SADARUDDIN AHMED CHISTY Vs. GOVERNMENT OF BANGLADESH
SUPREME COURT OF BANGLADESH
Sadaruddin Ahmed Chisty
Government Of Bangladesh
Click here to view full judgement.
MUSTAFA KAMAL,J. -
(1.) This petition for leave to appeal by the petitioner is from the judgment and order dated 16-8-94 passed by a Special Bench for the High Court Division under section 99D of the Code of Criminal Procedure in Criminal Miscellaneous Case No. 464 of 1994 making the rule absolute in part in relation to two forfeited books and discharging the Rule in part in relation to six forfeited books.
(2.) Eight books written by the petitioner were forfeited by the Ministry of Home Affairs by a Notification dated 8-12-93 published in the Bangladesh Gazette on 30-12-93. Two books written by another person were also similarly forfeited by the Government by a separate Notification of the same date. The forfeitures were made under section 99A(1)(a) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. In respect of the forfeiture of eight books the petitioner filed Criminal Miscellaneous Case No. 464 of 1994 under section 99B of the Code of Criminal Procedure and in respect of forfeiture of the other two books the author thereof filed Criminal Revision No. 668 of 1994. Both the cases were heard by a Special Bench of the High Court Division composed of three Judges, as required under section 99C of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The Special Bench discharged the Rule in Criminal Revision No.668 of 1994. The petitioners petition for leave is confined to the six books in respect of which the order of forfeiture dated 8-12-93 and the Notification dated 30-12-93 have been sustained by the Special Bench.
(3.) Mr. Md Abdur Rashid, learned Advocate for the petitioner, submits that the grounds of forfeiture stated in the Notification are not covered by section 99A(1) (a) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. He points out that the reasons given for forfeiture are:
[XXX-XXX-XXX]because of objectionable matters published which are subversive to the basic religious belief of Islamic believers] and these reasons are not enough to attract the mischief of section 295A of the Penal Code. He relies upon the decision in the case of the Working Muslim Mission & Literary Trust, Lahore vs. The Crown, 8 DLR (FC) 110.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.