Tuesday, January 22, 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)
State ..... Opposite Parties·
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.
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

Court is legally authorized to review or modify sentence

(From previous issue) :16. Mr Monjur Kader, the learned Deputy Attorney General appearing on behalf of the state submits that PWs 2.3 and 4 who were present at the

Defaulter would not be appointed or remain as bank director

High Court Division :(Special Original Jurisdiction) Zinat Ara      JKazi  Md Ejarul Haque Akondo   J Abdul Awal Patwary Dhaka Bangladesh…………Petitioner                       VSPeople's Republic of Bangladesh represented by the Secretary Ministry of Finance

The plaintiff is at liberty to value the suit

High Court Division :       (Civil Revisional Jurisdiction) Mahmudul Hoque J  Ismail Mia. (Md).............. . Plaintiff- Petitioner                   Vs Abeda Khatun and others……Defendant- Opposite-PartiesJudgment July 10th, 2018Code of Civil Procedure (V

Court is legally authorized to review or modify sentence

High Court Division  :(Criminal Miscellaneous Jurisdiction) Md Emdadul Huq J Md Shohrowardi J Nasir Mia (Md)     . ........ Convict-Petitioner vsState.....Opposite-PartyJudgmentMay 29th, 2018 State ..... Opposite-Party'Code of Criminal Procedure

Fact should not be disputed by the opposite party

(From previous issue)16. He further argued that Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, shall attract where any cheque drawn by a person on an account "maintained by him"

Normal transaction does not come within the scope of any offence

Appellate Division :(Criminal) Nazmun Ara Sultana JSyed Mahmud Hossain JMd Imman Ali  JMA Sukkur.................AppellantvsMd Zahirul Haque and another............RespondentsJudgmentMay 6th, 2014Penal Code (XLV of 1860) Section 420 Normal financial transaction

Affairs of a private organization cannot be interfered in a writ forum

High Court Division :(Special Original Jurisdiction) Md. Habibul Gani JMd. Akram Hossain Chowdhury JBirisiri Division of Garo Baptist Convention Bangladesh represented by its Secretary, Pastor Bimol Sangma.................... PetitionerVSRegistrar, Joint

Fact should not be disputed by the opposite party

High Court Division :(Criminal Miscellaneous Jurisdiction)Farah Mahbub JMahmudul Hoque JShahidul Islam (Md).....Accused-Petitioner in all the casesvsState and another.........Opposite-Parties in all the casesJudgmentFebruary 5th, 2018Code of Criminal Procedure (V of

Decision rejecting applications for pre-qualification etc not questionable

(From previous issue)16.    In the instant case although the petitioner claims to have filed a complaint to the administrative authority and thereafter to CPTU against the decision of the

Old documents bear evidentiary value

High Court Division(Civil Revisional Jurisdiction) Khizir Ahmed  Choudhury JLablu Ansar (Md). ……..Petitioner                vs     Md Salim Uddin and others ………………… Opposite-PartiesJudgment October 26th, 2017 Evidence Act (I of 1872)