounds to be communicated at the earliest to the detenu regarding the order of detention. The detaining authority must always keep in view Article 33(5) of the Constitution which provides that the authority making the order for preventive detention shall, as soon as may be, communicate to the detained person the grounds on which the order of detention has been made and the Legislature in section 8(2) of Special Powers Act has taken pains to specifically direct the detaining authority to cause service of the order containing the detailed grounds of detention at the time of detention, that is, at the very moment he is detained under the order of preventive detention. Dr Md Habibullah vs Secretary Ministry, of HomeAffairs 41 DLR 160.
Article 33(5)—Grounds in the initial order of detention cannot be substituted for separate grounds to be communicated to the detenu. Chunnu Chowdhury vs District Magistrate 41
Article 35—Double Jeopardy—The accused is going to be prosecuted in respect of an offence which did not occur during the earlier transaction nor the present case arose out of the same fact and for the present offence he was not tried previously. In such a position the doctrine of the Constitution or of the Code as to double jeopardy is not applicable in the present case. HM Ershad vs State 45 DLR 534.
Article 35(1)—Article 35(1) of the Constitution envisages the prohibition on conviction or sentence under an “ex post facto law” not trial of the offence alleged to have been committed or the procedure to be followed in the investigation, inquiry in respect of an offence alleged to have been committed. Tarique Rahman vs Government of Bangladesh 65 DLR (AD) 18.
Article 35(1)—The principle of ‘ex post facto’ laws as embodied in Article 35(1) of the Constitution is not applicable in the instant case since the alleged offences were committed during the operation of the Ain of 2002, the punishment for the said offence as provided under Chapter IV of the Ain be applicable. There is no bar to hold trial of the petitioner under provisions of the ACC Act, 2004 for the commission of the offence alleged to have been committed under the Ain of 2002. The case be treated as one instituted under the Ain of 2002. Tarique Rahman vs Government of Bangladesh 63 DLR (AD) 18.
Article 35(1)—There is a prohibition on conviction or sentence under an “ex post facto law” not trial of the offence alleged to have been committed or the procedure to be followed in the investigation, inquiry in respect of an offence alleged to have been committed. A person accused of the commission of an offence has no fundamental right to a trial by a particular Court or by a particular procedure except insofar as any Constitutional objection by way of discrimination or violation of any other fundamental right may be involved. The prohibition under this clause does not extend to merely procedural laws and procedural law would not contravene Article 35(1) merely because retrospective effect is given to it. Tarique Rahman vs Government of Bangladesh 63 DLR (AD) 162.
Articles 35(1) & 102(2)—The writ petition is misconceived one and not maintainable since vires of no law has been challenged. The provision of sub-article (1) of Article 35 of the nstitution will not be attracted since the offence as well as its punishment, if any, would be dealt with under the Ain of 2002. From a clear reading of the FIR, Investigation Report and other materials on record, a prima-facie case under Sections 2 (ট) (আ) (ই) and Section 13 of the Ain of 2002 has been disclosed. Tarique Rahman vs Government of Bangladesh 18.
Article 35(4)—In the enquiry the petitioners can very well controvert the allegations against them. It cannot be suggested that by mere issuance of notices the petitioners are compelled to give evidence against themselves. Article 35(4) therefore is of no avail to the petitioners. Abdul Hafiz vs Director General, Bureau of Anti-Corruption, Government of Bangladesh 51 DLR 72.
Article 35(5)—In case of malafide the matter of non-disclosure will be justifiable one. But for the clear constitutional sanction a non-disclosure of fact that was considered to the prejudice of the detenu ought to be regarded as a violation of basic principle of natural justice.
The detenu cannot also ask as a matter of right to the detaining authority the facts not disclosed on the plea of public interest. This is the privilege of the State and this privilege the State can always claim against the detenu. Further, when the liberty of a citizen is at stake and when constitutional protection is sought for, it is the Court alone which can very well look into all the materials including the materials to which privilege is claimed by the detaining authority. If, in fact, a privilege is claimed in respect of any material, it is the High Court Division alone that would finally decide as to whether the document is really a privileged one or not. Under proviso to Article 33(5) of the Constitution, the authority has got a constitutional protection not to disclose anything in public interest and it is the constitutional Court alone which can look into the materials pertaining to the detention of the detenu as contemplated in the Constitution for its satisfaction alone. The privilege given to the State in the interest of the State, people or community cannot be asked for as a matter of right. Habiba Mahmud vs Bangladesh 45 DLR (AD) 89.
Article 39—Contempt—Limits of the press —Freedom of the press is recognized in our Constitution—a Court is to suffer criticism made against it. Only in exceptional cases of bad faith or ill motive it will resort to law of contempt. Saleem Ullah vs State 44 DLR (AD) 309.
Article 39—Freedom of speech and expression is tolerated so long as it is not malicious or libelous. If speech or expression was untrue and reckless, the speaker or the author does not get protection of the constitutional right. State vs Chief Editor, Manabjamin 57 DLR 359.
Articles 39 & 108—Article 108 of the Constitution has conferred upon both the Divisions of the Supreme Court, as the Court of record, the power of contempt of Court. In Bangladesh this field is governed thus by Articles 108 and 39 read with the Contempt of Courts Act. State vs Chief Editor Manabjamin 57 DLR 359.
Articles 39(1) & 141(1)—The intention of the publication was to make the real Muslims aware about the false interpretation given by the so-called half-educated and preachers of Islam. The allegation does not come within the ambit of the offence of section 295A of Penal Code against the petitioners. Shamsuddin Ahmed vs State and another 52 DLR 497.
Article 40—Right to profession—The impugned restriction on the petitioner’s right to be enlisted as a contractor may be bonafide and in the interest of the Board, but when it interferes with his fundamental right to profession, the restriction cannot be allowed to exist unless authorized by law. Abdul Jalil vs Chairman, REB. 45 DLR 24.
Article 41—Right to profess religion—The right of the Ahmadiyya community to preach their religious beliefs is subject to law, public order and morality. The book having contained matters which are deliberately and maliciously intended to outrage the religious beliefs of the bulk of the Muslims, the Government was justified in forfeiting the book. Bangladesh Anjuman-e-Ahmadiyya vs Bangladesh 45 DLR 185.
Article 56(3)—For a detention order made by the District Magistrate on being satisfied about the prejudicial act by any person and the extension of such order by the Government under section 3 of the Special Powers Act, there is no requirement of law to place it before the President for his approval, and consequently there is no obligation nor scope to pass order by noting it as “by order of the President” and this being a purely executive order the provision of Article 56(3) of the Constitution is not applicable to this case. Sekandar Ali vs Bangladesh 42 DLR 346.
Article 58(2) (now repealed)—The nature of the document of which the petitioner pleads protection and the related matters being in the facts of the case a mixed question of fact and law, it is not yet time to consider this constitutional question while the document is still not ready for observation with all its factual clothing’s. The Indian cases relied upon by the petitioner are constitutional cases in which Article 74(1)) of the Indian Constitution came up for repeated interpretation. Any interpretation of Article 58(now repealed) of the Constitution by us while disposing of an application of this nature will not be on a par with the Indian decisions on the subject because our decision too will be tentative in nature and will not be binding on the trial Court. We, therefore, see no reason to grant leave to consider a question of constitutional importance when the occasion for such consideration has not arisen. Moudud Ahmed vs State 48 DLR (AD) 42.
Article 58(2)—Criminal trial—constitutional protection—where the State does not take shelter of article 58(2) rather it produces through its machinery for procuring the documents by submitting the charge sheet statement under section 161 CrPC and he police record, the protection of Article 58(2) is of no avail to the petitioner. Moudud Ahmed vs State 48 DLR 108.
Article 58(2)—Unless it can be shown by a party that his claims of protection under Article 58(2) is on the basis of “Public interest” Article 58(2) hardly has any role to play. Moudud Ahmed vs State 48 DLR 108.
Article 58(2)—The order made by the petitioner as a Minister being something more than his advice to the President, the Court’s jurisdiction is not ousted from enquiry into the same reason of Article 58(2). On the first contention of constitutional embargo upon the Court to enquire into any advice given by the Ministers as contended under Aiticle 58(2) to the President is concerned I am of the opinion that which constitute the advice can not be inquired into by any Court but the materials upon which that advice is given does not disentitle a Court from examining the same. Moudud Ahmed vs State 48DLR 108.
Article 65—Parliament being the Supreme Legislative authority subject to the constitutional limitations under Article 65 has the plenary power to pass any law on any subject both prospectively and retrospectively. But the parliament cannot pass a law to create a new offence which is not in existence at the time of commission of the act charged as an offence nor can it increase penal liability with retrospective effect. Tarique Rahman vs Government of Bangladesh 63 DLR (AD) 18.
Article 78(3)―No member of the Legislature should be questioned or penalised by any Court for anything said within its four walls. Cyril Sikdar vs Nazmul Huda 46 DLR 555.
Article 94(4)—Independence of judiciary is the sine qua non of modem democracy. So long as the judiciary remains truly distinct from the Legislature and the Executive, the general power of the people will never be endangered. State vs Chief Editor Manabjamin 57 DLR 359.
Article 95—The majority party in parliament forms government and therefore a heavy duty is cast upon the parliament to see and monitor as the controlling authority of the Government that no person unworthy of the post is ever appointed as a judge of this Court. State vs Chief Editor, Manabjamin 57 DLR 359.
Articles 95 & 98—In the matter of appointment of judges of the High Court Division of this Court a prior consultation with the Full Court is a must and their opinion must have a primacy and be binding on the Executive. Otherwise not only the independence of the judiciary which is one of the basic features of the Constitution will be destroyed but spineless, pliant and submissive persons would be appointed by the Executive on extraneous grounds which would not be conducive to justice. State vs Chief Editor, Manabjamin 57 DLR 359.
Article 96—If anybody believes that a Judge has committed misconduct, it becomes his obligation to bring it to the notice of the Supreme Judicial Council or the President and place the materials before them. It would then be the constitutional obligation of the Supreme Judicial Council and of the President to proceed against the delinquent Judge. State vs Chief Editor, Manabjamin 57 DLR 359.
Article 99(1)—In our Constitution there is no bar in reappointing a judge on contract basis on retirement in a judicial or quasi-judicial office. Men are by nature selfish and judges are also human beings with all the failings. To keep them above board the relevant provision as contained in Article 99 of the Constitution should be abolished. State vs Chief Editor Manabjamin 57 DLR 359.
Article 102—A litigant has no inherent right in procedural remedy. Since the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court has observed in 35 DLR (AD) 127 that there is no scope for second revision the matter ends there. That does not mean, that of necessity a writ-jurisdiction may be invoked. Haji Golam Hossain vs Abdur Rahman Munshi 40 DLR (AD) 196.
Article 102—In certiorari the Court can declare that the conviction of the accused was recorded without lawful authority—if the accuser’s trial is vitiated by irregularities in procedure causing him prejudice, the proceedings can be quashed. State vs Zahir 45 DLR (AD) 163.
Article 102—A writ petition does not lie against the decision of the Sessions Judge under section 439A CrPC. A litigant has no inherent right in procedural remedy. Appeal or revision must be given expressly by law. A writ jurisdiction cannot of necessity be invoked. Haji Golam Hossain vs Abdur Rahman Munshi 40 DLR (AD) 196.
Article I 02—Forfeiture of book—Defect in the order is no ground for exercise of writ jurisdiction—For enforcement of fundamental right and for cancellation of order, the Court should look to the equity and good conscience in passing the impugned order (forfeiting the book in question). When the book contains materials justifying the government’s action, the impugned order cannot be struck down on the ground that it does not mention the facts in support of the action. Bangladesh Anjuman-e-Ahmadiyya vs Bangladesh 45 DLR 185.
Article 102—The right to hear is a personal right—the writ petitioner being not the author or publisher of the forfeited book is not entitled to prior notice asking him to show cause against the impugned order. Bangladesh Anjuman-e-Ahmadijya vs Bangladesh 45 DLR 185.
Article 102—The Court is to hold the balance between the State’s need to prevent prejudicial activities and citizen’s right to enjoy his personal liberty. Habiba Mahmud vs Bangladesh 45 DLR (AD) 89.
Article 102—When Court examines a confidential file relating to a detenu it should indicate, without disclosing the materials, that there are facts in the confidential file that are relatable to the ground of detention. Habiba Mahmud vs Bangladesh 45 DLR (AD) 89.
Article 102—Inordinate delay renders Writ Petition liable to be rejected in that the remedy through such petition is to be sought without inordinate delay. Mizan Howlader vs Bangladesh 48 DLR 91.
Article 102—The authority can never justify an order of preventive detention by merely saying that the action was taken in the interest of public safety and public order. It has to satisfy the High Court Division which is an obligation cast upon the Court by the Constitution, that there were materials on record as would satisfy a reasonable person to justify the order of detention. It must be made clear that the law which we have declared has never granted absolute power either to the Government or to the President to make an order of detention even in the circumstances mentioned in the judgment nor it is the law that the satisfaction upon which an order of detention is made is immune from challenge. The power of the Supreme Court in making scrutiny of executive acts never recedes to the background, as observed by the learned Judge, so long as the Constitution remains operative. The maintenance of law and order, public peace, public safety and security are undisputedly concerns of the State and the Government know best how to preserve them, but the Court’s concern in a case of pceventive detention is to see whether the person is being detained without lawful authority or in an unlawful manner. Mostafizur Rahman vs Bangladesh, represented by the Secretary Ministry of Home Affairs 51 DLR 1.
Article 102—Safe custody is a judicial custody for definite purpose of ensuring the lfare of a victim girl devised by our courts. Kabir vs Government of Bangladesh through the Ministry of Home Affairs 52 DLR 234.
Article 102—Custody—The detenu, we are inclined to direct that the detenu will stay with the father five days a week and two days a week, with his mother. The weekly two days will be from Thursday at 6-00 PM till 6-00 PM of Saturday, Respondent No. 3 will ensure handing over the detenu at the parent’s house of the petitioner and will collect the detenu from there according to the time. The petitioner shall stay with her son on those two days in her parent’s house. However, the parties will be at liberty to change the time and day by mutual agreements. Rayana Rahman vs Bangladesh 63 DLR 305.
Article 102—195 Prisoners of War, the alleged perpetrators of the crime against humanity; were not under the custody of Bangla-desh at the time of the agreement, rather they were under the custody of India and they were handed over to Pakistan to protect the better interest of the country under a peace agreement and now after lapse of 36 years that cannot be declared illegal by invoking writ jurisdiction, which is absolutely unrealistic and absurd, rather it is clearly a product of ulterior motive. (Per Mohammad Anwarul Haque J). Wing Commander M Hamidullah Khan Bir Protik vs Bangladesh 63 DLR 488.
Article 102—Let a Rule Nisi be issued calling upon the respondents to show cause as to why the New Delhi agreement signed by the then Foreign Minister of Bangladesh on 9th April, 1974 and thereby releasing 195 Prisoners of War (PoWs) identified as perpetrators óferimes against humanity should not be declared to have been made without lawful authority and is of no legal effect and as to why these 195 PoWs released under New Delhi Agreement should not be brought to justice and prosecuted and punished by International Crimes Tribunal and why the respondent should not be directed to produce a list of 3 millions martyrs who made the highest sacrifice in the War of Liberation in 1971. (Per Syed Abu Kowser Md Dabirush-Shan J). Wing Commander M Hamidullah Khan Bir Protik vs Bangladesh 63 DLR 488.
Article 102—They are an utter distortion of historical facts and bring into question the ethos of the Liberation War and is a slur on Bangali nationalism. In the absence of the petitioner or his representative I refrain from passing any order in this regard. This being a Court of Record, the petitions are available to the learned Attorney- General to take any appropriate action against the petitioner, if he is so advised. (Per Md Imman Ali J, agreeing with Md Anwarul Haque). Wing Commander M Hamidullah Khan Bir Protik vs Bangladesh 63 DLR 488.
Article 102(2)—Fugitive from justice— where the prosecution has investigated the matter and submitted charge-sheet which prima-facie discloses a cognizable offence against the petitioner, the petitioner is bound under the law to appear before the appropriate Court. His failure to do so has made him a fugitive from justice and, as such, writ petition cannot be entertained. Safiat Sobhan vs Anti-Corruption Commission 62 DLR 511.
Article 102(2)—The writ petitioners without surrendering before any Court of law filed the writ petition and obtained Rule and stay. The principle of criminal jurisprudence is that a person concerned should submit to the process of justice before he can cIaim right of audience provided in law as well as the judicial convention, which is very much effective in the Court of law as the age-old maxim goes that a person who seeks justice from the Court of the law must come before the Court to agitate his grievance and must surrender first to the process ofjustice, otherwise, he remains to be fugitive from justice and cannot seek aid of assistance of the process of justice in order to claim right of audience against the process of the Court issued against him. Nur Hossain Miah vs Bangladesh 62 DLR 514.
Article 102(2)―The petitioners were fugitive from justice when moved the writ petition and obtained the Rule and Stay. In view of the above, at the time of ‘motion’ hearing this Division wrongly entertained the writ petition and stayed the investigation against the writ petitioners. Nur Hossain Miah vs Bangladesh 62 DLR 514.
Article 102(2)(a)(i)—The Sessions Judge having reversed the finding of possession made in favour of the appellant by the Magistrate, the appellant cannot file writ petition in the nature of mandamus under Article 102(a)(i) of the Constitution. Haji Golam Hossain vs Abdur Rahman Munshi 40 DLR (AD) 196.
Article 102(2)(b)(i)—While detaining a person the Government must serve specific grounds for detention so as to enable him to know what are his faults and illegalities. Detention on grounds vague and indefinite without giving sufficient materials to enable the detenu to make effective representation is illegal. Md Sekandar Ali vs Bangladesh 42 DLR 346.
Article 102(2)(b)(i)—A preventive detention is the deprivation of the liberty of a citizen, which right should not be taken away in an arbitrary manner. So this Court enjoys power to review the actions of the detaining authority under Articles 102(2)(b)(i) of the Constitution and under section 491 of the Code. Anwar Hossain vs State 55 DLR 643.
Article 102(2)(i)—The High Court Division clearly proceeded on a misapprehension of the nature of an application under Article 102(2)(i) of the Constitution. Sajeda Parvin vs Bangladesh 40 DLR (AD) 178.
Article 102(2)(i)—The Dhaka High Court and after 1972 the High Court of this country have consistently held that where the petitioner has challenged his detention as illegal and the detention is continued by successive orders and the detaining authority fails to show that any of the successive orders of detention is illegal, the rule does not become infructuous. Sajeda Parvin vs Bangladesh 40 DLR (AD) 178.
Article 102(2)(i)—The fact of detention and not the date of order of the detention is the material point. Sajeda Parvin vs Bangladesh 40 DLR (AD) 178.
Article 102(2)(b)(i)—High Court Division. which took the view “This rule therefore has become infructuous after revocation of the impugned (original) order and the detenu is in detention not under the said order but under the subsequent order which is not the subject-matter of the present rule” missed the tenor of Article 102(2)(b)(1) which confers jurisdiction on it to “satisfy itself that he is not being held in custody without lawful authority or in an unlawful manner”. Sajeda Parvin vs Bangladesh 40 DLR (AD) 178.
Article 102(2)(b)(i)—Writ of Habeas Corpus—Nature of enquiry—HC Division’s view erroneous—Considering the nature of enquiry as it is, there is no hesitation in saying that the High Court Division has erroneously taken the view that the Rule (issued by it) has become in fructuous as because fresh order had been passed which was not, speaking technically, a subject matter of the Rule To say the least, the view that was taken in the case of Abdul Latjf Mirza 31 DLR (AD) 1 was overlooked. Sajeda Parvin vs Bangladesh 40 DLR (AD) 178.
Article 102(2)(b)(i)—In 31 DLR (AD) 1, it was held that the order of detention for its validity is to be tested on the basis whether the detaining authority had before it material which gave a rational probative value of the order and are not extraneous to the purpose of the Act and beyond which the order of detention is immune from challenge except on the ground of malafide. Sajeda Parvin vs Bangladesh 40 DLR (AD) 178.
Article 102(2)(b)(i)—Malafide vitiates everything and the point is so settled that it needs no reiteration by referring to the decided case [Ref: 34 DLR (AD) 222] Sajeda Parvin vs Bangladesh 40 DLR (AD) 178.
Article 102(2)(b)(i)—Order of detention was passed for collateral purposes. Hence the detention is illegal. Sajeda Parvin vs Bangladesh 40 DLR (AD) 178.
Article 103—Where serious defect in the finding of fact given by the High Court Division is discovered and the same are considered not tenable then it should be open to the Appellate Division to come to its own’, independent finding upon a re-examination of the evidence untram meled by the opinion of the Court appealed from. State vs Abdus Sattar 43 DLR (AD) 44.
Article 103—State filed a leave petition against the order of acquittal by the High Court Division which was dismissed after hearing— Subsequently the informant filed another leave petition. There is no scope for hearing the second petition at the instance of the informant. Mostoshir Ali vs Arman Ali 42 DLR (AD) 12.
Article 103—To suggest that a leave petition may be filed under Article 103 challenging the Sessions Judge’s decision is itself tantamount to legistation against which the learned judges have patronisingly cautioned. Sher Ali vs State 46 DLR (AD) 67.
Article 103—The accused was acquitted and state petitioner did not take any step for hearing of the petition in the last 5 years. In view of the above, the impugned judgment is not to be interfered with. State vs Shahjahan 53 DLR (AD) 58.
Article 103—Though the leave petition was filed in time, the State did not take any step during the period of about seven years to get it heard. On this very account the leave petition must be rejected. State vs Abu Musa @ Musaya @ Shapir Bap 53 DLR (AD) 81.
Article 103—This Division does not interfere on the ground that upon evidence on record a different conclusion might be arrived at from those upon which the High Court Division acquitted the accused persons State vs Abu Musa @ Musaya @ Shapir Bap 53 DLR (AD) 81.
Articles 103 & 104—To meet the ends of juUce the conviction under section 4 of the Anti- Terrorism Act is maintained but the sentence of rigorous imprisonment for life is modified to 10 years rigorous imprisonment with fine as ordered. Jahangir Alam alias Zakir vs State 56 DLR (AD) 217.
Article 104—Reduction of sentence—The respondent suffered much during these long years and any direction to suffer further imprisonment will only add to his misery of which he has had enough. The order of the High Court Division acquitting him though set aside and that of the conviction by the Special Judge under section 409 Penal Code is restored, the sentence of his imprisonment is, therefore, reduced to the period already undergone by him. State vs Abdul Mutaleb Khan 45 DLR (AD) 131.
Article 105—Merely reversing the order basing on the evidence on record would render the order in review without jurisdiction. Similarly, an error which has to be established by a long process of reasoning on points where there may conceivably be two opinions can hardly be said to be an error apparent on the face of the record. Ershad Ali Sikder vs State 56 DLR (AD) 87.
Article 105—Review—The grounds taken for review of the impugned judgment are nothing but a device of rehearing of the whole petition for leave to appeal which is not permissible under Article 105 of the Constitution with Order XXVI of the Supreme Court of Bangladesh (Appellate Division) Rules,1988. Tarique Rahman vs Government of Bangladesh 63 DLR (AD) 162.
Article 105—In order to review a judgment there must be an error apparent on the face of the record and that this error is so apparent and manifest and clear that no court of law would permit such an error to remain on the record. The error must not only be apparent but must also have a material bearing on the face of the case, Tarique Rahman vs Government of Bangladesh 63 DLR (AD) 162.
Article 112—Where specific criminal charge has been levelled and specific criminal case is pending, the executive authority should not take recourse to preventive detention—Executive authority is to act in aid of the Supreme Court as a solemn constitutional obligation. AKM Azizul Hoque vs Bangladesh 42 DLR 189.
Article 148—Secretaries of the Government are directed to submit reports as to the steps taken pursuant to directions of the Court as to enforcement of laws involving juvenile accused. State vs Deputy Commissioner Satkhira 45 DLR 643.
Article 226—The Indian judicial view is completely different from that of Bangladesh judicial view on the matter. It is the approach of subjective satisfaction that is being made in the preventive detention cases. It will be a dangerous slip to go into those decisions. Sajeda Parvin vs Bangladesh 40 DLR (AD) 178.