Special Powers Act, 1974

 

 

Special Powers Act, 1974

Section 25A – Offence of counterfeiting currency notes and
government stamp falls under section 25A but not under section 489C of the
Penal Code.

When the recitals of the FIR and the police report clearly disclose the offence
of counterfeiting currency notes and government stamp, the offence is
punishable under section 25A of the Special Powers Act, 1974 and not under
section 489C of the Penal Code. The impugned order summarily passed by the High
Court Division is held by the apex court erroneous and not sustainable in law.

The State Vs. Nur Hossain @ Hiron 12 MLR (2007) (AD) 72.

Special Powers Act, 1974

Section 25B(2) – Offence of possession of phensidyle – Evidence to
warrant conviction Examination by Chemical expert necessary- The convict-appellant denied that no phensidyle was recovered
from his possession. The alleged phensidyle were not examined by Chemical
examiner as to whether those articles were phensidyle or not. In the absence,
of any such evidence the learned Judge of the High Court Division held the
charge against the convict-appellant not proved beyond reasonable doubt.

Ershadul Vs. The State 12 MLR (2007) (HC) 90.

Special Powers Act, 1974

Section 25B(1)(a) – Offence of smuggling- Evidence of BDR
personnel may well be relied upon- Non-examination of local seizure list
witness is not always fatal to the prosecution.

When the convict-appellant was caught red-handed with the
contraband goods while being smuggled out of Bangladesh and the charge appears
to have been well proved beyond all reasonable doubt by the consistent and
reliable evidence of the BDR personnel, the learned judges of the High Court
Division held the conviction and sentence perfectly justified.

Aifti Mia (Md.) Vs. The State 12 MLR (2007) (HC) 312.

 

 

Special Powers Act, 1974

Section 25A – Mere possession of counterfeit currency without
knowledge does not constitute offence.

Since counterfeit currency may come into possession of a person in
course of daily transaction without the knowledge of the same being
counterfeit, the learned judges held mere possession of a counterfeit currency
without the knowledge of the nature thereof does not constitute offence
punishable under section 25A of the Special Powers Act, 1974.

Manzu Sweeper Vs. The State 13 MLR (2008) (HC) 417.

Special Powers Act, 1974

Section 25B – When the offence
alleged does not fall within the definition of smuggling the accused is
entitled to acquittal – Smuggling when not done directly by the accused. No charge lies against him.

Mujibar Rahman Vs. The State 13 MLR (2008) (HC) 88.

Special Powers Act, 1974

Section 25B/25C– Offence
of adulteration

Disclosure by co-accused is no evidence in the eye of law against
the convict appellants. The seized articles were not examined by chemical
expert. The impugned judgment and order of conviction and sentence having not
been based on any legal evidence the learned judges of the High Court Division
set aside the same.

Abul Mollah (Md.) and another Vs. The State 14 MLR (2009) (HC)
197.

 

Special Powers Act, 1974

Section 32(C) – Bail to convict appellant in appeal cannot be
allowed without hearing the prosecution.

In an appeal against the conviction and sentence of 10 years
rigorous imprisonment and fine of Taka 5000/- for offence under Explosive
Substance Act, 1908. The High Court Division cannot grant bail to the convict
appellant without hearing the prosecution and without the finding that the
convict is not guilty of the offence. The apex court set-aside the order of
bail of the convict appellant passed by the High Court Division as being one
illegal.

The State Vs. Mahibur Rahman Manik and another 11 MLR (2006) (AD)
230.

 

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.