Appellate Division Cases
Md. Laisur Rahman …………………………………Appellant
Most. Nayma Ara Begum and another………………………Respondents
Md. Ruhul Amin J
Syed J. R. Mudassir Husain J
JUDEMENT DATE: 16th November, 2003
Section 6(5) (b) of the Muslim Family Laws Ordinance. 1961, section 6 of the Muslim Family Laws ordinance, 1961.
……. in the background of the facts of the case as well as upon compassionate view of the matter if the substantive sentence of the convict is reduced to the period already under gone upon maintaining the sentence of fine the ends of justice would best be made….(5)
Criminal Appeal No. 31 of 1996. (From the Judgment and Order dated July 21. 1994 passed by the High Court Division Criminal Revision No. 1512 of 1992)
Mr. Md. Nawab Ali. Advoeate-on-reeord. For the Appellant Mr. Sajjcidul Huq, No. 2 Advocate-onrecord. For the Respondent Respondent No. 1 : Not repersented
MD RUHUL AMIN J: The appeal, by leave, is by the convict against the convict against the judgment and order dated July 21, 1994 of a Single Bench of the High Court Division in Criminal Revision No. 1512 of 1992 discharging the Rule obtained against the judgment and order dated September 30, 1992 of the Court of Sessions Judge, Dinajpur in Criminal Appeal No. 102 of 1991 dismissing the same. The Criminal Appeal was filed against the judgment and order dated 5.8.1991 of the Court of Additional District Magistral Dinajpur passed in Case No. 366(c) of 1990 convicting the appellant under Section 6(5) (h) of the Muslim Family Laws Ordinance. 1961 and sentencing him to suffer simple imprisonment tor one year and also to a fine of Tk. 5,000/- in default to suffer 3 months simple imprisonment more.
2. Prosecution case, in short, is that the appellant was that he obtained necessary permission from the Arbitration Council but the same was not accepted the Court since the Chairman of No. 6 Omarpur Union parishad had no jurisdiction to entertain the petition under sub-section (2) of section 6 of the Muslim Family Laws ordinance1961 to grant permission for 2nd marriage.
3. Leave was granted to consider the submission of the learned advocate for the petitioner that the sentence awarded was severs and harsh and that having regard to the nature of the offence and reality of the social life sentence of the convict may be feuded on the above and also on compassionate ground.
4. We have heard the learned Advocate-onrecord and perused the materials on record. The learned Advocate-on-record submits that having regard to the nature of offence and the reality of social life if the sentence of the appellant is reduced to the period already under gone the ends of justice would best be met.
5. We are of the view that in the background of the facts of the case as well as upon compassionate view of the matter if the substantive sentence of the convict is reduced to the period already under gone upon maintaining the sentence of fine the ends of justice would best be made.
6. Accordingly the appeal is allowed on modification of substantive sentence to the period already under gone, but the sentence of fine is maintained.
Source : I ADC (2004),33