Druta Bichar Tribunal Ain
[XXVIII of 2002]

Sections 4, 5, 6, 10(4) & 15—The Courts considered view so that a case which has not been started should be transferred so that there may not be any apprehension of the accused that only his case was sent for conviction. In a trial, one of the features is to see demeanours of witnesses as such when a case is transferred half way done from normal Criminal Court to the Speedy Tribunal, then the Judge cannot see the demeanours of those witnesses, which is one of the prime objects of the cases of public interest and thereby possibility of a wrong decision altogether cannot be ruled out. Kamrul Mia vs State 61 DLR 474.

Section 4(4)—There is no bar to use the beneficial part in a statute, if any, in favour of the accused in the matter of holding his trial. Abdul Kader Mirza vs Bangladesh 56 DLR 31.

Section 6—No stringent provision has been incorporated in the new law even regarding bail. There is no reason how this reduction of the time limit will affect the petitioners when the other conditions relating to trial remains the same. Article 35 clearly provides that a person accused of a criminal offence shall have the right to a speedy trial. Muhibur Rahman Manik vs Bangladesh 55 DLR 636.

Section 10—The entire period of trial is to be calculated on the basis of the concerned Judge’s working days; on 5 occasions the concerned judge was on leave which are to be excluded from the period of trial. Such period excluded, this case is not hit by section 10 of the said Act. This aspect has not also been raised during the trial before the Judge to count his working days as contemplated in section 10 of Act. State vs Naimul Islam 60 DLR 481.

Section 10(4)—No provision has been made in the Ain to the effect that the case shall be concluded at any cost within the specified time by giving go-bye to the established principles of trial causing no prejudice to an accused. Muhibur Rahman Manik vs Bangladesh 55 DLR 636.