Section 19(Ka), 3(Ka) and 7(Ka)
Misreading and non-reading of evidence
Benefit of doubt – On perusal of the record it appears that the application dated 03.09.2001 of the appellant and the inquiry report of the Magistrate Mr. M. Monjurul Huq dated 21.10.2001 are lying with the record. The magistrate inquired the matter and found the contention of this application correct. He further stated in his report that the appellant was never connected with phensydil business and the case regarding phensydil was filed against the accused in order to harras him in the society. So this report of the Mr. Monjurul Huq Magistrate and Assistant Commissioner dated 21.10.2001 cast serious doubt in the prosecution case.
Md. Nurul Huq Vs The State 14 BLT (HCD)-93
Section-19 (f), Clause 1 (b)
Whether the High Court Division was right in holding that as curtailment of actual and real herein of more than 25 grams would be necessary for recording conviction under clause 1(b) of the table.
In the instant case, when it has been proved that the seized packets contained heroin then the whole of the contents must be treated as heroin for punishment. It is not necessary for the prosecution to prove the "actual and real heroin content" for the purpose of a conviction under clause 1 (b) of the table.
The State Vs. Miss Eliadah Mc Code 4 BLT (AD)-266
Section-36 and Code of Criminal Procedure (V of 1898) Section-103
In case of search of any suspected house of any person suspected of committing any offence under Act 20 of 1990, the provisions of section 103 Cr. P. C. does not require to be fully complied with.
Ashok Kumar Saha Vs. The State 2 BLT (HCD)-79.