Article 39-

It appears that the detenu is the Convener of Narayanganj City BNP and he is a public figure and a member of the Supreme Court Bar Association and is associated with some educational and social institutions and is a candidate for election to the post of Chairman, Narayanganj Pourashava. Right to freedom of speech as enshrined by Article 39 of the Constitution is subject to reasonable restrictions imposed by law in the interest of the security of the State, public order, incitement to offence, etc. A democracy cannot thrive if the law of preventive detention is allowed to be used as the Damocles’ sword to stifle the voice of people working in the public field. The best course for administration is to set the appropriate law in motion in case of violation of any law. Hence, the alleged activities of the detenu as narrated in the grounds of detention do not constitute “prejudicial act” within the meaning of section 2(f) of the Act and as such the detention order is illegal and cannot be sustained.

Halima Farzana vs Government of the People’s Republic of Bangladesh and others 4 BLC 189

Article 49—

As there is no scope for altering the conviction from one under clause 1(b) to clause 1(a) of the table of section 19 of the Act reducing the sentence on compassionate ground considering the age of the respondent who may approach the Government or the President, if so advised, for any relief that she may choose to pray.

State vs Miss Eliadah McCord 2 BLC (AD) 1

Article 53—

In view of the provisions of section 403(1) CrPC and Article 35 of the Constitution the rifle as recovered from the accused persons during investigation of the earlier dacoity case, ended in conviction, there cannot be any separate proceeding and the prosecution against the accused persons in the present case is incompetent which is liable to be quashed.

Abdur Rashid and others vs State 1 BLC 180.

Article 102—

The respondent No.1 did not have any authority to lease out the disputed land in favour of the petitioner relying on such wrong record and false report for which the submission that the petitioner acquired indefeasible title in the land in question by virtue of the lease deed and that the impugned Telex Message is without lawful authority cannot be accepted as the respondent No. 1 had no control and management of the land in question and as such the alleged delivery of possession of the land to the petitioner by Tahsilder is a mere paper transaction.

Ansar Ali son of late Nawsher Ali vs State 3 BLC 68.

Article 105—

A review of a judgment is a serious step and reluctant resort to it is proper only where a glaring omission or patent mistake or like grave error has crept in earlier by judicial fallibility.

Munir Hossain vs State 1 BLC (AD) 82.