Tuesday, July 16, 2019 | ePaper

Validity period of affidavit

  • Print
High Court Division :
(Criminal Miscellaneous Jurisdiction)
Farah Mahbub J
Mahmudul Hoque J
Khaza Tareq ........
......... Accused-Petitioner
(On Surrender)
vs
State ..... Opposite Parties·
Order
August 22nd, 2017
Supreme Court of Bangladesh (High Court Division) Rules, 1973
Chapter IVA rule 6(6)
The validity period of application for hearing of the same has already been expired.
Application is rejected summarily. . ..... (3 & 4)
AKM Alamgir Parvez Bhuiyan, Advocate-For the Opposite-Party No.2.
AKM Zahirul Huq, DAG with M Masud Atam Chowdhury, AAG and Sathi Shahjahan. AAG- For the State.
Order
In this application filed under section 498 of the Code of Criminal Procedure the petitioner has sought for anticipatory bail in Boalia Model Police Station Case No.7 dated 5-12-2016 under sections 409/ 420/467/468/471/109 of the Penal Code read with section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947, now pending in the court of Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Rajshahi.
2. Chapter IVA Rule 6(6) of the Supreme Court (High Court Division) Rules, 1973 provides, inter-alia
"(6) Validity period of affidavit: An application/petition for motion in criminal cases shall be filed with the Bench Officer of an appropriate Bench within 45 days after the affidavit is sworn in and on the expiry of the said 45 days validity of the affidavit shall expire.
Explanation : The period of 45 days shall not be construed as an extension of the period  of limitation, if any."  
3. In view of the above, the validity period of this application for hearing of the same has already been expired.
4. Accordingly, this application is rejected summarily.
Communicate the order at once.

More News For this Category

Failure of Repayment

(From previous issue) :8. Subsequently, the names of the petitioners were classified in the lists of CIB and the petitioners challenged in Writ Petition Nos. 7161-62 of 2017 &

Section 55 Of The VAT Act

High Court Division :(Special Original Jurisdiction) Farah Mahbub J SM Maniruzzaman J BRAC Bank Limited ... ................. Petitioner……………………………VS National Board of Revenue and others…….………Respondents Judgment November 7th, 2018 Constitution of

Change in Waqf Management

(From previous issue) 19. The one and only core ground taken by the writ petitioner is that the inquiry officer (respondent No.4) without notifying the petitioner conducted the alleged

Failure of Repayment

High Court Division :(Special Original Jurisdiction) Md Ashfaqul Islam J Mohammad Ali J Nassa Tipei Spinners Limited and others .............Petitioners                    vs     Judgment February 26th, 2019 Bangladesh 

Code Of Criminal Procedure

High Court Division :(Criminal Miscellaneous Jurisdiction) ANM Bashir Ullah   J Mustafa Zaman Islam J  Sumon Ahmed (Md) alias Sumon-----------Accused-Petitioner             vs State--------Respondent Judgment July 24th, 2018     Code of

Change in Waqf Management

High Court Division : (Special Original Jurisdiction) Moyeenul Islam  Chowdhury J Md Ashraful Kamal J Habib Ahmed Shukur     Morshed……………Petitioner         vs  Waqf Administrator Bangladesh and others……………. Respondents JudgmentSeptember

Sale And Distribution Of Proceeds

High Court Division :(Civil Revisional Jurisdiction)Quazi Reza-ul Hoque JMohammad Ullah JAbdul Hai Munshi...................Petitioner vsDeputy General Manager, Sonali Bank Limited, Dhaka and 3 (three) others. Opposite- Parties Code of Civil

Principal of Natural Justice

High Court Division :(Special Original jurisdiction)Sheikh Hassan Arif   JMd Badruzzaman    JAbu Syed Bhuiyan (Md) and others….…………Petitioners                VSDhaka North and South City Corporation and others……RespondentsJudgment January 9th, 2018 Local Government

Section 42 of the Specific Relief Act

Appellate Division (Civil)  Md Abdul Wahhab Miah JMuhammad Imman Ali JHassan Foez Siddique JPear Ali (Md) @  Pear Ali Bepari and others .............vsMd Abdul Hai and others............ . RespondentsJudgmentAugust

Valuation Rules and PSI Obligations

(To be continued)11. Though the Tribunal observed that CRF certified price is not tallied with the contemporary price of identical goods but did not elaborate its observation by referring