Section 2(b)—Corporations other than the statutory Corporations are those associations or bodies constituted of private individuals incorporated or registered under provisions of the Companies Act or any other law.
Body corporate includes both statutory Corporation and other corporation or company private or public. But in the above provision of section 2(b) of the Criminal Law Amendment Act “Body Corporate” has been used to mean corporation other than “Statutory Corporation”. So Master Industries Limited is a body corporate as mentioned in the aforesaid provision of section 2(b) of the Criminal Law Amendment Act 1958. Therefore, we are of the view that the petitioner as Managing Director of Master Industries Limited is a “public servant”. Khorshed Alam vs Azizur Rahman 48 DLR 36.
Section 3—Power of Special Judge— Creation of new Districts or Sessions Divisions does not require fresh Notifications as to Senior Special Judges. When a public functionary is found to have been acting in a particular capacity in normal course the Court may presume that he has been duly empowered to act in that capacity. Mozahar Ali Howlader vs Lal Miah Talukder 44 DLR (AD) 250.
Section 4—The Special Judge has power to take cognizance of an offence even when the police submits final report. No direction for filing supplementary charge-sheet was necessary in the present case. Mahbubur Rahman vs State 44 DLR 342.
Section 4—There is no denial as to the issuance of the letter for sanction of trial. There is also no denial that the required sanction has neither been received nor refused within sixty days. In such view the sanction be deemed to have been accorded. Atiquzzaman Khan vs State 57 DLR (AD) 100.
Section 4—Court is to record the reasons for discharging the accused under section 241 A of the Code, but no such reasons are required to be recorded in farming charge against the accused as per provisions of section 242 of the Code. The Special Judge framed charge against the accused- petitioner after hearing both the parties and being satisfied that there was ground for framing of charge. No illegality in framing of charge against the accused-petitioner and there is no ground of setting aside the impugned order. Amanullah vs State 62 DLR 382
Section 4(1)—There are authorities which have found it improper for an enquiry to be held against a person by a person belonging to the same department. In the present case it cannot be said that the Special Judge has acted with sound discretion in asking the ASP to hold an enquiry when admittedly officers much above him have been made accused in the case. The Additional Attorney- General submitted that since the Deputy Commissioner and Superintendent of Police were already transferred there was no reason to apprehend that the ASP would not be able to hold an influence free enquiry. It is difficult to accept the submission of the learned Additional Attorney-General, for, it is not necessary to be personally present to influence an enquiry. Abdur Rahim vs State 49 DLR (AD) 51.
Sections 4(1) and 6(5)—Clear intention of the law is that sanction will be required not for taking cognizance but for starting prosecution of the accused. Abdur Gafur vs State 48 DLR 90.
Sections 4(3)—The wider territorial jurisdiction of the Divisional Special Judge has not conferred upon him any higher authority than that of the Senior Special Judge. In relation to the Senior Special Judge, the Divisional Special Judge is like any other Special Judge—power of taking cognizance of offence has not been given to him. State vs Divisional Special Judge Khulna Division 44 DLR (AD) 215.
Sections 4(3) & 10(3)―High Court Division may transfer a case pending in the court of any Special Judge to the court of another Special Judge irrespective of the territorial limits of either of the two Special Judges. But the jurisdiction of transfer of a case by the Senior Special Judge is limited within his district. The two sections have therefore no conflict. State vs Divisional Special Judge, Khulna Division 44 DLR (AD) 215.
Sections 5(1) and 6(5)—The case being exclusively triable by the Special Judge, any evidence taken by the Metropolitan Magistrate has no value in the eye of law. Such evidence should, therefore, be disregarded. Mohor Ranjan Pal vs State 50 DLR 163.
Section 5(6)—The CID committed no error of law in holding further investigation as per provision of section 173 (3B) of the CrPC. Had further investigation been done after the case record was transmitted to the Senior Special Judge after taking cognizance of the offence or passing any order whatsoever then permission of the Special Judge would have been necessary. The police had the power to hold further investigation as per provision of section 173 (3B) of the Code as the provision of this section is in no way derogatory to the provision of sub-section 5(6) of the Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1958. Abdus Samad Khan vs State 50 DLR 143.
Section 6—Withdrawal from the prosecution is subject to consent by the trial Judge and when the accused persons are still absconding the discretion ought not to have been exercised. Sreemati Prativa Rani Dey (Tirtha) vs Dr Mohammad Yousuf Chittagong Medical College 52 DLR (AD) 8.
Section 6—Reference to High Court Division—Provi ns of the Criminal Procedure Code will apply to the occedings of the Court of Special Judge only f& the purpose of hearing and disposal of a special case. Transfer of a case from one Special Judge to another Special Judge does not appear to MI within the ovision for hearing and disposal of a case. State vs Divisional Special Judge, Khulna Division 44 DLR (AD) 215.
Section 6-—Provisious of section 339C and D shall apply to the roceeding before the Court of Special Judge. This legal position has also been accepted by the legislauwe by alacting Act No. XIII of 1987. AHM Kamaluddin vs State 43 DLR 294.
Section 6—Accused is a public servant— Order of sanction to prosecute him submitted in court along with charge-sheet—Court of trial perused the sanction order and noted “seen” thereon, but omitted to mention it either in Order- sheet or in the Judgment—Witnesses including the Investigation Officer remained silent about it while deposing. The trial is not vitiated by illegality in spite of the omission on he part of the prosecution to refer to the evidence as to the order of sanction since the trial is found to have been held by the Court on perusal of the order of sanction. Liakat Ali vs State 42 DLR (AD) 30.
Section 6—Section 339C and 339D(b) of the Code are inconsistent with the provision of section 8 of the Ordinance and due to this inconsistency these two provisions 339C and 339D(b) are not applicable in the cases revived under the Ordinance. “Working days” of the Court as provided in section 339D(b) cannot be brought into the ambit of section 8 of the Ordinance. The provisions of section 8 provided that trial of such cases must be concluded within two years from the date of commencement of the Ordinance. In the present case it appears that the case was revived on 17-2- 87 and in view of the provision of section 8 the trial ought to have been concluded within 20-1- 87. But the trial Court failed to conclude the trial within that period and when the petitioner approached the Court for stopping the proceeding his prayer was rejected applying the section 339D(b). But in view of the above the provision of section 339D(b) has no manner of application. Abdul Nur Mehedi vs State 46 DLR 303.
Section 6(1B)—The period of one year is available in section 234 of the Code of Criminal Procedure but it is absent in section 6(IB) of the Criminal Law Amendment Act and thereby in view of the provision laid down in section 6(1) of the Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1958 section 6(1 B) excludes the application of section 234 which relates to the period of the commission of the alleged offence. Habibur Rahman Molla vs State 61 DLR 1.
Section 6(5)—The imperative language of the provision, “the Special Judge shall, immediately on receipt of the complaint”, leaves no manner of doubt that before any step is taken the Special Judge has to address the Government in case of sanction not being accompanied with a petition of complaint.
It is true that in a case under the Act a Special Judge may, where he deems if necessary, order an investigation by any officer in whose jurisdiction, the offence was wholly or partly committed. This step also, however, cannot be taken without complying being that the Government may not give any sanction to prosecute at all. Abdur Rahim vs State 49 DLR (AD) 51.
Section 6(5)—Special Judge is required to solicit required Government sanction on the basis of the complaint petition before passing any order on the complaint petition.
Order dated 17-2-92 and all the subsequent orders passed by the learned Senior Special Judge and Sessions Judge Cox’s Bazar, in Special Case No.1 of 1992 are quashed. Learned Special Judge may solicit Government sanction as required under sub-section 5 of section 6 of the Criminal Law Amendment Act, if he is satisfied with the allegations made in the complaint petition. Tarani Mohan Gosh vs State 50 DLR 575.
Section 6(5)—Public Servant—Sanction for Prosecution—Every public servant who committed an offence under the Criminal Law Amendment Act enjoys a protection by way of sanction for prosecution. Since the Government in this case withheld sanction the Senior Special Judge rightly passed order refusing to take cognizance against the accused. Fakir Tariqul Islam vs State 49 DLR 419.
Section 6(5)―No sanction for prosecution would be necessary when the accused ceased to be a public servants Saheb All Miah vs State 46 DLR 238.
Section 6(5)―If sanction as required under section 6(5) Criminal Law Amendment Act 1958 is not accorded by the government or is deemed not to have been so accorded as per proviso to sub-section 5 of section 6 of the Criminal Law Amendment Act 1958, the Court shall have no jurisdiction to hold a trial against a public servant. Niranjan Deb vs State 47 DLR 458.
Section 6(5)―In the present case petitioner No.1 has not been accused of any offence committed in course of discharge of his duties as Government pleader but in respect of an offence in a different capacity as managing trustee of a public trust. So there is no question of obtaining sanction in respect of such an offence. Santosh Bhusan Das vs State 47 DLR 519.
Section 6(5)―The question whether the public servant concerned should be prosecuted or not is entirely within the jurisdiction of the appropriate Government. The Special Judge has no say in the matter. It is not for him to decide whether a prima facie case has been made out against the public servant or not. For the present we find no contrary opinion to the requirement of complying with the proviso to section 6(5) if any petition of complaint is not accompanied by sanction as required. The imperative language of the proviso, “the Special Judge shall, immediately on receipt of the complaint” leaves no manner of doubt that before any step is taken the Special Judge has to address the Government in case of sanction not being accompanied with a petition of complaint. Abdur Rahim vs State 48 DLR (AD) 167.
Section 6(5)—It is not necessary to personally represent to influence an enquiry by a subordinate Junior Officer. There are authorities which have found it improper to hold an enquiry against a person by a person belonging to the same department (29 CrLJ 1928, 1958). Abdur Rahim vs State 48 DLR (AD) 167.
Section 6(5)-The Special Judge has no power to try the accused under the Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1958 without obtaining proper sanction for prosecution of the accused persons from the appropriate authority. Eman Ali Mallik vs State 52 DLR 335.
Section 6(5)—The sanction order seems to be too mechanical and is no sanction in the eye of law. Absence of sanction cuts at the very root of the prosecution affecting jurisdiction of the court and this defect is not curable. Syed Mustafizur Rahman vs State 53 DLR 125.
Section 6(IA)—ln view of this amended section there was no necessity of further publication of the notification in any daily. Atiquzzaman Khan vs State 57 DLR (AL)) 100.
Section 6(5)—The minimum requirement of this section appears to be that the authority while according sanction must have the facts of the case in order to take a decision as to whether it should accord any sanction for the prosecution. M Mojibul Haque vs DG. Bangladesh Bureau of Anti-Corruption 55 DLR 24
Section 6(5)—4f the accused has ceased to be a public servant at the time when the court took cognisance, no sanction of the Government is necessary to proceed against him. Fokrul Alam Chowdhury vs State 57 DLR 727.
Section 6(5)—Respondent Nos. 5 and 6 committed the offence under section 409 of the Penal Code in their personal capacity and not in their official capacity as a police officer and, as such, the sanction in the present case was not at all necessary under section 6(5) of the Criminal Law Amendment Act. Salauddin Ahmed vs Principal Secretary, Office of the Hon’ble Prime Minister 57 DLR 730.
Section 6(5)―Taking of cognizance by the Special Judge against the accused amounted to prosecuting him and this prosecution of a public servant cannot be done without the previous sanction of the Government. The Special Judge was directed to comply with the provision for sanction and then pass appropriate order in respect of prosecuting the petitioner. Md Arab Ali vs State 42 DLR 524.
Section 6(5)―Meaning of taking cognizance of offence—Stage of determination of guilt when reaches under section 176 CrPC—difference between “prosecuted” without prior sanction under section 6(5) and “taking cognizance” without prior approval. Matiur Rahman vs State 40 DLR 385.
Section 6(5)—Where facts are not referred to on the face of the sanction nor is it proved by extraneous evidence that they were placed before the sanctioning authority, the sanction is invalid and the trial Court would not be a court of competent jurisdiction. Abdul Hakim vs State 45 DLR 352.
Section 6(5)-It is not necessary in the case as the accused ceased to be a public servant when the Court took cognizance of his offence and framed charge. HM Ershad vs State 45 DLR 533.
Section 8—The High Court Division rightly acquitted the accused in view of the provision of section 8 of the Criminal Law Amendment Act as the trial having not been concluded within the period of 2 years it was without jurisdiction. State vs Md Minhazuddin Khan 51 DLR (AD) 142.
Section 8(a)―The proceeding before the Divisional Special Judge having not been concluded within the statutory period of 2 years from the date of commencement of the Act (20187) further proceeding of the case be stopped and the petitioner released. Sardar Abdul Haque vs State 46 DLR 515.
Section 8(a)—When trial of the case did not commence as no charge was framed against the accused persons. There was no question of concluding the trial within 270 working days by the Special Judge.
Proceedings of a Special case cannot be stopped under the provisions of section 8(a) of the Criminal Law Amendment (Amendment) Act 1987 after the expiry of two years from the date of coming into force of that Act on 20-1-87 in a case in which trial did not commence by framing charge against the accused or 270 working days did not expire after framing of the charge and before coming into force of the said Act. Mozibul Haque vs State 48 DLR 146.
Section 8(a)―As the language of he section speaks, not about conclusion of trial but about conclusion of the proceeding, the Special Judge had no option but to conclude the proceedings within 2 years. Yunus Molla vs State 48 DLR 273.
Section 8(a)—Where the charge has been framed under section 409 of the Penal Code and section 5(2) of Act II of 1947, and in the absence of any provision for revival of the case on the expiry of the period of 2 years provided in section 8(a) of the Criminal Law Amendment (Amendment) Act there was no legal authority to revive the case under the provision of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Nur Israil Talukder vs State 52 DLR (AD) 51.
Section 9—In imposing fine of Taka 300 the Trying Court violated the mandatory provision of section 9 of the Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1958 by imposing a token fine which is much less than the amount misappropriated. Nizamuddin Dhali vs State 48 DLR 507.
Section 9—In case of criminal breach of trust by public servant the sentence of fine is not only compulsory but it should not be less than the amount misappropriated. AMA Wajedul Islam vs State 45 DLR 243.
Section 10—The accused-petitioner who remained absent due to non-service of processes upon him cannot be legally treated as an absconder. Eklimur Reza Khan vs State 59 DLR 7.
Section 10—The expression ‘এই বিধিমালার অধীন’refers to the Emergency Powers Rules as a whole. It cannot mean and refer to Rule 10 only; otherwise the expression would have been ‘উক্ত বিধির অধীন’i.e. under the aforesaid Rule. Anti-Corruption Commission vs Barrister Nazmul Huda 60 DLR (AD) 57.
Secton 10―The language of Rule 11(3) admits of no ambiguity and therefore, there is hardly any scope for interpretation. The intention of the law makers is manifested in the express words used in sub-rule 3 leaving no scope to doubt that such power of granting bail by the appellate Court has been taken away by express provisions. ACC vs Barrister Nazmul Huda 60 DLR (AD) 57.