High Court Division · Criminal Revisional Jurisdiction
Md. Shiblu Hossain v The State
Criminal Revision 1935/2026 · Decided 19 August 2026
Following a raid by the Upazila Food Controller, Badalgachhi, Naogaon, 500 sacks of rice were seized on an allegation of hoarding, and a case was lodged against the petitioner and another under sections 3(Gha) and 4 of the 2023 Act on harmful activities in the production, storage, transport, supply, distribution and marketing of food products. The investigating officer reported that the petitioner owned the rice, but the Magistrate refused his application for custody, the Sessions Judge rejected his revision, and the Joint Sessions Judge, 3rd Court, Naogaon later rejected a fresh application. The petitioner then obtained a Rule. The High Court Division noted that section 11 of the Act allows the court, at its discretion, to keep only the samples needed as evidence and dispose of the rest. As the rice had lain in police custody for over a year without proper preservation and might spoil, keeping it served no purpose. The Rule was made absolute and the rice, less samples, released on a Tk. 15 lakh bond.
- Q1
Whether rice seized on an allegation of hoarding should remain in police custody pending trial, or be released to its owner subject to retention of samples and a bond.
- Under section 11 of the Act, where goods are seized the court may, at its discretion, preserve only such samples as are necessary for evidence and dispose of the remaining quantity by public auction or otherwise.
- Where seized rice had remained in police custody for over a year without proper maintenance and risked becoming unfit for consumption, no useful purpose was served by keeping it in police custody.
- The trial court was directed to retain only the requisite samples and release the remaining rice to the petitioner on execution of a bond of Tk. 15,00,000.
- If the offence is proved, the amount secured by the bond is liable to forfeiture to the Government; otherwise the bond stands discharged.
In the above facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the view that no useful purpose would be served by allowing the seized rice to remain in police custody.
In the court’s own words.
Criminal Revision 1935/2026, as published by the Supreme Court of Bangladesh. 5 pages, with paragraph numbers for citing.
1
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BANGLADESH
HIGH COURT DIVISION
(CRIMINAL REVISIONAL JURISDICTION)
CRIMINAL REVISION NO. 1935 of 2026
IN THE MATTER OF:
Md. Shiblu Hossain
… Accused-petitioner
-VERSUS-
The State
..Opposite party
Mr. Md. Mahabubur Rahman, Advocate
…For the petitioner
Mr. Mirza Al Mahmood, D.A.G with
Mr. Md. Masudul Alam Doha,D.A.G
Mr. Md. Nasimul Hasan, A.A.G
Mr.Md. Husni Mubarak, A.A.G
Mr. Syed Akhtarul Islam, A.A.G and
Mr. Khan Mahfuzur Noor, A.A.G
….For the State
Heard & Judgment on 19.08.2026.
Present
Mr. Justice Md. Khairul Alam
And
Mr. Justice Md. Rafizul Islam
Md. Khairul Alam, J.
This Rule was issued on an application under section 439
1read with section 435 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, calling upon the opposite party to show cause as to why the judgment and order dated 13.11.2025 passed by the learned Joint Sessions Judge, 3rd Court, Naogaon, in Sessions Case No. 3995 of 2025, arising out of Badalgachhi Police Station Case No. 01 dated 04.07.2025, corresponding to G.R. No. 122 of 2025, under sections 3(Gha)/4 of the খাদ ব উৎপাদন, মজুত, ানা র, পিরবহণ, সরবরাহ, িবতরণ ও িবপণন ( িতকর F:\Kashem, BO (Crl. MIsc. Division)\Criminal Judgment\Cr. Rev. No. 1935 of 2026 -Zimma-Jimma-Custody (Rule Absolute)..doc
কায ম িতেরাধ) আইন, ২০২৩, rejecting the application filed by the petitioner for taking jimma of the seized 500 bags of rice, should not be set aside and as to why the seized goods should not be handed over to the jimma of the petitioner and/or such other or further order or orders should not be passed as to this Court may seem fit and proper.
Relevant facts for disposal of the Rule are that one Md.
2Mizanur Rahman, Upazila Food Controller, Badalgachhi, Naogaon, as informant, lodged a First Information Report with Badalgachhi Police Station, Naogaon, implicating the present petitioner and another as accused alleging, inter alia, that on 03.07.2025, at about 11:00 a.m., acting upon secret information, the informant party raided the house of accused No. 2, Md. Zahidul Islam and found substantial quantity of Katari Atap rice stored for the purpose of hoarding. The informant party arrested the accused persons and seized 500 sacks of rice, each weighing approximately 50 kilograms, aggregating 25,000 kilograms (25 metric tons) and valued at approximately Tk. 15,00,000/- (Taka fifteen lakh) at the place of occurrence. On the basis of the said First Information Report, Badalgachhi Police Station Case No. 01 dated 04.07.2025 was registered, giving rise to G.R. Case No. 122 of 2025, which was subsequently transferred to the Court of Sessions and registered as Sessions Case No. 3995 of 2025 for trial. F:\Kashem, BO (Crl. MIsc. Division)\Criminal Judgment\Cr. Rev. No. 1935 of 2026 -Zimma-Jimma-Custody (Rule Absolute)..doc
During the pendency of the case for investigation, the
3petitioner filed an application before the learned Magistrate seeking custody of the seized rice. Upon such application, the learned Magistrate directed the Investigating Officer to submit a report, and the Investigating Officer, by report dated 18.07.2025 (Annexure-C), opined that the petitioner is the owner of the seized rice. Notwithstanding the said report, the learned Magistrate, by order dated 22.07.2025, rejected the petitioner's application for custody. Against the said order dated 22.07.2025, the petitioner preferred a Criminal Revision before the learned Sessions Judge, Naogaon, which was also rejected.
Thereafter, upon transfer of the case to the Court of Sessions
4for trial, the accused-petitioner again filed a fresh application before the trial Court seeking custody of the seized rice, which was also rejected by the impugned order dated 13.11.2025.
Being aggrieved thereby, the petitioner moved before this
5Court and obtained the instant Rule.
Mr. Md. Mahabubur Rahman, learned Advocate appearing for
6the petitioner, submits that the petitioner is the owner of the seized rice, which has been lying in the custody of the police station without proper care and maintenance and, as such, there is every likelihood of the rice being damaged or rotten and therefore, prays for handing over custody of the seized rice to the petitioner.
Mr. Mirza Al Mahmood, learned Deputy Attorney General,
7opposes the Rule. F:\Kashem, BO (Crl. MIsc. Division)\Criminal Judgment\Cr. Rev. No. 1935 of 2026 -Zimma-Jimma-Custody (Rule Absolute)..doc
We have heard the learned Advocates for the respective
8parties and perused the materials on record.
The relevant provision for disposal of the seized article under
9the Ain is provided in section 11, which runs as follows:
“ ১১। জ কৃত খাদ ব িন ি করণ- (১) জুিডিসয়াল ম া জে ট বা, মত,
মে াপিলটন ম া জে ট আদালত, এই আইেনর অধীন জ কৃত খাদ ব ——
(ক) ত পচনশীল হইেল ীয় িবেবচনায় আলামত িহসােব েয়াজনীয়
পিরমাণ নমুনা সংর ণ কিরয়া অবিশ পিরমাণ তাৎ িণকভােব কাশ িনলােম
িব য় বা অন কােনা উপােয় িন ি র আেদশ দান কিরেবন;
(খ) ত পচনশীল না হইেল আলামত িহসােব েয়াজনীয় পিরমাণ নমুনা
সংর ণ কিরয়া অবিশ পিরমাণ সেবা ৪৫ (পঁয়তাি শ) কাযিদবেসর মেধ কাশ
িনলােম বা বািণ জ কভােব লাভজনক অন কােনা আইনস ত উপােয় িব য় বা
অন কােনা উপােয় িন ি র আেদশ দান কিরেবন।
(২) উপধারা (১) এর অধীন িব য়ল অথ রা য় কাষাগাের জমা কিরেত
হইেব।
(৩) মামলা িন ি র পর অপরাধ মািণত হইেল, িব য়ল অথ সরকােরর
অনুকূেল বােজয়া হইেব, তেব অপরাধ মািণত না হইেল, িব য়ল সমুদয় অথ
জ কৃত খাদ েব র কৃত মািলকেক ফরত দান কিরেত হইেব।“
(underlie supplied)
From the said provision it appears that if any perishable/non-
10perishable goods are seized under the Act, the Court may, at its discretion, preserve only such quantity of samples as is necessary for evidentiary purposes and direct the immediate sale of the remaining quantity by public auction or dispose of the same in any other manner. F:\Kashem, BO (Crl. MIsc. Division)\Criminal Judgment\Cr. Rev. No. 1935 of 2026 -Zimma-Jimma-Custody (Rule Absolute)..doc
In the case at hand, it appears that the alleged rice was
11seized on 03.07.2025 on the allegation of hoarding. The seized rice has already remained in the custody of the police station for more than one year without proper maintenance and preservation. In such circumstances, there is every possibility that the rice may become unfit for consumption if it continues to remain in the police custody. In the above facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the view that no useful purpose would be served by allowing the seized rice to remain in police custody.
Therefore, we find merit in the Rule.
Accordingly, the Rule is made absolute.
The Court concerned is directed to retain only the requisite
12quantity of the seized rice as samples for evidentiary purposes and to release the remaining rice to the petitioner, namely, Md. Shiblu Hossain, upon execution of a bond of Tk.15,00,000/- (fifteen lakh).
In the event that the alleged offence is proved, the amount
13secured by the bond shall be liable to forfeiture to the Government; otherwise, the bond shall stand discharged to the owner.
Communicate the order at once.
Md. Rafizul Islam, J.
I agree.
14Kashem, B.O F:\Kashem, BO (Crl. MIsc. Division)\Criminal Judgment\Cr. Rev. No. 1935 of 2026 -Zimma-Jimma-Custody (Rule Absolute)..doc
Related summaries.
From the record to your case.
Our advocates appear before both divisions of the Supreme Court. These are the practice areas that handle matters like this one.
- Supreme Court practice in BangladeshSlips, mentioning, cause lists and appearances→
- Case JourneysHow a case moves through the courts, step by step→
- Limitation and appeal deadline calculatorKnow your last day to file→
- Curative petitions in BangladeshFinality, article 104 and the case for reform→
- Constitution guideEvery article and amendment, animated→
- Bangladesh legal glossaryBangla and English legal terms, explained→
