Search Options
Judgment Search By Title
Whether the pre-emptors owned and possessed any land contiguous to the land transferred.
The schedule of the sale deed in question is an important indication to show the presence of any government or public road in between the land transferred and the land of the pre-emptors. If there would have any government or public road in between the land transferred and the land of the pre-emptors then this fact would have been surely mentioned in the schedule of the sale deed in question, and the non-mentioning of any such government or public road in the schedule of the sale deed in question disproves the purchaser's case that the land transferred and the land of the pre-emptors being intervened by a government road the pre-emptors cannot be treated as contiguous land holders…………………(11)
Mokthar Masum Abedin and others Vs. Nironjan Kumar Mondol and others, 1997, 26 CLC (HCD)
Shaheen Mahmood Alam (Md.) Vs. Ziaur Rahman & others, 1997, 26 CLC (HCD)
Maudud Vs. State, 1998, 27 CLC (HCD)
Shefali Rani and others Vs. Makhan Chandra Das and others, 1990, 19 CLC (HCD)
Zillul Haq and others Vs. Maloti Bala Dey & others, 1998, 27 CLC (HCD)
Akrab Ali and others Vs. Zahiruddin Kari and others, 1977, 6 CLC (AD)
Shamsul Kabir Humayun Reza Vs. Anwarul Hasan and Others, 2012, 41 CLC (AD)
Bangladesh and others Vs. M/s. Speedbird Navigation Co. and others, 1977, 6 CLC (AD)
Bangladesh Bank Vs. Sukamal Sinha Choudhury and another, 2011, 40 CLC (AD)
Md. Amzad Hossain Parag Vs. Md. Saiful Islam and others, 2012, 41 CLC (AD)
Md. Jafar Ullah Vs. Bangladesh, 2014, 43 CLC (HCD)
The Public Gambling Act, 1867 (Act No. II of 1867); section 3
The Penal Code, 1860 (Act No. XLV of 1860); section 294A
Gambling, its meaning, extent and status under law
a) any game that is played for money, wager or stake or in other words played risking money or something of value for a chance to win a prize is gambling.
b) the Nupun Khela including 1-10, 1-8, Dice and Howji are varied forms gambling. The words ‘gambling’ and ‘gaming’ appearing in the Public Gambling Act, 1867, are synonymous by connotation.
Whoever found present in the ‘common gaming-house’ for the purpose of gaming, no matter playing for money, wager, stake or otherwise, is punishable under the said Act.
c) owning, keeping or having charge of common gaming-house as contemplated under Section 3 of the Public Gambling Act, 1867, is an offence and punishable under the said section of law.
d) ‘Lottery’ is a form of gambling punishable under Section 294A of the Penal Code with exceptions provided therein.
e) the Magistrate of a district or other officer invested with full power of a Magistrate or the District Superintendent of Police may either himself enter, or by his warrant authorize any competent police officer to enter into any such gaming house and take into custody all persons present therein and seize all instruments of gaming including moneys, securities for money, and articles of value used or intended to be used for the purpose of gaming as contemplated in section 6 of the Public Gambling Act,1867.
f) There is no scope for holding cultural programs for public amusement as sought to be done by the petitioner save as provided by the Places of Public Amusement Act 1933. There must be ‘notified places of public amusement’ as per requirement of the Act for the purpose of such programs.
g) action or drive by police and other agencies competent so to take, against acts prohibited and punishable under law are taken as a matter of course and of duty under law. Law does not permit interference into agency-actions against crimes and anti-social activities unless it is shown that the activity sought to be prevented, inquired into or investigated by agencies are not prohibited by law or that the agency action is tainted with bad faith and apparent malice.
Sree Prodip Barua alias Bappi Vs. Faisal Madani and another, 2012, 41 CLC (AD)
Ershadul Vs. State, 2006, 35 CLC (HCD)
Md. Shahjahan Atmasder Vs. Government of Bangladesh and others, 2012, 41 CLC (AD)
Additional Deputy Commissioner (Revenue) and Assistant Custodian, Vested Property, Jamalpur Vs. Md. Ubbar Mondal and others, 2006, 35 CLC (HCD)
Mahbub-ul-Alam Md. (Minor) and another Vs. Md. Alimuddin Karikor, 2009, 38 CLC (HCD)
Md. Rejaul Haque @ Ezaul Vs. State, 2011, 40 CLC (HCD)
Ismail Vs. State, 2009, 38 CLC (HCD)
Nurul Islam and others Vs. Arif Ullah and others, 2012, 41 CLC (HCD)