Nari-o-Shishu Nirjatan (Bishesh Bidhan) Ain
[XVIII of 1995]
Section 2 (Cha)—
Dowry has been used in section 11 of the Ain not only to
mean property or valuable security agreed to be given at the time of or before
or after the marriage but also property, etc. demanded after marriage for which
there was no previous agreement.
Dipak Kumar Roy @ Kazal vs State 50 DLR 603
Section 3—
Submission of final report by the police cannot be a ground
for the Tribunal to refuse cognizance in a case.
Jarina Khatoon vs State 49 DLR 424
Sections 6(3) &
9(ha) (Ga)—
An offence under a particular section if not proved but some
other offence is made out by the prosecution, the accused persons can be very
well convicted and sentenced for the other offences proved before the court
through legal evidence.
Al-Amin and 5 others vs State 51 DLR 154
Section 9—
This is a stringent law enacted for awarding proper
punishment upon criminals for the offences affecting women and children. The
Bengali word “bxwZ weMwn©Z” means in English “immoral and
“disregardful of morality”. The word “immoral” must be
construed liberally and the court must adopt that construction which
“suppresses the mischief and advances the remedy”.
We ourselves have seen the two nude photographs. The nude
photographs are shocking nature of crime and are indecent of the highest degree
and also revolting. The photographs clearly manifest that the victims were
helpless and were very much fearful. The acts squarely fall within
“immoral’ acts being the crime under section 9(ka) of the Ain of 1995k.
The word “wb‡qvwRZ” of which English Translation is
“employed” must not be construed strictly rather the same must be
construed liberally and literal meaning is to be avoided to give effect to the
manifest object and purpose of the Ain, the object being the punishment of the
offenders of heinous crime affecting children and women.
Al-Amin and 5 others vs State 51 DLR 154
Section 9(Kha)—
An attempt to commit an offence of kidnapping of the
informant for the purpose of compelling her to marry the petitioner against her
will is no doubt an offence under some other law but not an offence under the
Act.
From the provision of the Act it is not seen that making of
attempt to commit one of the offences, except cases in sections 7 and 10(2)
that have been enumerated in the Act has been made an offence and that
punishment has been provided therefore. An attempt by a person to kidnap a
woman to compel her to marry him if fails then accusation against him under
section 9(kha) of the Act cannot be legally leveled.
Younus Ali and 3 others vs State 51 DLR 121
Sections 9 (Kha)
& 14—
In the instant case offence as has been provided in clause
(kha) of section 9 of the Act has not been committed and that being so, a
charge under section 14 of the Act against petitioner Nos. 2-4 is not legal.
Younus Ali and 3 others vs State 51 DLR 121.
Section 9(Ga)—
Unless a woman is taken away by a person for the purposes
mentioned in clauses (ka), (kha) and (ga) of section 9 of the Ain and in case of clause (ga) by using
force, allurement, temptation, cajoling or coaxing or flattering her
irrespective of her age offence under that section will not be committed.
We have noticed in some cases that the provisions of this
Ain providing for higher punishments for the offence against the children and
women are being abused to harass the adversaries of the informants by bringing
false charges under the said Ain. So the Courts trying such offences should
remain alert to the menace of false charges and the accused should not be
convicted unless the charge is proved by trustworthy evidence.
Shafiqul Islam (Md) vs State 50 DLR 581
Section 11—
Causing grievous hurt to a woman by her husband or his
relation or anyone on his behalf over the demand of dowry would be an offence
under section 11 of the said Ain even though there was no previous agreement to
pay the same.
Dipak Kumar Roy @ Kazal vs State 50 DLR 603
Section 17—
No finding has been given by the Adalat that the FIR and the
charge sheet and the examination of witnesses under section 161 CrPC do not
disclose any offence against the petitioners under the Act or that even if
those papers disclose an offence, there is no material to connect the
petitioners with the offence alleged. Without such finding the Adalat cannot
fail to take cognizance of the offence.
Mohiuddin (Md) and others vs Md Motiur Rahman and another 50 DLR (AD) 4
Section 17—
The police submitted final report and complainant filed
naraji petition against, that the court taking cognizance upon such naraji
petition cannot be said to have taken cognizance without jurisdiction.
Nasiruddin (Md) vs State 51 DLR 124
Section 20—
The Act does not provide for any consequence for failure of
the trial Court to conclude the trial within one hundred and twenty days. This
limitation of time for disposal of cases is merely directory and not mandatory
in nature.
Habibur Rahman Zakir and others vs State 49 DLR 367
Sections 20(5) &
23(1)—
The trial Court without taking steps for ascertaining about
the compliance of sections 87 and 88 of the Code directed publication of
notice. On such facts it cannot be said that the accused was concealing himself
from appearing in court and publication of notice in newspaper and commencing
the trial was in clear violation of the mandatory provision of law. So the case
is sent back on remand for re-trial giving opportunity to the petitioner for
cross-examining the PWs already examined..
Bolayet Howlader vs State 49 DLR 520.
Section 22—
On a reading of the provision contained in section 22 of the
Ain, it is manifest that in the Ain there is no penal provision. In the absence
of any penal provision, the conclusion of trial within 90 days cannot be
treated as mandatory; rather the same is a mere directory.
Al-Amin and 5 others vs State 51 DLR 154.