CRIMINAL LAW AMENDMENT ACT [XL OF 1958]

Prima facie case of abetment—

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 3—

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, Thalakati 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 4—

There is no bar for investigation for the satisfaction of the court as to whether the facts disclosed in fact would constitute the offence as alleged in the application and since cognizance has not yet been taken the application is premature.

Abdur Rahim alias M Abdur Rahim vs State 1 BLC 500

Section 5—

As the Sessions Judge took cognizance of the offence in his capacity as Senior Special Judge and the case was numbered as a Special Case and then the case was tried by a Special Tribunal instead of a Special Judge for which the appellant having not been prejudiced by such trial it cannot be vitiated for want of competence.

Nizamuddin Dhali (Md) vs State 1 BLC 312.

Section 5A—

On a reading of the amended sub-section 5 of section 167 as effected by the Code of Criminal Procedure (Second Amendment) Act, 1992 it manifests that the time limit of conclusion of the investigation had been totally deleted and in place of that provision of releasing the accused person on bail either by the Magistrate or the Court of Session to the satisfaction of that Court has been provided. The mandate of completion of the investigation within one hundred and eighty days as contemplated in section 5A of the Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1958 thus no longer exists. Such procedural change of law will take effect retrospectively.

Group Captain (Retd) Shamirn Hossain vs State and another 5 BLC 662.

Section 6(5)—

The sanction for prosecution of a Class II gazetted Officer is to be obtained from the Principal Secretary, Prime Minister’s Office but not from the President’s Secretariat according to the amendment of the Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1958 coming into force on the 3rd November, 1992. Accordingly, the Special Tribunal was directed to proceed with the trial after obtaining such sanction under section 6(5) of the Act.

M. Ashrafuddin Ahmed vs State 1 BLC 47

Section 6(5)—

Senior Special Judge wrote to the Government, after appearance of the accused persons, for according sanction which having not been received within 60 days he proceeded with the case treating that sanction was deemed to have been granted under the 2nd proviso to the section 6(5) of the Act No illegality was committed as the sanction was deemed to have been granted before framing of charge.

Abdul Gafur vs State 1 BLC 48

Section 6(5)—

A petition of complaint was filed before the Senior Special Judge against the police personnel and some other local officials without any sanction of the government and upon examining the complainant on oath the ASP was directed to submit a report after holding an enquiry. The Imperative language of the proviso, “the Special Judge shall, immediately on receipt of 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 and even the Special Judge cannot pass an order of investigation by any police officer without complying with the proviso to
section 6(5) of the Act as the Government may not give any sanction to prosecute at all and it cannot be said that the learned 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 this case and the High Court Division wrongly rejected the revisional petition on the ground of being premature.

Abdur Rahim @ Md. Abdur Rahim vs State 1 BLC (AD) 141

Section 8—

More than two years have elapsed after the learned Special Judge had received the record for holding trial but the learned Judge did not even frame charge against the accused persons and kept on dragging the matter for arrival of sanction order unnecessarily and hence the continuation of the proceeding is contrary to section 8 of the Act XIII of 1987 and as such, proceeding of the case was required to be stopped and the accused persons released.

Syed Fakrul Islam vs State 5 BLC 552

Section 9—

The trial Court violated the mandatory provision of section 9 of the Act in imposing a token fine which is much less than the misappropriated amount of money.

Nizamuddin Dhali (Md) vs State 1 BLC 312.

Rule 3 of Schedule—

The sanction for prosecution of a Class II gazetted Officer is to be obtained from the Principal Secretary, Prime Minister’s Office but not from the President’s Secretariat according to the amendment of the Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1958 coming into force on the 3rd November, 1992. Accordingly, the Special Tribunal was directed to proceed with the trial after obtaining such sanction under section 6(5) of the Act.

M. Ashrafuddin Ahmed vs State 1 BLC 47.