Village Court Ordinance, 1976



Village Court Ordinance, 1976


Section-8 (1)

In the instance case, the decision was given unanimously by all the three members of the Adalat and as such, no petition was maintainable to the Munsif under sub­section (1) of Section 8 of the Ordinance.

Mokammel Hossain Vs. Nurul Hossain 12 BLT (HCD)-194

Section-8 (2)

In the instant matters relate to offences of trespass, theft and mischief are under part 1 of the Schedule and not under part 11 of the same and since the learned Munsi has been given jurisdiction only in respect of part 11 and not in respect of part 1, the impugned order was therefore without jurisdiction.

Mokammel Hossain Vs. Nurul Hossain 12 BLT (HCD)-194


Whether the case being already under further investigation by the C.I.D. the naraji petition is tenable

That was precisely the prayer of the informant- petitioner in his naraji petition dated 23-10-93 in which he prayed for judicial inquiry by a Magistrate, but the learned Magistrate accepting the naraji petition, by his order dated 27-4-94, directed further investigation by a Senior C.I.D. Officer. If it is the grievance of the informant- petitioner that further investigation will be carried out by an investigating agency which has already taken a view in the matter, he ought to have filed a revisional application against the learned magistrate's order dated 27-4-94. Instead he waited for 8 months and filed another naraji petition making the same prayer for judicial inquiry on 4-12-94 and the learned Sessions Judge and the High Court Division were both correct in finding that under the circumstances the second naraji petition was not tenable.

Md. Abdul Khaleq Master Vs. Ahmed Ali & Ors. 5 BLT (AD)-204

Whether for the sake of a fair trial the Government should appoint a Special public Prosecutor from outside the Panel of the incumbent Public Prosecutor

The accused made a representation to the government for withdrawing the pending cases on charge of murder whereupon the Government referred the matter to the Public Prosecutor for his opinion and the public prosecutor gave opinion for withdrawal of the case on the ground that there was little chance of success for the prosecution. The case was not, however, withdrawn. In this situation the petitioner who claimed to be an informant in the case and the wife of the victim field an application before the Government for appointment of a Special public Prosecutor at their cost- Held: We think that it would be fair and reasonable, in the interest of justice, for the Government to appoint a Special Public Prosecutor for this particular case and not leave the matter in the hands of the incumbent Public Prosecutor or his deputies.

S.M. Jillur Rahman Vs. Bangladesh & Ors 5 BLT (AD)-259

Whether for the same offence an accused, be Punished under the Penal Code and Act II of 1947

Held: The accused- petitioner being a public servant he was proceeded with under Section 5(2) of act II of 1947 and this in fact gave jurisdiction to the Special judge to try the petitioner as an accused in the special case. The learned Single Judge was totally wrong in holding that the accused petitioner cannot be tried under Act II of 1947 along with other Penal Code offence.

Mahbubul Alam Vs. The State 5 BLT (AD)-130

Whether the contradictory stands of the authority cannot be accepted

Plaintiff that on 11.6.73 he was appointed as Assistant Store Officer of TCB. In 1979 he was transferred to the TCB office at Khulna. In the right following 8.11.81. a dacoity was committed in the TCB go down- one hand TCB lodged the F I R against six accused persons who admitted before the court about the commission of the dacoity but on the other hand being disappointed there, the TCB authority came up with a new case that the plaintiff committed this offence of misappropriation. Although the departmental proceeding has got a separate entity of its own yet the TCB authority could not take the two contradictory stands on after another.

Kazi Abdul Hai Vs. Trading Corporation of Bangladesh 3 BLT (HCD)-175

Whether without an opinion of the authority is not lawful opinion

On 11.11.81 the plaintiff was suspended and on 6.3.82 charge sheet along with allegations was served upon the plaintiff-After the charges as well as the allegations were served upon the plaintiff, an Inquiry Officer was appointed in this case. The inquiry Officer examined 21 witnesses and after  considering  the  evidence  of the witnesses and all other records and papers found the plaintiff not guilty. The inquiry officer even found that the charge of alleged misappropriation was also not proved against the plaintiff- the authority is at liberty to differ from the opinion of the Inquiry Officer no doubt but the authority must satisfy itself on the basis of the materials on record to differ because the inquiry Officer had considered the official record and thereafter formed his opinion. The authority in' the 2nd show cause notice differed merely  stating that seeing the depositions of four witnesses and all other records of inquiry proceeding that authority found that the story of dacoity was not believable. In this connection it may be mentioned that after considering the evidence of 18 witnesses the Inquiry Officer came to a conclusion that it was a case of theft/ dacoity, and not a case of misappropriation by the plaintiff. But the authority only after mentioning the names of 4 witnesses came to a conclusion that the case of dacoity is not believable, such an opinion of the authority is not a lawful opinion as such the action taken by the authority against the plaintiff, cannot treated as a legal action.

Kazi Abdul Hai Vs. Trading Corporation of Bangladesh 3 BLT (HCD)-175

Whether the High Court Division has rightly decided babul & Ors 15 BLD-88

Held: The fallacy of this decision is that (i)the appellant in that case had no absolute or vested right of release. Their right, if any, was equally attended with the right of the prosecution to revive the proceeding, and (ii) Section- 6 of the new Act will not apply at all to any stoppage of proceeding after coming into force of the new Act on the 1st November, 1992 Section-6 is only applicable to proceeding which were stopped before 1.11.92. Consequently Section-7 has also no application. The High Court Division was not right in deciding the case on the 2nd May, 1994.

Abdul Wadud Vs. The State 3 BLT (AD)-236

Whether the learned Magistrate instead of excluding his own jurisdiction by adding the higher sections, ought to have deferred the matter till the time of framing of charge.

Following an F. I. R. Police upon completion of investigation submitted charge-sheet. The informant made an application before the Magistrate concerned praying to accept the charge- sheet after substituting section 326 in place of section 325 of the Penal Code- Held: Whether in the facts of a particular case a higher section is attracted can be considered at the time of framing of charge. It is not necessary to amend the charge- sheet to include a higher offence- The informant's application in the present case for including the offences under sections 326 and 307 of the Penal Code was unnecessary.

Mukaddesh Mondal & Ors. Vs. The State 6 BLT (AD)-145

Whether the learned Magistrate rightly rejected the prayer of the First Party for delivery of possession of the disputed land which was under attachment and in custody of the receiver

The disputed property was under attachment and in the meanwhile the civil court had already found possession in favour of the First party. In view of the finding of possession by the civil court the first party is lawfully entitled to possession.

Abdul Karim Vs. Gous Uddin & Ors 6 BLT (AD)-258

Whether the changed circumstances of the case the Police investigation may not proceed further

Case under Section 366 of the Penal Code- In the changed circumstances the informant, the family of the persons concerned may have changed their views as regards the allegations once made against the petitioner and the Police also may find it not proper and necessary to continue with the investigation because the prosecution may have nothing to succeed. These are all matters upon which we cannot speculate but of necessity the matter has to be left to the parties concerned for any further action or non-action.

Md. Manik® Md. Akash Khan Vs. Md. Jobed Ali & Ors 7 BLT (AD)-158

Whether P.S.A unconstitutional and void

Per Mr. Justice M.A. Aziz: The P.S.A. be declared unconstitutional and void. Per Mr. Justice Shamsul Huda: The present law does not confer any discretion on the executive to select which of the cases falling within the mischief of the impugned Act are to be tried under the impugned Act. Section 3 clearly says that notwithstanding anything contained in any other law, this Act shall prevail. This clearly means that whatever might have been provided in the Penal Code and the Criminal Procedure Code, the impugned Act has to be applied if any conduct comes within its mischief if the executive tried to apply the general law in such a case it will be a violation of the impugned Act and will be illegal and for the abuse of the law or over exercise of power by law enforcing authority the law cannot be declared void.

Afzalul Abdein & Ors. Vs. Govt, of Bangladesh & Ors. 10 BLT (HCD)-490.

Village Court Ordinance, 1976


Village Court Ordinance, 1976

(ordinance no. lxi of 1976)


is no express provision in the Ordinance barring the jurisdiction of the Civil
Court to question the legality and propriety of Village Court’s decision.

3 of the Ordinance has conferred exclusive jurisdiction on the Village Court in
all civil matters specified in part II of the Schedule of the Ordinance. A
Civil Court has power to see whether the Tribunal was constituted according to
law or whether it followed the provisions of law and observed the fundamental
judicial procedure.

Md. Siddiqur
Rahman and another Vs. Md.Goljar Ali 

Savedul Hoq Sawdagar Vs. Abdul Quasem Chowdhury and others, 38 DLR. 14; Kazi
Mobarak Ali. Vs. Md. Yeasin Mozumder and others, 43 DLR (AD) (1991) 60; Peoples
Republic of Bangladesh Vs. Kobad Ali and others, 1987 BLD (AD) 268-Cited.



3 of the Village Courts Ordinance clearly ousted the jurisdiction of the Civil
Court in so far as it relates to the matters specified in Part 11 of the

and others Vs. Aftabuddin Ahmed and others, 14 BLD (HCD) 134.