Dowry Prohibition Act, 1980

 

Dowry Prohibition Act

[XXXV of 1980]

 

Sections 2 & 4— The legislature has taken care to see that not only the
taking or giving of dowry or abetment thereof before or at the time of marriage
is made an offence but also the demand thereof after marriage.

For a conviction under section 4 of our Act, the word
“dowry” need not be interpreted in terms of the definition of
“dowry” in section 2. In that view of the matter we find that the
conviction and sentence imposed upon the appellant under section 4 of the Dowry
Prohibition Act, 1980 do not suffer from any illegality. We sustain the
conviction and sentence not on the reasoning given by the learned Judges of the
High Court Division in 40 DLR 360 but on the ground that the word
“dowry” in section 4 is not to be read in terms of the definition of
the word “dowry” in section 2 but in its ordinary sense. Abul Basher Howlader vs State and another 46
DLR (AD) 169.

 

Sections 2 & 4— If dowry is demanded after the marriage then also the
offence under section 4 will be attracted. Salam
Mollick (Md) vs State 48 DLR 329.

 

Dowry Prohibition Act, 1980

 

Dowry Prohibition Act, 1980

 

Section 4 – Offence of demanding dowry

Though the accused-husband divorced
the complainant wife on 20.1.1996, the complaint was filed on 13.2.1996 i.e
before expiry of 90 days when the marriage was still subsisting. On proof of
the charge for demanding dowry the trial court convicted and sentenced the
husband appellant which the High Court Division as well as the Appellate
Division held perfectly justified.

Shahidullah Kawser (Md.) Vs. Israt
Zahan Popy and another 13 MLR (2008) (AD) 278.

Offence
of possession of heroin – Absconsion by itself in all
circumstances is not a ground for holding the accused guilty – The
learned judge found no legal and reliable evidence on record in support of the
proof of the charge against the convict-appellant and on the contrary found the
trial judge convicted the appellant on the inference of his guilt because of
his ascension. Therefore the learned judges set aside the conviction and
sentence.

Monsur All Vs. The State 14 MLR (2009) (HC) 328.

 

Police officer not below the rank of Sub-Inspector
has all the powers of search, seizure, arrest and initiating proceedings in
respect of offence under the Am. He is not required to obtain any permission
from the Director General, Madakdrabya Niantran Adhidaptar in this regard.

Liton Bhuiyan (Md.) @ Md. Liton Mia
Vs. The State 14 MLR (2009) (HC) 323.

 

Disclaimer:

The information contains in this web-site is prepared for educational purpose. This site may be used by the students, faculties, independent learners and the learned advocates of all over the world. Researchers all over the world have the access to upload their writes up in this site. In consideration of the people’s participation in the Web Page, the individual, group, organization, business, spectator, or other, does hereby release and forever discharge the Lawyers & Jurists, and its officers, board, and employees, jointly and severally from any and all actions, causes of actions, claims and demands for, upon or by reason of any damage, loss or injury, which hereafter may be sustained by participating their work in the Web Page. This release extends and applies to, and also covers and includes, all unknown, unforeseen, unanticipated and unsuspected injuries, damages, loss and liability and the consequences thereof, as well as those now disclosed and known to exist.  The provisions of any state’s law providing substance that releases shall not extend to claims, demands, injuries, or damages which are known or unsuspected to exist at this time, to the person executing such release, are hereby expressly waived. However the Lawyers & Jurists makes no warranty expressed or implied or assumes any legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy, completeness or usefulness of any information, apparatus, product or process disclosed or represents that its use would not infringe privately owned rights. Reference herein to any specific commercial product process or service by trade name, trade mark, manufacturer or otherwise, does not necessarily constitute or imply its endorsement, recommendation or favouring by the Lawyers & Jurists. The views and opinions of the authors expressed in the Web site do not necessarily state or reflect those of the Lawyers & Jurists. Above all, if there is any complaint drop by any independent user to the admin for any contents of this site, the Lawyers & Jurists would remove this immediately from its site.