Md. Kamruzzaman alias Rentu Vs. The State represented by the Deputy Commissioner, Lalmonirhat

Appellate Division Cases

(Criminal)

PARTIES

Md. Kamruzzaman alias Rentu……………. Petitioner.

-Vs-

The State represented by the Deputy Commissioner, Lalmonirhat……Respondent.

JUSTICES

Md. Ruhul Amin CJ

M. M. Ruhul Amin J

Md. Hassan Ameen J

Judgment Dated:  22nd June 2007

The Narcotic Control Act, 1990. Section 19(1), Clause 7(Ka)

The Code of Criminal Procedure, Section 439

Convicting the petitioner under Clause 7(Ka) of Section 19 (1) of the Narcotic Control Act, 1990 and sentencing him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 2 (two) years and also to pay a fine of Tk.3,000/-, in default, to suffer simple imprisonment for 3 (three) months more ………………………(1)

It appears that the prosecution examined 8 Pws. all of whom were cross-examined by the defence but no discrepancy could be shown by way of cross-examination. It further appears that the prosecution by putting into evidence, chemical examination report about the implicating substance (hemp so recovered from the control and possession of the accused-petitioner) has been proved kind of the materials recovered from the possession of the petitioner. It further appears that the High Court Division as well as lower Courts found to have correctly sifted the evidence on record and followed the decision of the Superior Courts in the above matter. So, it appears that the submissions of the learned Advocate for the petitioner has got no substance in the matter of non consideration of legal evidence under Section 3 of the Evidence Act ………….(5)

More so, the present application is barred by limitation by 15 days. …………….(8)”

Md. Khurshid Alain Khan, Advocate, instructed by Mvi. Md. Wahididlah, Advocate-on-Record …………………………………For the Petitioner

Respondent ………………………. Not represented.

Criminal Petition For Leave To Appeal No. 322 of 2007

(From the judgment and order dated 29-012007 passed by the High Court Division in

Criminal Revision No.244 of 2002)

JUDGMENT

Md. Hassan Ameen J : This petition for leave to appeal is directed against the

judgment and order dated 29th January,2007 passed by a Single Bench of the High Court Division in Criminal Revision No.244 of 2002 discharging the Rule with modification of sentences reducing to 1 (one) year from 2 (two) years rigorous imprisonment with fine of

Tk.500/-, in default, to suffer simple imprisonment for 15 (fifteen) days more instead of Tk.3,000..-. in default, to suffer simple imprisonment for 3 months more as passed by the trial Court and affirmed by the judgment and order dated 24-032002 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge. Lalmonirhat in Criminal Appeal No.2 of 2002 upon dismissing the appeal and affirming the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 23-01-2002 passed by Magistrate. 1st Class. Lalmonirhat in G. R. No. 10 of 1999 convicting the petitioner under Clause 7(Ka) of Section 19 (1) of the Narcotic Control

Act, 1990 and sentencing him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 2 (two) years and also to pay a fine of Tk.3,000/-, in default, to suffer simple imprisonment for 3 (three) months more.

2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 10-01-1999 at about 23.45 p. m. one Sri Asit Kumar Pramanik, A. S. I., D. B. Office, Lalmonirhat as informant lodged an F.I.R. before the Officer-in-Charge. Lalmonirhat Sadar Police Station against the convict-petitioner, alleging inter-alia, that he along with other police personnel while on duty for preventing the activities of smuggling in the Lalmonirhat thana area headed by Mr. Md. Ayub, Magistrate, 1st Class got secret information that some passengers were coming from Kurigram with different intoxicants like wine, hemp, phensidvie etc. from India. At about 18 hours on the date upon such information, they reached at Teesta Bus Stand at 18.45

hours and searched the Bus No.Chatiagram-Ja 1736 which was coming from Kurigram to Rangpur and recovered 3 kgs. hemp in a black recksine bag from the hand of the convict petitioner in presence of the seizure list witnesses and the same was seized by preparing seizure list and thereafter lodged the F.I.R.

3. Police after investigation submitted charge sheet against the petitioner under Clause 7(ka) of Section 19( 1) of Narcotics Control Act, 1990. The charge was duly framed to which, the petitioner pleaded not guilty whereupon the prosecution examined 8 witnesses after receipt of chemical test report and thereafter, the learned Magistrate found the accused-petitioner guilty of the offence charged and convicted him thereunder and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for the period as well as to suffer simple imprisonment with default clause as mentioned above.

4. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment and order of conviction and sentence, the convict-petitioner preferred an appeal being Criminal Appeal No.2 of 2002 before the Court of the learned Sessions Judge, Lalmonirhat, which was ultimately heard by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Lalmonirhat, who by the judgment and order dated 24-03-2002 dismissed the appeal and affirmed the judgment and order’of conviction and sentence passed by the trial Court. Thereafter, the convict-petitioner preferred a revisional application under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure before the High Court Division, which was heard and disposed of after reducing the sentence as

well as fine so affirmed by the Additional Sessions Judge. Hence, the petitioner has filed this petition for leave to appeal.

5. We have heard Mr. Md. Khurshid Alam Khan, the learned Advocate for the petitioner

and perused the application filed with reference to the impugned judgment as well as the judgments so assigned by the courts below. It appears that the prosecution examined 8 Pws. all of whom were cross-examined by the defence but no discrepancy could be shown by way of cross-examination. It further appears that the prosecution by putting into evidence, chemical examination report about the implicating substance (hemp so recovered from the control and possession of the accused-petitioner) has been proved kind of the materials recovered from the possession of the petitioner. It further appears

that the High Court Division as well as lower Courts found to have correctly sifted

the evidence on record and followed the decision of the Superior Courts in the

above matter. So, it appears that the submissions of the learned Advocate for the petitioner has got no substance in the matter of non consideration of legal evidence

under Section 3 of the Evidence Act.

6. The arguments and reasonings so assigned by the High Court Division in the matter of affirming the findings and decisions of the trial Court appear to be just and sustainable in law and the learned Advocate for the petitioner failed to show-any illegality in the matter of acceptance of the evidence on record by the Courts below.

7. In view of such facts and circumstances of the case, we find no merit in this petition

and accordingly, the same is dismissed. 8. More so, the present application is barred by limitation by 15 days.

Source : V ADC (2008), 261

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.