Customs Act [IV of 1969]

Sections 2(s), 9 and 10―The prosecution was not successful in proving its case by producing evidence that there was prohibition or restriction in bringing into Bangladesh the seized cigarettes. Abdul Hamid vs State 40 DLR 477.

Sections 2(s) and 156(8)—Meaning of the word “Smuggle” occurring in section 2(s) of the Customs Act (IV of 1969). In section 156(8) the word ‘Smuggle’ has not been defined. Therefore, it is necessary for us to see what is meant by smuggle. According to section 2(s) of the Customs Act the word “Smuggle’ means to bring into or take out of Bangladesh, in breach of any prohibition of restriction of customs-duties or taxes leviable thereon. Abdul Hamid vs State 40 DLR 477.

Sections 19 & 30—The difference in facts would not make any difference in the application of the principle which is based on interpretation of sections 19 and 30 of the Customs Act. Collector of Customs, Chittagong vs Ahmed Hossain 48 DLR (AD) 119.

Section 156(8)—The learned Additional Sessions Judge was competent to take cognizance of the offence. Trial was not vitiated for want of jurisdiction. Abdul Hamid vs State 40 DLR 477.

Section 156(8)—Confiscation of goods— When conviction of the accused was set aside, no part of the sentence could be maintained—High Court Division was not therefore justified in upholding the order of confiscation of the seized goods which was passed as a part of the punishment for an offence under the Customs Act. Sompong vs State 45 DLR (AD) 110.

Section 156(8)—By Article 98 of the Law Reforms Ordinance No. 49 of 1978 the entries relating to offences against other law appearing in Schedule II of the Code of Criminal Procedure were substituted. The Magistrate is to try the offence. Abdul Hamidvs State 40 DLR 477.

Section 156(8)—The Magistrate is vested with jurisdiction to take cognizance of the offence under section 156(8) of the Customs Act. Abdul Hamid vs State 40 DLR 477.

Section 156(8)—read with Special Powers Act [XIV of 1974] Section 25B(1)—Mere admission of certain facts by PW 6 which went in favour or the defence cannot be a ground to disbelieve the said witness. Mere getting of something more favourable to defence case in the cross-examination in addition to what the defence got during the examination-in-chief cannot be a ground to disbelieve the evidence of a witness who was not declared hostile by the prosecution. The evidence of PW 1 regarding the recovery of 31 pieces of gold bars from the bag of the accused appellant, in the facts and circumstances of the case, is very much doubtful. MM Rafiqul Hyder vs State 41 DLR 274.

Section 156(8)—Offence punishable under section 156(8) of the Customs Act being a nonscheduled offence under section 26 of the Special Powers Act (XIV of 1974) is not triable under the Special Powers Act—Trial for both the schedule & non-scheduled offences by the Special Tribunal constituted under the Special Powers Act is illegal. MM Rafiqul Hyder vs State 41 DLR 274.

Section 156(8) clause 89—Onus—In a criminal case the onus is always on the prosecution to prove that the offence was committed by the accused. But clause (89) of sub-section (8) of section 156 is an exception to the rule. Clause 89 casts a duty on the accused to offer a lawful excuse with regard to the indictment brought against them. Amir Ali vs State 43 DLR 564.

Section 156(1)(8)—Cognizance—Scheduled and non-scheduled offences—When the very taking of cognizance of an offence, the framing of accusation and the trial upon charges of both scheduled and non-scheduled offences together suffered from complete lack of jurisdiction, this could not at all be considered to be a mere defect in the framing of charges which by aid of section 537 of the CrPC can be cured if prejudice is not caused to the accused. A mere defect in framing of charge by the Court having jurisdiction is one thing while framing of charge without having any jurisdiction is a completely different thing. Mozammel Huq vs State 43 DLR 614.