| Case ID |
0fc5fa51-3dd8-4119-ad99-b48fa625e7f2 |
| Body |
View case body. Login to View |
| Case Number |
Revision Cases NOS. 639, 646 and 717 of 1957 |
| Decision Date |
Nov 11, 1968 |
| Hearing Date |
|
| Decision |
The Dacca High Court held that the necessary implication of the expression 'on conviction before a Magistrate' under section 167 of the Sea Customs Act indicates that the trial of an offence under this section must be conducted by a Magistrate. The Court clarified that the term 'Magistrate' includes a Magistrate appointed under the Code of Criminal Procedure. Furthermore, the Court ruled that the appeal against a conviction under section 167(8)(a) of the Sea Customs Act should be directed to the Court of Sessions, not the High Court, based on the provisions of section 408 of the Criminal Procedure Code. This decision stemmed from the interpretation of the powers conferred on Magistrates and the jurisdictional limits regarding appeals, particularly in cases involving sentences exceeding four years. |
| Summary |
In the case of Revision Cases NOS. 639, 646 and 717 of 1957, the Dacca High Court addressed critical issues surrounding the Sea Customs Act, 1878. The focal point was the interpretation of section 167(8)(a), which pertains to the trial and conviction of individuals for customs violations. The Court emphasized that a Magistrate of the First Class must conduct the trial, as the expression 'on conviction before a Magistrate' implies a specific legal framework. The decision clarified that appeals from such convictions should be directed to the Court of Sessions, and not the High Court, especially when sentences exceed four years. This ruling underscores the importance of understanding jurisdictional boundaries and procedural laws in customs-related legal matters. Importantly, this case highlights the intersection of the Sea Customs Act and the Criminal Procedure Code, shedding light on the procedural intricacies involved in appeals and the powers vested in different classes of Magistrates. The ruling serves as a precedent for future cases involving similar legal questions, ensuring clarity in the application of laws governing customs offenses. |
| Court |
Dacca High Court
|
| Entities Involved |
Not available
|
| Judges |
M. R. KHAN,
MAKSUM-UL-HAKIM
|
| Lawyers |
Not available
|
| Petitioners |
ALOK KUMAR MITRA,
Bindra Bhusan Kundu,
Ramjan Ali,
Afsaruddin
|
| Respondents |
THE STATE
|
| Citations |
1970 SLD 165,
1970 PLD 279
|
| Other Citations |
Rajab All Bepari v. Province of East Pakistan P L D 1958 Dacca 552,
Abdul Hannan v. Government of East Pakistan P L D 1959 Dacca 279,
Mst. Noor Jahan Begum v. Authorised Officer, Chittagong P L D 1967 Dacca 166,
20 D L R 546,
10 D L R 469,
12 D L R 407
|
| Laws Involved |
Sea Customs Act, 1878,
Criminal Procedure Code, 1898
|
| Sections |
167,
30,
408
|