Supreme Court Judgments, Summarised

by Barrister Tahmidur Rahman | Nov 3, 2026

Summary

An Upazila Food Controller lodged a First Information Report alleging that 500 sacks of rice, about 25 metric tons valued at about Tk. 15,00,000, had been found stored for hoarding, and the rice was seized. The case, under sections 3(Gha)/4 of the 2023 food products Act, was sent to the Joint Sessions Judge, 3rd Court, Naogaon for trial. Although the Investigating Officer reported that the petitioner owned the rice, the Magistrate refused custody, a revision before the Sessions Judge failed, and the trial court rejected a fresh application on 13.11.2025. The petitioner obtained a Rule in criminal revision. The High Court Division noted that section 11 of the Act lets the court keep only the samples needed as evidence and sell or otherwise dispose of the rest. As the rice had stayed in police custody for over a year without proper maintenance and could become unfit for consumption, the Court made the Rule absolute and directed release of the remaining rice to the petitioner on a bond of Tk. 15,00,000.

Issues

  1. Q1

    Whether seized rice, held in police custody for over a year in a hoarding case, should be released to the accused owner pending trial, having regard to section 11 of the 2023 food products Act.

Key points

  • Under section 11 of the 2023 Act, where perishable or non-perishable goods are seized, the court may preserve only the quantity of samples needed for evidentiary purposes and order the remainder sold by public auction or otherwise disposed of.
  • No useful purpose is served by keeping seized rice in police custody where it has remained there for more than a year without proper maintenance and may become unfit for consumption.
  • 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 alleged offence is proved, the amount secured by the bond is liable to forfeiture to the Government; otherwise the bond stands discharged to the owner.

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.

From the judgment, Justice Md. Khairul Alam
Law considered

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, section 439 read with section 435Food Products (Production, Storage, Transfer, Transportation, Supply, Distribution and Marketing) (Prevention of Harmful Activities) Act, 2023, section 11Food Products (Production, Storage, Transfer, Transportation, Supply, Distribution and Marketing) (Prevention of Harmful Activities) Act, 2023, sections 3(Gha)/4

The judgment

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.

PDF
Call the Dhaka office+880 1708 000660WhatsApp · message usMessage our team
Message TRW on WhatsApp