Representation of People Order, 1972—
Article 12(1)— A company or partnership firm takes loan, and the loan is defaulted by the company or the firm, and in such a situation, every director of the defaulter company or partner of the firms) comes within the mischief of the disqualification for election—
Bank Companies Ain, 1991—
Section 5 (ga ga)— An individual or body would be declared as defaulter when a loan has taken in his/its own name as either director or guarantor in that body and the loan or part of it include interest remains unpaid for more than six months after it becomes due—
In the instant case the High Court Division came to a finding that the election of appellant was void as he was disqualified from being elected as a Member of Parliament on the ground of his default in payment of bank loan and telephone bill. In appeal, the Appellate Division held that appellant was a bank loan defaulter were not correct but defaulted in paying telephone bill and accordingly, the he was disqualified from being elected as per clause (n) of proviso to Article 12(1) of the RPO.
Md. Abul Kashem Vs. Mahmudul Hasan @ Major General Mahmudul Hasan (Rtd.) & others
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881—
Section 138— Dishonour of cheque for insufficiency of funds in the account—
The gravity of a complaint under the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 cannot be equated with an offence under the provisions of the Penal Code 1860 or other criminal offences. An offence u/s 138 of the Act is almost in the nature of a civil wrong which has been given criminal overtones. The court has given discretion to impose fine /sentence or both as compensation which meet the ends of justice—
Section 138(1) empowers the trial Court to punish with imprisonment for a maximum period of one year, or with fine which may extend to thrice the amount of the cheque or both. The language used in the section is not such that the Court must impose fine thrice the amount of the cheque. The powers given to the Court is discretionary. The legislature has left the matter to the discretion of the trial Court while awarding the sentence of imprisonment and fine. In the instant case, the trial Court awarded the maximum sentences both the period of imprisonment and fine. The appellate Court reduced the sentences of fine. The Appellate Division set aside the operating part of the judgments of the High Court Division so far as it relates to enhancement of the sentences of fine and restore those of the Court of appeal below.
Shahidur Rahman Khadem Vs. The State and others
High Court Division
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908—
Order XLI, Rule 27 read with section 107—
Production of additional evidence in the appellate Court—
The Appellant Court should not travel outside the record of Lower Court and cannot take evidence on appeal. However, Section 107(d) CPC is an exception to the general rule and additional evidence can be taken only when the conditions and limitations exist. The matter is entirely in the discretion of the Court which is, of course, to be exercised judiciously and sparingly—
Unless an application under Order 41 Rule 27 C.P.C. is filed for acceptance of the documents as evidence in a case and the documents are made exhibits, mere filing of the same in a Court is no ground for remand of a case on the ground that un-exhibited documents filed in the Court may be treated as evidence. In the instant case during pendency of the appeal the plaintiff-appellant-opposite parties did not filed any application before the Court of appeal below for acceptance of the documents filed by them before the trial Court or made any oral prayer to accept the documents as evidence filed by the plaintiffs with the plaint of the suit. Appellate Division held that the appellate Court below is competent enough to examine any witness or to take any evidence as like as trial Court and ought to have decided the case in accordance with law without sending back the case on remand.
Hafez Mawlana Humayun Kabir, Director, Hazrat Abu Sidique (Rh) Madrasha, Purba Keroya, Raipur, Laishmipur Vs. Md. Lokman and others
Registration Act, 1908—
Section 17— Documents of which registration is compulsory—
Registration is compulsory in order to create or to extinguish any right or title in immovable property—
In order to create or to extinguish any right or title in any landed property a registered deed, as per provision of section 17 of the Registration Act, 1908 is mandatory. High Court Division held that in a suit for declaration of title, mere possession of the property is not sufficient, unless the plaintiff can produce a document of title showing his acquisition of right, title and interest in the suit property.
President, Coronation Hall Committee & Deputy Commissioner, Khulna Vs. Executive Committee, Khulna & others
Evidence Act, 1872
Section 8— Motive, preparation and previous or subsequent conduct—
Motive is always relevant and bears a special significance in case which is based on circumstantial evidence. Absence of motive does not weaken a case but its existence certainly strengthens the case—
Section 27— How much of information received from accused may be proved—
The information disclosed by the evidences leading to the discovery of a fact, based on mental state of affair of the accused is admissible in evidence—
Section 30— Consideration of proved confession affecting person making it and others jointly under trial for same offence—
When more person than one are being tried jointly for the same offence and a confession made by one of such persons affecting himself and some other of such persons is proved, the Court may take into consideration such confession as against such persons as well as against the person who makes such confession
In this death reference, the appellant-condemned prisoners knowingly and deliberately made the criminal conspiracy, and in furtherance of their common intention of all generated from the conspiracy they brutally committed the murder of victims. High Court Division held that, the activities of all the appellant-condemned-prisoners are undoubtedly premeditated, cold-blooded and deliberate, backed by persistent ferocity and as such their elimination from the society is the only solution to preserve and protect the existing norms and thus, they deserve no leniency and the only proper sentence to be passed against them is one of death. Hence, the Tribunal below in consideration the facts and circumstances of the case has rightly sentenced all the appellants to death and as such High Court Division do not find any reason to interfere with the same or decide otherwise.
State Vs. Md. Sirajul Islam and others