High Court Division
Abdullah Al Noman v The State
Criminal Appeal (H) 3625/2017 · Appeal allowed; conviction and sentence set aside · Decided 9 June 2026
The appellant was convicted by the Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, 5th Court, Chattogram under Table 9(Kha) of section 19(1) of the Madok Drabba Niyantron Ain, 1990 and sentenced to six years' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Tk 3,000. The prosecution case was that an inspector of the Madak Drabba Niyantron Adhidaptar, acting on secret information, detained the appellant on 03.09.2012 and recovered incriminating articles from his pant pocket in the presence of witnesses. On appeal, the defence relied on decisions that search and seizure must strictly comply with section 103 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, that failure to examine independent witnesses raises a presumption under section 114(g) of the Evidence Act, and that recovery is not proved where seizure list witnesses are not examined. The State relied on authority that credible police evidence alone may support a conviction. Having considered the submissions and the settled principle laid down by the Appellate Division, the High Court Division allowed the appeal and set aside the conviction and sentence.
- Whether the conviction and sentence under Table 9(Kha) of section 19(1) of the Madok Drabba Niyantron Ain, 1990 could be sustained in light of the principles on proof of search and seizure relied on by the appellant.
- Applying the settled principle of law laid down by the Appellate Division and cited for the appellant, the conviction and sentence could not be sustained.
- The Appellate Division authority relied on (The State v Asif Khan Riyad, 7 ALR (AD) 2016(1) 8) states that where seizure list witnesses are not examined, recovery of the seized articles from the accused's possession is not proved.
- The State's reliance on Tuta Pramanik v State, 59 DLR 492, that credible police evidence alone may found a conviction, did not prevail over that principle.
- The judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 23.03.2017 in Sessions Case No. 1602 of 2013 was set aside.
Having considered the submissions of the learned advocate and settled principle of law by the Hon’ble Appellate Division, I am of the considered view that the Justice would be best served if the appeal is allowed.
