Contents
1. The order under section 156 of CrPC/FI Order
2. The Remand Order
3. The Judgment under section 250 of CrPC
4. Dead body disposal order
5. The order under section 386 of CrPC and 16(3B)of the Family Court Ordinance 1985
6. The order under Motor Vehicles Ordinance 1983
7. Suo-moto 164 and the investigation order against police for torture allegation.
8. Model Order under section 157 or 167 of CrPC
9. Model Order under regulation 283 of PRB-1943 and section 164 of CrPC
7. Suo-moto 164 and the investigation order against police for torture allegation.
8. Model Order under section 157 or 167 of CrPC
9. Model Order under regulation 283 of PRB-1943 and section 164 of CrPC
Seen the aforementioned note and the officer in charge of... police station, District... is directed to treat this complaint petition as First Information (FI) directly. After lodging in B.P. Form No. 27 in connection with Regulation 243 and 244 of PRB-1943, send the said First Information Report (FIR) to the concerned learned court on the next working day in getting this order. Maintaining all procedural formalities any special messenger is permitted to communicate this to the concerned officer-incharge.
Next date ... is under regulation 245 of PRB-1943 fixed for police
report.
Remand Order
Seen the aforementioned note and heard the learned advocate and Court Inspector. After perusal of the record, it appears to this court that there are the sufficient grounds for allowing the application for police remand of the accused which are... In view of the aforesaid reasons, the application for police remand of accused is allowed for... days police remand subject to submitting a full health examination report of the accused by a Board of doctors consisting of at least three members including the Civil Surgeon of
... District. The investigating officer of the case is directed to produce the accused before the office the Civil Surgeon or concerned doctor for the same in showing the copy of this order. The office is directed accordingly.
The Judgment u/s 250 of CrPC
District:- Gaibandha
In
the court of Senior JudicIal
Magistrate,GAIBANDHA.
Present: - Md Azizur Rahman,
Judicial Magistrate, Gaibandha.
Date of passing Judgment: 14th
February 2010
General Register Case No 128
of 2005
Arising out of Gaibandha
Police Station Case Number 10 dated 13.04.2005
The
State ... Prosecution
-Versus-
Hunan Hokkani and others...
Accused -petitioners
Under section 379 of the Penal Code
Md. Ayub Ali Prodhan APP... For the state
Salauddin Salim, Legal Practitioner... For
the accused petitioners
JUDGMENT
Hunan Hokkani and others having been
depicted as offenders for theft under section 379 of penal code faced trial of
charge under section 379 of penal code in General Register case being No.128 of
2005 arising out of Gaibandha Police Station Case Number 18 dated 13.04.2005
POINTS FOR DETERMINATION
1. Whether the alleged fact was
committed? 2. Whether the fact constituted the alleged offence? 3. Whether
these accused persons committed the alleged offence? 4. Whether the prosecution
has been able to prove the alleged transgression beyond all reasonable doubt?
2. The prosecution case in brief is that for the extension of
Gaibandha Lakshipur-Dariapur road a tender was advertised and being the highest
bidder the accused Hunan Hokkani got legally the work order for cutting 44
trees and thereafter he cut the said
44(forty four) trees along with other 8(eight) trees and thereafter the
informant lodged the first information (FI) and the officer in charge after
recording the same in B.P. Form 27 forwarded the first information report (FIR)
to the learned court.
3. On the basis of such allegation Gaibandha Police station
case being No.18 dated on 13.04.2005 was started. The investigating officer of
this case after investigating into the matter submitted the police report on 06.10.2005
recommending for prosecution in respect of accused of this case except the
arrested accused Nurul Islam who was recommended for discharge.
4. On 29.01.2009 charge under section 379 of penal code was framed against the accused which was read over
and explained to them and after hearing the same the accused pleaded their
innocence.
DISCUSSION AND
DECISION
5. The prosecution to bring home charge against the accused
examined 6 (six) witnesses out of 10
(ten) police reported witnesses and
thereafter the learned APP Ayub Ali Prodhan made his submission in writing on 26.01.2010
to close the taking of evidence and prayed for the next proceeding.
6. Defense put forward the accused as demonstrated from the
trend of cross examination was that the accused were innocent and the first
information (FI) had been falsely lodged and engineered by police at the
instance of the informant’s interest.
7. PW 1 Md. Khorshed Alam in his examination in chief
testified that ÒMvBevÜv
`vwoqvcyi j¶xcyi iv¯—v m¤cÖmvi‡bi Rb¨ wewfbœ cÖRvwZi 44 wU MvQ `ic‡Îi gva¨‡g
weµq Kiv nq| m‡e©v”P Ki`vZv wnmv‡e ûbvb-n°vbx, weªR †ivW MvBevÜv (1 bs Avmvgx)
†K MvQ¸‡jv Acmvi‡bi Rb¨ Work order ‡`qv nq| Work order ‡`qvi mgq Awd‡mi cÖwZwbwa wnmv‡e DcmnKvix cÖ‡KŠkjx Gi
wbKU †_‡K ey‡S †bqvi Rb¨ (MvQ ¸‡jv) ejv nq| wKš‘ 1 bs Avmvgx Dc-mnKvix cÖ‡KŠkjx
Gi wbKU †hvMv‡hvM bv K‡i †UÛv‡ii Aš—f~©³ 44 wU MvQmn GRvnvi f~³ Av‡iv wewfbœ
cÖRvwZi 8 wU MvQ KZ©b K‡i| He also
testified in his cross examination that “ûbvb n°vbx Avgv‡`i ‰ea wVKv`vi| H mgq D³ iv¯—v wgwb
we¯^iv¯—v Kivi Rb¨ `y av‡ii MvQ¸‡jv Acmvi‡bi Rb¨ †UÛvi †`qv nq| Avmvgx †UÛv‡ii
wnmv‡e 2,56,000/= UvKv I Av‡iv wKQz UvKv Awd‡m Rgv‡`b| ”
He
has further stated in his cross examination that Avwg †h 4/5 evi NUbv¯’‡j wM‡qwQjvg †mB mgq
Avmvgxi mv‡_ Avgvi †`Lv nqwb|
He
has asserted in his cross examination that A‰eafv‡e MvQKvUv wel‡q (Work order) Gi
evwn‡i Avwg mswkó †g¤^vi I †Pqvig¨vb‡K †gŠwLKfv‡e Rvwb‡qwQjvg|
He
has deposed in his cross examination that Work order Gi ewnf~©Z MvQKvUvi mgq Avwg
†`wLwb|
He
has also testified in his cross examination that Avmvgx‡`i evwo n‡Z †Kvb MvQ D×vi nqwb| MvQ KvUvi
mgq DcmnKvix cÖ‡KŠkjxi Dcw¯’Z _vKvi K_v| Ó
8. PW 2 Md. Afzal Hossen in
his examination in chief stated that j¶xcyi `vwoqvcyi iv¯—vi Dbœqbg~jK KvR Kivi Rb¨ 44 wU MvQ
cÖwZeÜKZv m„wó Ki‡j †m¸‡jv KvUvi Rb¨ †UÛvi Avnevb Kiv nq| †UÛv‡i ûbvb n°vbx mdj
Ki`vZv nb Ges Zvi AbyKz‡j Kvh©v‡`k †`qv nq| Kvh©v‡`k †`qvi ci Avmvgx Kvh©v‡`‡k
D‡jwLZ 44 wU mn Av‡iv 8 wU MvQ †ekx Kv‡U| He
has also testified in his cross examination that msev``vZ †Lvi‡k` Avjg Avgvi Aat ¯—b Kg©KvZ©v|
Avwg AwZwi³ MvQKvUvi K_v ï‡b mevi Av‡M _vbvq Lei w`‡Z
hvB| †Rjv cwil‡`i mwPeI _vbv‡K AewnZ K‡i|
He
has also testified in his cross examination that Avwg Avmvgx‡`i‡K NUbv¯’‡j H mgq †`‡Lwb| Avwg H
iv¯—vq NUbvi 2 evi H mg‡qi g‡a¨ wM‡qwQjvg| Avmvgx GKRb mdj wVKv`vi|
He
has asserted in his cross examination that iv¯—v m¤cÖmvi‡bi Kv‡R iv¯—vi RvqMvq giv I RxweZ MvQ
KvUv‡Z nq| NUbvi c‡i cywjk KZw`b ci Avgvi Revbe›`x wb‡hwQj Zv ej‡Z cvi‡ev bv|
Avgvi mv‡_ ev`xi, dRjvi ingvb, m~jZvb wgqvi I Revbe›`x _vbvq GKmv‡_ wb‡q‡Q|
He
has deposed in his cross examination that mZ¨ b‡n †h, wVKv`v‡ii wbKU Avwg UvKv `vwe K‡iwQjvg Ges
G Rb¨ g‡bvgvwjb¨ m„wó n‡qwQj| mZ¨ b‡n †h, Avgiv mwVKfv‡e KvR ey‡S ‡`Bwb|
He
has declared in giving the answer to the question put by the Court that...MvQ¸‡jv (44wU) ey‡S †`qvi Rb¨
1/4/2005 n‡Z 13/4/05 Zvwi‡L Avmvgx‡K e‡jwQjvg|
9. PW 3 Md. Noor Alam in his
cross examination has testified that Avwg hLb gvgjv i“Ry Kwi ZLb ïay Awf‡hvMcÎ ev GRvnvi
†c‡qwQjvg| Avi Ab¨‡Kvb KvMR cvBwb|
10. Hasan Imam in his
examination in chief has affirmed that MvBevÜvi _vbvi mvavib WvBix bs- 610 ZvwiL 13/4/2005
†gvZv‡eK 4 Rb mv¶xi Dcw¯’wZ‡Z GKwU wmRviwjó ˆZwi Kwi|
He
has testified in his cross examination that gvgjv nIqvi Av‡M Avwg wRwWg~‡j AvjvgZ Rã Kwi|
He
has stated in his cross examination that Avwg †h GjvKvq AvjvgZ Rã K‡iwQ †mB GjvKvi †Kvb Mb¨gvb¨
e¨w³‡K (†Pqvig¨vb ev †g¤^vi‡K) mv¶x K‡iwb|
He
has deposed in his cross examination that Av‡k cv‡k †Kvb evwoNi ev †`vKvb wQj bv| NUbv¯’j n‡Z
KZ`~i‡Z¡ evwoNi wQj Zv ej‡Z cvi‡ev bv| Avwg GB gvgjvi AvjvgZ R‡ãi mgq †Kvb
Avmvgx‡K cvBwb|
He
has stated in his cross examination that Avgvi †mw`‡b RãK…Z AvjvgZ AvR Avgvi mvg‡b GB Av`vj‡Z
†bB|Ó
11.
Karjan Chawdury in his examination in Chief has testified that NUbvi ZvwiL ej‡Z cvi‡ev bv|
weKvj 4.00 Uvi w`‡Ki NUbv kywb| Kvi wbKU ï‡bwQ Zv GLb ¯§ib bvB| Avwg ïwb ‡q
‡Rjv cwil‡`i KvR AbygwZ wb‡q KvU‡Z‡Q 2 w`b a‡i| c‡i cywjk wM‡q MvQ AvUK K‡i Ges
cywjk ¯^v¶i w`‡Z ej‡j ¯^v¶i †`B| Gi †ewk wKQz Rvwbbv| GB Avgvi Revbe›`x|Ó
12.
PW- 06 Md. Masud Rana in his cross examination has asserted that Avwg 14/4/2005 Bs ZvwiL mKvj
10.15 NwUKvq NUbv¯’‡j hvB| Avwg NUbv¯’‡j H w`b wM‡q GRvnvi bvgxq †Kvb Avmvgx‡K †`‡Lwb| Avgvi ms‡M GKRb Kb÷vej
wM‡qwQj hvi bvg g‡b bvB| C/D ‡Z I Zvi bvg D‡jL †bB|
He
has testified in his cross examination that H GjvKvi †Pqvig¨vb ev †g¤^vi‡K GB NUbv m¤ú‡K© wRÁvmvev`
Kwiwb|
He
has declared in his cross examination that ZvRyj Bmjvg Mb¨gvb¨ e¨w³| ZvRyj Bmjvg wK K‡i g‡b bvB|
wmwW (C/D) ‡Z I †bvU †`qv †bB| ZvRyj Bmjvg wK K‡i| wK‡mi
wfwˇZ ZvRyj Bmjvg Mb¨gvb¨ e¨w³ Zv g‡b bvB| Ges C/D ‡Z I
†Kvb Z_¨ I bvB|
He
has stated in his cross examination that cywjk wi‡cv‡U D‡jwLZ mv¶xMb e¨wZZ Av‡iv mv¶x‡`i‡K
wRÁvmvev` K‡iwQjvg wKš‘ Revbe›`x wjwL bvB|
He
has testified in his cross examination that Ab¨vb¨ †jvKRb †K Zv ej‡Z cvi‡ev bv| G e¨vcv‡i C/D †Z †Kvb Z_¨ ev †bvU †bB|
He
has expressed in his cross examination that Avmvgx ûbvb n°vbx †Rjv cwil‡`i GKRb ˆea wVKv`vi wKbv Zv
Rvwbbv|
He
has affirmed in his cross examination that H mgq NUbv¯’‡ji iv¯—vi `ycv‡k iv¯—v m¤cÖmvi‡bi KvR
nB‡ZwQj| H mg‡qi Av‡M H iv¯—vi MvQ KvUv wb‡q ‡UÛvi †`qvn‡qwQj Ges Avwg RvbZvg| ûbvb
n°vbx MvBevÜv †Rjv cwil` n‡Z ˆeafv‡e H iv¯—vi `y cv‡ki Mv‡Qi Rb¨ ˆea wVKvi
wnmv‡e KvR †c‡qwQ‡jb wKbv Zv Avwg Rvwb bv| Avwg †UÛvi m¤úwK©Z †Kvb KvMR Rã
Kwiwb|
He
has also testified in his cross examination that ûbvb n°vbx‡K NUbv¯’‡ji iv¯—vi `ycv‡ki giv I ïKbv
Mv‡Qi n¯—vš—i cÎ †`qv n‡qwQj Ges Zv Avwg RvbZvg|
He
in addition to earlier statement deposed in his cross examination that mv¶x AvdRvj †nv‡mb Gi wjwce×
Revbe›`x Avwg wbR nv‡Z wjwLwb Z‡e wc Gm AvB dvwngv nvq`vi Avgvi K_vgZ wj‡LwQj|
Ab¨vb¨ mv¶x‡`i Revbe›`x I PvR©kx‡U©i †¶‡ÎI ZvB n‡q‡Q|
He
has also testified in his cross examination that Avmvgx ûbvb n°vbx, 1g †kªbxi GKRb wVKv`vi †m
m¤ú‡K© Z`‡š— wKQz Rvb‡Z cvwi bvB| `icÎ Abyhvqx 44 wU Mv‡Qi c„_KxKib I wPwýZ Kib
K‡iwQjvg| K‡e- KLb D³ c„_KxKib I wPwýZKib K‡iwQjvg Zv Z`š— wi‡cv‡U© ev C/D †Z wKQz bvB|
He
has also deposed in his cross examination that Avgvi GB ΓwUc~b© Z`‡š—i Kvi‡b ûbvb n°vbx wbt¯^
n‡q‡Q mZ¨ b‡n| Avgvi Z`š— µwUc~b© -mZ¨ b‡n| Avwg †Rjv cwil‡`i Kg©KZv©i KZ…©K
cÖfvweZ n‡q GB Z`š— wi‡cvvU© w`‡q‡Qb- mZ¨ b‡n|Ó
13. Accused has highlighted lot of
grievances in bringing home contentions. Contentions pressed into service are
catalogued there under:
(I)
Delay
of 12 days of lodging the first information from the first date of occurrence
had no reasonable and satisfactory reasons.
(II)
Independent
witnesses who are close neighbours of the accused or the members or the
chairman of the locality had not been examined in support of the prosecution
and adverse presumption under section 114(g) of the Evidence Act 1872 has
arisen against the prosecution.
(III)
Material
witnesses mentioned in the police report namely Tajul Islam, Sultan Hossain,
Fazlar Rahman, Ayub Ali and Amjad whose name has been mentioned in the sketch
map’s description had not been
produced and examined and adverse inference is drawn against prosecution and by
this non production of material and important close-neighbour witnesses
prosecution case had become doubtful.
(IV)
No
reliance can be placed on the contradictory evidence of the interested
witnesses.
Contention No.1
14. Though the
first information (FI) lodged by the informant under section 154 of the code
criminal procedure in connection with Regulation 243 and 244 of Police
Regulations Bengal-1943 is not substantive evidence but important in respect of
obtaining the early information of alleged criminal activity. It is also
necessary for showing reasonable and satisfactory causes of lodging the delayed
first information. For this in the case of KARIM Vs STATE reported in 15 DLR
(WP) 135 para-14 it was held that the delay of more than 12 hours in making the
report to the police makes the prosecution case all the more doubtful.
15. In the
first information report (FIR) it has been stated that the informant lodged the
first information (FI) with the police station after 12 days of the occurrence
and the police report does not contain the reasonable and satisfactory reasons
for the said delay. According to section 23 of the Police Act 1861 it was the duty
of the investigating officer to collect and lay down the intelligence affecting
public peace i.e. correct intelligence in respect of the delayed first
information. After perusal of the police report of this case it appears to me
that the police report does not contain any intelligence relating to the delay
of 12 days of lodging the first information and no information has been written
even either in the police report or in the case diary and accordingly the
contention No.1 having carried substance
is accepted.
16. Contention Nos. 2 and 3:
Contention Nos. 2 and 3 are dealt
together. As per the description of the
index of the sketch map, there is a house of one Amjad on very close of the
place of occurrence and the members of the said Amjad family mentioned in
sketch map as ‘D’ live around the place of occurrence and as per the evidence
given by PWs none of the persons of the said
house has been examined and police reported witnesses Nos. 2, 5,, 6, and 7 had
not been also produced and examined. Non examination of the close-neighbuors
and police reported witnesses call for an adverse presumption under section
114(g) of the Evidence Act. In respect of this the following laws have been
declared by the Supreme Court of Bangladesh:
“Non-examination of
independent witnesses, especially some of the close neighbours calls for a
presumption against the prosecution. This view finds support from the case
reported in 25 DLR 398. Kausarun Nessa
and another vs. State 48 DLR 196” and “As there is not a single independent and
disinterested witness to support the prosecution case and admitted enmity is in
existence, it is unsafe to convict the petitioner on the basis of the evidence
of interested prosecution witnesses.” 28 BLD (AD) 106.
17. Section 114(g) of the Evidence
Act, 1872 postulates that non-examination of independent witnesses raises a
presumption against prosecution. Section 134 of the Evidence Act enshrines that
no particular number of witnesses shall in any case be required for proof of
any fact. Law does not, thus, require particular number of witnesses to prove a
case and conviction may be well founded even on testimony of a solitary witness
provided his credibility is not shaken by any adverse circumstances against him
and at the same time convinced that he
is a truthful witness. Evidence on a point is to be judged not by the number of
witnesses produced but by its inherent truth. The well known maxim which is a
Golden Rule that evidence has to be weighed and not counted has been, thus,
given statutory placement in section 134 of the Evidence Act.
18. It is true that prosecution is
bound to produce and examine witnesses who are essential to unfolding of
narrative on which prosecution case is based but it can not be also laid down
as an inflexible Rule that if large number of persons are present at the time
of place of occurrence, prosecution is bound to call and examine each and
everyone of persons present at the time of occurrence.
There is no good reason for
castigating the prosecution for not examining more or all witnesses to speak
about the occurrence. It is up to the prosecution to call and examine persons
and witnesses in support of prosecution case. Non-examination of vital and
necessary witnesses in proof of guilt of accused person shall put prosecution
case into peril and prosecution case shall fall to the ground.
19. No explanation had been even
assigned for the non examination of the family members of one Amjad who are the
close neighbours and the police reported witnesses by the prosecution.
Non-production of them was very much fatal for prosecution case and the
presumption contemplated in section 114(g) of the Evidence Act must follow and
accordingly contention Nos. 2 and 3 having carried substance are accepted.
Contention
No. 4
20. As per the testimony of PW 1 who
is the informant of this case, the accused Hunan Hokkani being numbered 1 (one)
in the FIR was the highest bidder and lawfully obtained the tender and work
order from the Zila Parishad Authority. He in his cross examination testified
that the accused Hunan Hokkani was a valid contractor and after obtaining the
tender lawfully paid taka 2, 56,000.00 and this fact has been corroborated by
the testimonies of PW 2 and PW 5 and there is no testimony which can discard
the aforesaid fact but the investigating officer of this case being PW6 has
testified that he does not know whether accused Hunan Hokkani was a valid
contractor of Zila Parishad and he even does not know the admitted fact of
getting the tender and work order and these absolutely indicate the improper
investigation. He also testified that he went to the place of occurrence 4/5
times but he did not see any accused. Even he further testified in his cross
examination that he did not see the cutting of the trees exceeding 44 trees.
21. The vital
point of fact for considering the matter of committing the alleged
transgression is whether the accused Hunan Hokkani cut more than 44 trees. In
respect of this, the PW 1 has testified in his cross examination that he did
not see the cutting of the trees exceeding 44 trees. PW 2 is silent about this
fact. PW 3 is the recording officer of this case and PW 4 is a witness who
seized the alamot of this case being authorised by General Diary (GD) being No.
610 dated 13.04.2005 before recording
the first information lodged by the informant and these two witnesses have no
part to see the matter of cutting more than 44 trees. PW5 testified that he
heard that accused Hunan Hokkani was cutting the trees for two days with the
permission of the Zila Parishad Authority. Though the investigating officer of
this case testified in his cross examination that he has separated and
identified the 44 trees as per the tender but he has not mentioned any
information or intelligence either in the police report or in the Case Diary
and even he testified nothing about the same.
22. If an
investigating officer says that he does not know the admitted fact of getting
the tender and the work order which is mentioned in the FIR, it generally
arises a question that what type of investigation was done by him. The fact of
unknowingness of the investigating officer in respect of the aforementioned
admitted as well as important facts indicates clearly the improper
investigation. Though the investigating officer has mentioned in his submitted
sketch map about the existence of the family of one Amjad near at the place of
occurrence but he has not had any statement of any members of the said family
and that even of Amjad. The investigating officer of this case as per deposition
of PW 2 has recorded the statements of the witnesses in the police station. For the aforementioned reasons, it is clear
that the investigating officer had not collected the intelligence for which he
was under the responsibility according to section 23 of the Police Act 1861 and
accordingly it is necessary to inform the aforesaid matter of improper
investigation to the concerned authority of the investigating officer for
taking proper step.
23. This is a vital question of law that if the information
of the Commission of a cognizable crime is first reached to police, what will
be the position of that information in the eye of law. Regulation 243 (c) of
Bangladesh Police Regulation (PRB-1943) provides clearly that “The information
of the commission of a cognisable crime that shall first reach the police
whether oral or written, shall be treated as the first information. It may be
given by a person acquainted with the facts directly or on hearsay but in
either case it constitutes the first information required by law, upon which
the enquiry under Section 157, Code of Criminal procedure shall be taken up
when
hearsay information is given, the station officer shall not
wait to record as first information, the statement of the actual complainant or
an eye witnesses.”
Now the term “regulation” whether law and the law answers that
“regulation” absolutely is law like any law existing in our country. Article
152 of the Constitution of People’s Republic
of Bangladesh provides that “Law means
any Act, ordinance, order, rule, regulation, bye-law, notification or other
legal instrument and any custom or usage having the force of law in Bangladesh.” Hence,
the General Diary being No. 610 dated 13.04.2005 should be treated as the First
information Report (FIR). This conception of law has been upheld by the Supreme
Court of Bangladesh in
the case of MUSLIMUDDIN vs. STATE reported in 38 DLR (AD) 311
Para-45 i.e. “In the early morning ‘somebody’ was sent to the police station to
give an information about this gruesome murder. In point of time that
information carried to the police ‘by somebody’ is the First Information Report
within the meaning of section 154 of Cr PC and all subsequent information fall
within the purview of section 161 of the Cr PC.” and this law has been also declared
by the said court thereafter in different cases reported particularly in 46 DLR
(1994) page-575, 1987 BLD (AD) 1, 57 DLR 513, 59 DLR 653 Para-53 and 53 DLR
(AD) 115.
The prosecution has not had the notice of that General Diary
(GD) being No. 610 dated 13.04.2005 and
this absolutely indicates the absolute doubt in respect of the alleged
allegation and thus the aforementioned positions and contradictions make absolute
doubt in respect of the prosecution case.
23. On a close analysis of testimonies
of PWs it appears to me that the prosecution has been failed to prove the
charge against the accused beyond all reasonable doubt. Court as a rule of
prudence and caution and in order to exclude every possibility of involvement
of innocent person in a case by prosecution along with guilty person or persons
always look for corroboration by some reliable witnesses to create probable
basis for basing conviction. It is
though true that on the strength of section 134 of the Evidence Act conviction
can be awarded even on the basis of testimony of a single witness but testimony
of PW 1 was not of such a quality as it was required to be relied upon without
sufficient corroboration and he being an informant in the case can be
characterised to be an interested witness.
From the above facts and circumstances and evidence on record
I am of the opinion that the prosecution has not been able to prove charge
against the accused and as a result the accused petitioners are entitled to get
acquittal order and hence it is ordered
the accused are acquitted and free to go now if they are not
required to be detained in connection with any other offences. Sureties are
discharged from all the liability of the respective bond.
In view of the aforementioned reasons and orders I am of the
opinion that the accusation against the accused was false and either frivolous
or vexatious and I am also satisfied that this case is willfully false and that
the allegation has been brought, not bona fide
for furthering the ends of justice but for some ulterior object such as to harass the accused or bring
pressure on them to achieve some other purpose and accordingly issue a summons
upon the informant to appear in person and show cause on the next date as to
why he should not be directed to pay the compensation to such accused. Next
date 18.02.2010 is fixed for the appearance and showing cause.
Let a copy of this judgment be communicated to the office of
the District Superintendent of Police, Gaibandha for taking necessary action in
respect of the improper investigation done by the investigating officer of this
case.
The office is directed accordingly.
(Md Azizur Rahman)
Senior Judicial Magistrate, Gaibandha
Seen the aforementioned note and the appeared informant of
this case show caused under section 250 of the code of criminal procedure. The
informant appearing along with the learned legal practitioner Sirajul Islam
Babu and others submits a time petition for showing the written cause. After
perusal of the same it appears to this court that the grounds for which he
seeks time is not satisfactory and sufficient as he availed the opportunity for
the same. Moreover, section 250 of the code of criminal procedure provides the ‘forthwith’
show cause when the informant or the complainant is present and in this case as
he was not present on the date of pronouncing the judgment, he was show caused
and provided the opportunity to show the causes and accordingly without showing
the causes to seek an adjournment is not well intended position. Moreover the
informant was show caused by the order dated 14.02.2010 for showing causes as
to why he should not pay compensation to the accused under section 250(1) of
the code of criminal procedure. After getting an opportunity, the attempt of
not showing the causes is not satisfactory and reasonable due to the law i.e.
“if the complainant is
present he is bound to show cause immediately. He can not insist upon the grant
of an adjournment for the purpose” [AIR 1929 Bomb. 287]
In view of the aforementioned reasons the application dated
18.02.2010 for seeking an adjournment moved by the learned advocate Sirajul
Islam Babu is hereby rejected. Thereafter the following question was put in
Bengali in the open court to the informant...
The informant then orally seeks time to show the causes in
writing by the legal practitioner and hence for the ends of justice the oral
application of the informant was orally allowed and accordingly the learned
advocate Faruk Ahmed Prince and others submits the causes in writing with the
signature and the thump impression of the informant.
After perusal of the causes shown in writing by the informant
of this case it appears to this court that the informant has tried to
escape his responsibility and to shift
the same upon the shoulders of others including the investigating officer of
this case. The informant has tried to show that his function was his ex-officio
or government function.
Section 250 of the code of criminal procedure does not categorise
between or among the complainants or the
informants of any case instituted upon complaint or upon information given to a
police officer or to a Magistrate. Besides, the term “government” has been defined by the
Supreme Court of Bangladesh in the case of SALEH AHMED KHAN vs. ADDITIONAL
SECRETARY, RURAL DEVELOPMENT, M/O LOCAL GOVT. & ORS reported in 41 DLR
(HCD) Page 210 Para- 9 provides that
“In the absence of any delegation of
power, the Government means the President and unless provided for in the Rules
of Business, a Government order must be approved or ordered by the President.”
In this case, there is nothing in respect of the order of
lodging the First Information (FI) by the informant as to any aforementioned delegated
authority or power within the purview of Rules of Business and even the same
has not either been approved or ordered by the President in accordance with law. The Constitution of the People’s
Republic of Bangladesh
does not provide the immunity generally to make torture upon the individuals
and moreover, all the fundamental rights guaranteed in the aforesaid
constitution provide the protection of their rights. In the instant case, the
informant lodging this false, frivolous or vexatious accusation as first
information, has infringed the rights of the accused who languished in jail
hajat for... days which necessitates
proceeding under section 250 of the code of criminal procedure.
In view of the reasons mentioned in the judgment dated
14.02.2010 passed by this court in this case and the aforementioned reasons,
the show caused and appeared informant of this case is hereby convicted under
section 250(1) of the code of criminal procedure and ordered to pay
compensation of taka 500 (five hundred) only to the accused and in default to
undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 2(two) days.
In addition to the order passed under section 250(1) of the
code of criminal procedure of direction of payment of the compensation, it is
further ordered under section 250(5) of the same code that the informant
ordered to pay such compensation shall also suffer simple imprisonment for a
period of 10(ten) days more. Send the informant Md. Khorshed Alom, Ucchaman
Sahokari Zila Parishad, Gaibandha to jail through warrant of commitment.
The office is directed accordingly
(Md
Azizur Rahman)
Senior Judicial
Magistrate, Gaibandha
2. Dead body disposal order
District:-Gaibandha
IN the 2ND court of Judical Magistrate, GAIBANDHA
Present: - Md Azizur Rahman, Senior Judicial
Magistrate, Gaibandha
Date of passing order:-30th April,
2012
Unnatural Death Case Number 40 of 2012
The
State ... Prosecution
-Versus-
Md.
Zahurul Islam ... Accused
Order No.04
Dated 30.04.2012
…
The
produced record is taken up for order and seen the submitted inquest report and
the chalan which are produced and hereby these are seen.
In
respect of this matter, it appears after the perusal of the record particularly
the inquest report to me that the officer in charge has disposed of the dead
body i.e. the dead body has been handed over in the custody of the relatives of
the deceased without any permission of this court. But “the law of dead bodies has had a most singular history. The earliest American
case on the subject of the interest that relatives have in the remains
of their deceased,
is ln re Widening of
Beekman Street, (4 Bradf.
(N.Y.) 503), where the history of the law applicable was fully
considered and which settled the law that the relative
had an interest sufficient
to entitle him to the
reinterment and settling the
propositions :
1. That neither
the corpse, nor
its burial, is
legally subject, in any
way, to
ecclesiastical cognizance nor to sacredotal
power of any
kind.
2. That the
right to bury a corpse and to preserve its remains, is a
legal right, which the courts of law will recognize
and protect.
3. That such
right in the absence of any testamentary disposition,
belongs to the next of kin.
4. That the
right to protect the remains includes the right to preserve
them by separate
burial, to select the place of
sepulture and change it at pleasure.
5. That if
the place of
burial be taken for
public use, the next
of
kin may claim
to be indemnified
for the expense
of removing and suitably
reinterring their remains.”
Inview of the aforesaid discussion it is clear that
the dead body is definitely a property and hence the general authority of the
property is applicable here and hence under Chapter XLIII of the code of
criminal procedure, the concerned Judicial Magistarte Court is entitled to
handover the dead body of the deceased to his relatives.” The Supreme Court of
Bangladesh in a case of SIDDIQUE AHMED SAWDAGAR v. THE STATE reported in 40 DLR
(HCD) 268 para-6 that-
“The act of the investigating officer to give custody
of the property on the basis of the practice in vogue in the police Department
without any support of the statutory provisions of law to that effect in
violation of section 523 of the code of criminal procedure is without any
lawful authority and is illegal. Section 516A empowers a criminal court to pass
an order for custody and disposal of property during any enquiry or trial and
it does not empower an investigating officer to give any property in the
custody of any person. Only under the order of the Magistrate the investigating
officer can give property into the custody of a person on taking from him a
surety bond.” According to the law reported in 21 DLR (1969) 807 para-11 the
court, in a fit case without the physical production of the property, can give
the custody of the said property. Moreover, in accordance with regulation 310
of police regulations the final disposal of the dead body rests with the
Mgaitrate.
In
view of the above reasons, the officer in charge of Fulsari police station and
other officers of the police stations of this District are directed to comply
with the aforementioned law declared by our apex court and not to dispose of
the dead body without the order of the oncerned court even without the physical
production of the same.
Let
the copy of this order be communicated to the District Superintendent of
Police, all officers in charge of all police stations, Gaibandha immediately.
(Md Azizur Rahman)
Judge of
Senior Judicial Magistrate 2nd
Court
Gaibandha
Memo Number Date
Copy of the order is sent for
necessary steps
1.
District Superintendent
of police, Gaibandha
2.
All officer in
charge of Gaibandha District
(Md Azizur Rahman)
Judge of
Senior Judicial Magistrate 2nd
Court
Gaibandha
3. The order under section 386 of CrPC
In the
Family Court of Nilphamari
Present- Mr. Judge Md. Azizur Rahman,
Family Execution Case No… of
2012
|
Seen the aforementioned
note and heard the learned legal practitioner for the decree-holder. After
perusal of this record it appears to this Court that the arrest warrant (AW)
was issued earlier against the judgment debtor.
But
sub-section (3B) of section 16 of the Family Courts Ordinance, 1985 does not
authorize this court to issue the said arrest warrant (AW).The said sub-section
authorizes only to issue a warrant for levying the decretal amount due in the
manner provided in section 386 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 (Act V
of 1898) and hence the earlier issued warrant of arrest is liable to be recalled
and hence recall the earlier issued arrest warrant.
Now the
question comes to this Court whether this Court can authorise and direct the Collector
of this District to realise the decretal amount due? The answer is giving in
the code of criminal procedure of 1898 and the law declared by the Supreme
Court of Bangladesh.
Section
386(1) of the code of criminal procedure 1898 (Act V of 1898) provides that –
“(1)Whenever an offender has been
sentenced to pay a fine, the Court passing the sentence may take action for the
recovery of the fine in either or both of the following ways, that is to say, it
may-
(a)
Issue
a warrant for the levy of the amount by attachment and sale of any movable
property belonging to the offender ;
(b) Issue a warrant to the collector of
the District authorising him to realise the amount by execution according to
civil process against the movable or immovable property, or both of the defaulter:
Provided
that, if the sentence directs that in default of payment of the fine the
offender shall be imprisoned, and if such offender has undergone, the whole of
such imprisonment in default, no Court shall issue such warrant unless for
special reasons to be recorded in writing it necessary to do so.”
The law declared
by the Supreme Court of Bangladesh reported in 33 DLR (AD) 111 para-71 provides
that-
“Both the Supreme Court and the sub-ordinate courts are the repository of
judicial powers of the state”
Again another
law declared by the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of Bangladesh
reported in 52 DLR (AD) 82 para-44 provides that-
“The judicial
service is not service is the sense of employment” The judges are not employees.
As members of the judiciary, they exercise the sovereign judicial power of the
state. They are holders of the public officer in the same way as the members of
the Legislature. When it is said that in a democracy such as ours, the
executive, the legislature, the legislature and the judiciary constitute the
three pillars of the state, what is intended to be conveyed is that the three essential
functions of the state are entrusted to the three organs of the state and each
one of them in turn represents the authority of the state.
However, those
who exercise the state power are the ministers, the legislators and the judges
and not the members of their staff who implement or assist in implementing
their decisions the council of Ministers in the political executive is
different form the secretarial staff or the administrative executive which
carries out the decisions of the political executive.
Similarly the
legislators are different from legislative staff. The parity is between the
political executive, the legislators and the judges and not between the judges
and the administrative executive. The judges at whatever level, they may be, represent
the state and its authority is unlike the administrative executive or the
members of other services.
The members
of other services, there fore, can not be placed on a par with the members of
the judiciary, either constitutionally or functionally. Therefore, while
determining the service conditions of the members of judiciary, a distinction
can be made between them and the members of the other services.
In view of
the aforementioned reasons and the lows, the collector of the District of Nilphamari
is authorised and directed to realise the decretal amount due of Family suit No… in accordance with section 386 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1898.
In addition to this, issue a warrant for levying the decretal amount due
of Tk… to the officer-in-charge of… Police station, Nilphamari .
Let a copy of
this order along with the photo copy of the judgment and decree dated be communicated to the collector
of this District immediately.
Let a also
copy of this order and the said warrant for levying the decretal amount due be
communicated to the officer-in-charge of police station of
Nilphamari immediately.
Next date… is fixed for the report as to the aforesaid
matter.
Judge,
Family Court, Nilphamari
N.B. The following warrant to levy a fine by attachment and sale shall be accompanied with the aforesaid order.
Sd/
(Md. Azizur Rahman)Judge,
Family Court, Nilphamari
N.B. The following warrant to levy a fine by attachment and sale shall be accompanied with the aforesaid order.
WARRANT
TO LEVY A FINE BY ATTACHMENT AND SALE
(See section 386 [(1) (a)] of CrPC)
To
The Officer in charge (OC) of… police station of Nilphamari
District
WHEREAS the accused/judgment debtor…
son of … of village… Upazila…
District- Nilphamari was
on the day of …
, 2012 decreed before this Court for the fact of non-payment of the
dower/maintenance in Family Suit number…
that is, the
judgment-debtor mentioned in the Family Execution Suit being number… dated…
held
liable to pay a decretal amount of taka…
and
according to the judgment dated…
passed by this Court although required to pay has not paid the decretal
amount due of taka…
or
any part thereof
to the decree-holder Mr./Mrs. judgment debtor…
son of … of village… Upazila…
District- Nilphamari.
This is to authorise and require you to
attach any movable property belonging to the said judgment-debtor which may be
found within the district of Nilphamari if within 12 (twelve) hours next after
such attachment the said sum shall not be paid, to sell the movable property
attached, or so much thereof as shall sufficient to satisfy the said due,
returning this warrant, with an endorsement certifying what you have done under
it immediately upon its execution.
Given under my hand and the
seal of the Court, this
day of … , 2012
(Seal)
(Md.
Azizur Rahman)
Judge
Nilphamari
Family Court, Nilphamari
4. The order under Motor Vehicles Ordinance 1983
District:-Gaibandha
In the court of Senior JudicIal Magistrate,GAIBANDHA.
Present: - Md Azizur Rahman, Senior
Judicial Magistrate, Gaibandha.
Date of
passing order 03.08.2009
Non General Register Case No. 75 of 2009
Arising out of Gaibandha Town Vehicles prosecution
No. 117/09 dated 24.05.2009
Under sections 137,149,155,138, and 159 of the Motor
Vehicles Ordinance,1983.
The State ... Prosecution
-Versus-
... Accused
Order
No...03
Dated...03.08.2009
avh¨ Zvwi‡L bw_ †ck Kiv n‡jv|
gvgjvi Avmvgxi cÖwZ mgb Rvwii cÖwZ‡e`b cvIqv hvq bvB| AÎ gvgjvi Avmvgx (1) †gvt
Rvnv½xi weÁ †KŠïjxi gva¨‡g Av`vj‡Z nvwRi nBqv †`vl ¯^xKvi Gi Av‡e`b Kwiqv‡Qb| Seen the aforementioned
note and heard the Learned advocate. Who thereafter submits another application
for bail of the accused. After perusal of the record it appears that the
alleged transgression is- as follows – Ò ...Pvj‡Ki †nj‡gU, D/L, I/C bvB|Ó But the care paper bearing Serial No. 2762 Contains
the marks in repect of Section 137, 149
and 155 of the Motor Vehicles Ordinance, 1983 In fact, Section 138 of the said Ordinance
deals with the offence of driving without license which has not been marked by
the concerned police officer. It has also been marked the section 149 of the
said Act but the offence of that section is not evinced in
the fact of the alleged offence. More over, the
Concerned police officer has given a date of 28.02.2009 for appearing before
Traffic office, Gaibandha in the said case paper. He has not mentioned anything
else in respect of the appearance of the accused.
In view of the aforementioned reasons, the accused
in as the offence is bail able, is enlarged on bail subject to furnishing a
bond of TK. 3000/= with two Conventional sureties.
The concerned police officer Bikorna Kumer
Chawdhury, Police Inspector, Traffic officer, Gaibandha is directed to show cause
on the next date being present as to why he has marked section 149 and not
marked section 138 of the said Ordinance 1983. He is also directed to show cause
being Present physically on the next date as to why without complying with
section 159 of the said Ordinance 1983 has given a date to appear before the
traffic office of Gaibandha.
The case is ready for trial and hence the same is
transferred to the court of Learned. Senior judicial Magistrate Gaibandha and
the next date 30/08/2009 is fixed for trial and response.
The officer is directed to send a copy of this order
to the concerned show –caused police officer and the office is directed
accordingly.
Md. Azizur Rahman
Senior judicial Magistrate
Gaibandha
Next Order...
District:-Gaibandha
In
the court of SENIOR JUDICIAL Magistrate,GAIBANDHA.
Present: - Md Azizur Rahman,
Senior Judicial Magistrate, Gaibandha.
Date of passing order 13.09.2009
Non General Register (NGR) Case No. 75 of 2009
Arising out of Gaibandha Town
Vehicles prosecution No. 117/09 dated 24.05.2009
Under sections
137,149,155,138 and 159 of the Motor Vehicles Ordinance, 1983.
The State ... Prosecution
-Versus-
...
Accused
Order No...05
A`¨ PvR© we‡ePbvi Rb¨ Av‡Q| †gvU
Avmvgx 01 Rb Rvwg‡b Av‡Qb| Rvwg‡b gy³ Avmvgx nvwRiv w`qv‡Qb| Avmvgx c‡¶ †`vl
¯^xKv‡ii cÖv_©bv bw_f~³ Av‡Q| Seen the
aforementioned note and the physical appearance of the show caused police
officer. Heard the oral apology and perused the same in writing also.
After perusal of the record, it appears that though
the accused at the time of driving the motorcycle, had no the driving licence with
him but he got the same from BRTA Gaibandha and he showed before this Court the
original driving licence which was also verified by C S I Md. Kamrul Islam. The
necessity of a driving license relates to have a skill by which the licencee
can drive vehicle safely.
Infact, in this
case, the accused duly got the licence but the same was not with him at the
time of driving the motorcycle on that day and hence the accused is discharged
from the allegation of section 138 of the motor vehicles ordinance 1983.
There is no information in respect of the defect of
the said motor cycle for which this court can not make the presumption as to
the unsafe condition of the said vehicle and hence the accused is also
discharged from the allegation of section 149 of the said ordinance 1983.
The accused
had no insurance certificate with him and even he has not shown the same before
this court and accordingly there is the necessity of framing the charge of
section 155 of the said ordinance 1983.
In addition to
this, though the concerned police officer has not inserted section 154 of the
said ordinance 1983 but for the voluntary admission of the accused in driving
the said vehicle exceeding permissible weight through carrying three persons,
there is also the necessity of framing charge of this section.
However, for
the existence of the ingredients of sections 154 and 155, of the said ordinance
1983, the charges are framed against the accused and the framed charges were
read over and explained to the accused and who there after admitted his
aforementioned guilty orally and in writing.
In view of the aforementioned reasons the accused is
convicted and sentenced to pay a fine of TK. 200/- ( two hundred) and 500 (five
hundred) only for the offence of section 154 and 155 of the said ordinance 1983
respectively within two weeks from this date and in default to under go simple
imprisonment for 3 (three) days.
In respect of avoiding the mistake in future which is done
by the concerned police officer, Bikorna Kumar chowdhury, police inspector
(traffic office) Gaibandha, the present traffic officer of Gaibandha is directed
to mention in the case slip the amount of fine and the concerned account number
of depositing the money of fine to which any accused being fined can deposit
the same.
He is further directed to submit a copy of the from of
case slip in complying with aforementioned directions and making the addition
of the same within two month from this date to this court. Next date 13.11.2009
is fixed for the same.
(Md. Azizur Rahman)
Senior Judicial Magistrate,
Gaibandha
Memo No. Date
Copy of the order
is sent for necessary steps
1.
Superintendent
of police, Gaibandha.
2.
Traffic
Inspector of Gaibandha District
(Md. Azizur Rahman)
Senior Judicial
Magistrate,
Gaibandha
District:-Gaibandha
In the court of SENIOR JUDICIAL
Magistrate, GAIBANDHA.
Present:Md Azizur Rahman, Senior
Judicial Magistrate, Gaibandha
Date of passing order 27/12/2010
General Register Case No. 703 of 201 (Gobindagonj)
Arising out of Gobindhogonj police
Station 41 dated 26.12.2010
Under sections 328/379 of the penal Code
The State ... Prosecution
-Versus-
Ranju Miah and another ... accused
Av‡`k bs-01
Zvs- 27/12/2010
‡Mvwe›`MÄ _vbvi gvgjv bs- 41 Zvs
26/01/2010 aviv 328/379 `t wet msµv‡š— Avmvgx 1) iÄy wgqv 2) kvwKj ؇qi wei“‡×
ev`xi Awf‡hvMmn cÖv_wgK Z_¨ weeiYx cvIqv †Mj|
Zrmn AÎ gvgjvi
Z`š—Kvix Awdmvi gvgjvi GRvnvi bvgxq Avmvgx 1) iÄy wgqv 2) kvwKj Øq‡K †MÖdZvi
Kwiqv Avmvgxi Pvjvb d‡ivqvwWs gva¨‡g Av`vj‡Z †mvc`© Kwiqv‡Qb|
a„Z AvmvgxØq‡K gvgjv myôz Z`‡š—i
¯^v‡_© 05 (cvuP) w`‡bi cywjk wigv‡Ûi Av‡e`bmn wmwW †cÖiY Kwiqv‡Qb| Seen the aforementioned note
including two arrestees and heard both of them. The confessional statements of
the produced two arrestees are recorded duly as section 164 of the code of
criminal procedure does not provide the matter of exclusive jurisdiction of the
police officer for making the application in order to record either the
statements or the confession.
Moreover, as per the aforementioned
section 164 of
the code of criminal procedure of 1898, the matter of application by the police officer concerned for
recording either the statement or confession is not mandatory rather directory
only. For the failure to comply with the procedure of making the application
for recording the statements and the confession are not visited with any
consequence and accordingly the same is directory only. In respect of this the
Supreme Court of Bangladesh has declared the following law in the case of
KOHINOOR CHEMICAL CO. LTD. – VS- EASTERN SHIPPERS & TRADERS reported in 41
DLR (HCD) 387. “If failure to comply with a legal provision is not visited with
any consequence the provision is generally treated as directory.”
For
the aforementioned reasons the confession of both accused are recorded duly and
having no necessity of police remand of the accused, the application for remand
is rejected.
The recorded confessions of the
accused speaks the torture against the accused Ronju Miah by the Police in the
Police station of Gobindaganj and hence it is necessary to makes an
investigation as to this facts of torture and accordingly let a copy of this
order along with the photocopies of the recorded confessions, and FIR and FI of
this case be communicated to the superintended of police of Gaibandha District
so that he can depute a competent Police officer for making an investigation
under section 202 of the code of criminal procedure of 1898 and submitting a
report on or before the next date of 06.01.2011.
Let the arrestee Ronju Miah be
produced before the concerned doctor of Gaibandha Sadar Hospital who after
examining the accused aforesaid shall submit an injury certificate on or before
the next date of 06th January 2011 before this court and send the
accused to Jail hajat in accordance with the provision of law. Next date 06.01.2011 is fixed for production
of the accused and submission of the investigation report and injury
certificate.
The office is directed accordingly.
(Mohammad Azizur Rahman)
Date: 27/12/2010.
Senior Judicial Magistrate,
Gaibandha
8. Model Order under section 157 or 167 of CrPC
District:-Gaibandha
IN the 2nd court
of SENIOR JUDICAL Magistrate, GAIBANDHA
Present: - Md. Azizur Rahman,
Senior Judicial Magistrate, Gaibandha
Date of passing order: -
01.04.2012
General Register Case
No.
Under sections…
the of Penal Code
The State
Prosecution
-Versus-
… and others Accused
Order No.
Seen the aforementioned note and heard
the learned advocate Mr. Nironjan Kumar Ghose and no CSI is present. After
perusal of this record, it appears to this court that the record of this case
does not contain the case diary containing the facts and circumstances got
through the investigation within and beyond twenty four hours without which
this Court is not in a position to determine the grounds of authorizing the
detention of the accused in jail custody. The first information and the 2nd
column of the first information report do not contain the name of this arrested
person. The alleged offence does not provide the punishment of either death
sentence or life imprisonment as has been mentioned in section 497 of the code
of criminal procedure. Moreover, the learned legal practitioner Mr. NironjanKumar
Ghose appearing on behalf of this arrested person submits that the
investigation officer of this case without informing and mentioning the grounds
and violating the fundamental right of this arrestee under article-33 of our Constitution,
has forwarded mechanically the said arrested person before this Court. There is
no chance of being absconder as the arrestee is a reputed farmer of this District
and permanent citizen of this state.
In view of the aforementioned reasons,
the application for bail of this arrested person is allowed subject to
furnishing a bond of TK 500/- (five hundred) only with two sureties of when one
must be the engaged legal practitioner
for a period of two weeks from today. Mean while the investigation officer of
this case is directed under the authority of regulation No 21. of Police
regulation- 1943 and the supervisory authority according to the law declared in
the case of Serajuddowla v.Abdul Kader reported in 45 DLR (AD) 101, to
submit the copy of the case diary within two weeks containing the facts and
circumstances of this case got through the investigation within twenty four
hours and later on and failing which the arrested person’s interim bail shall
be extended and the liability of non-compliance with the order of this Court shall
be incurred accordingly.
Let
a copy of this order be communicated to the District Superintendent of police
of Gaibandha and the investigation officer of this case through the officer in-
charge of the police station immediately by a special messenger for taking
steps.
Mohammad
Azizur Rahman
Senior Judicial
Magistrate
Gaibandha
9. Model Order under regulation 283 of PRB-1943 and section 164 of CrPC
Av‡`k bs ZvwiL
02
17/05/2012Bs
A`¨ gvgjvi Z`š—Kvix Awdmvi
gvgjvi GRvnvi bvgxq Avmvgx (1) †gvQv tKzjmyg
†eMg ¯^vgx †gvt Aveyj Kv‡kg ,mvs gywÝcvocvov (DËi evwbqvi Rvb ) Ges gvgjvi
NUbvi mwnZ RwoZ (Z`š— cÖvß ) Avmvgx (2) †gvQvt
gwR©bv ¯^vgx Avwgi“j Bmjvg mvs Lvucvov gvZ…m`b ‡ivo ,Dfq _vbvI ‡Rjv
MvBevÜv Øq‡K †MÖdZvi Kwiqv Pvjvb
d‡ivqvwWs mn cywjk ¯‹‡Ui gva¨‡g weÁ Av`vj‡Z †mvc`© Kwiqv‡Qb Ges gvgjvi myô
Z`‡š—i ¯^v‡_© †MÖdZviKzZ Avmvgx Kzjmyg Gi ‡dxt Kvtwet 161 avivi Revbew›` mn
Avmvgx †gvQvt Kzjmyg †eMg Gi †dxtKvt we t 164 avivi Revbew›` wjwce‡×i Rb¨
Av‡e`b `vwLj Kwiqv‡Qb|
Seen the aforementioned note and two arrested
persons (woman) and after perusal of this record it appears clearly to this
court that the investigating officer of this case has not complied with
regulation 283 of Police Regulation 1943 with out which this court finds no
reason of recording judicially the confession of the aforesaid two arrestee .
In view of the abovementioned vital reason and the
facts and circumstances of this case, the investigating officer of this case is
directed to comply with regulation No 283 of Police Regulation 1943 and submit
a verification report accordingly within 07 days. Keep the application dated
17.05.2012 with this record for passing order subject to having the said
verification report within orbit of the aforementioned regulation.
For the non
compliance with the said regulation 283, within the above noted time, the
application dated 17.05.2012 submitted by the investigating officer of this
case, shall stand cancelled or rejected.
Let a copy of
this order be communicated to the District superintendent of Police of
Gaibandha and the investigating officer at once for necessary steps.
Send the two arrestees meanwhile to the jail hajat
as there is over acts against them. Next date 23.05.2012
The office is directed accordingly.
Mohammad Azizur Rahman
Senior Judicial Magistrate,
Gaibandha
No comments:
Post a Comment