ধারা-৩৯ (বেআইনি অথবা হয়রানিমূলক তল্লাশি, ইত্যাদির দণ্ড):মাদকদ্রব্য নিয়ন্ত্রণ আইন, ২০১৮

-

                                       মাদকদ্রব্য নিয়ন্ত্রণ আইন, ২০১৮

( ২০১৮ সনের ৬৩ নং আইন )

পঞ্চম অধ্যায়

অপরাধ ও দণ্ড



বেআইনি অথবা হয়রানিমূলক তল্লাশি, ইত্যাদির দণ্ড

৩৯। যদি তল্লাশি, আটক অথবা গ্রেফতার করিবার ক্ষমতাসম্পন্ন কোনো অফিসার-

(ক) সন্দেহ করিবার যুক্তিসংগত কোনো কারণ ব্যতিরেকে তল্লাশির নামে কোনো স্থানে প্রবেশ করেন ও তল্লাশি চালান,

(খ) হয়রানিমূলকভাবে বাজেয়াপ্তযোগ্য কোনো বস্তু তল্লাশি করিবার নামে কোনো ব্যক্তির কোনো সম্পদ আটক করেন, এবং

(গ) কোনো ব্যক্তিকে হয়রানিমূলক তল্লাশি করেন অথবা গ্রেফতার করেন, তাহা হইলে তিনি অনূর্ধ্ব ১ (এক) বৎসর কারাদণ্ডে অথবা অর্থদণ্ডে অথবা উভয় দণ্ডে দণ্ডিত হইবে।

 https://judicialmagistratenazmulhasan.blogspot.com/

https://independent.academia.edu/NazmulHasan222

 


Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

LL.B.(Hons.) and BJS Exam Preparation: Differences Between Section 8 and Section 9 of the Specific Relief Act, 1877.

-
Image
  Differences Between Section 8 and Section 9, Specific Relief Act, 1877. A brief note on the differences between Section 8 and Section 9 of the Specific Relief Act, 1877 concerning the recovery of immovable property is provided below: Feature Section 8: Recovery of specific immoveable property Section 9: Suit by person dispossessed of immoveable property Basis of Suit Based on the title (legal ownership or superior proprietary right) and the right to present possession. Based solely on prior physical possession and illegal dispossession. Nature of Suit A regular suit for possession, often involving a declaration of title. A summary remedy that avoids an investigation into the title of the parties. Limitation Period The general limitation period for recovery of immovable property based on title applies, which is typically 12 y...
Read more

Bangladesh Judicial Service (BJS) Written – Probable Problematic Question & Answer Series.

-
Image
  Topic: From Conflict to Clarity: Can a Nari-O-Shishu Tribunal Convict Under Section 302 Penal Code When Dowry Element Fails? The Definitive Appellate Division Position (2023–2024) Question: The accused was charged, tried, and initially convicted by a Nari-O-Shishu Nirjatan Daman Tribunal under section 11(ka) read with section 30 of the Nari-O-Shishu Nirjatan Daman Ain, 2000 for causing the death of his wife allegedly in connection with dowry demand and torture. During the full trial, the prosecution successfully proved beyond reasonable doubt that the accused caused the death of the victim by inflicting injuries amounting to culpable homicide amounting to murder, but utterly failed to establish any dowry demand, prior torture linked to dowry, or any nexus between dowry and the killing. Discuss critically whether: (a) The Nari-O-Shishu Nirjatan Daman Tribunal (as trial court) has the jurisdiction and power to alter/amend the charge and convict the accused under sectio...
Read more

18th BJS preparation Series: The legal maxim-" ignorantia facti excusat, ignorantia legis neminem excusat." under the Penal Code, 1860.

-
Image
  Question - Discuss critically the maxim " Ignorantia Juris non excusat " and its application in Penal Code, 1860. Answer : Section 76 and Section 79 of the Penal Code, 1860 deal with mistake of fact. Ignorance of law is not excused and igno rance of fact can be excused is a general rule. Mistake of Fact (Section 76 and Section 79) Section 76 Act done by a person bound, or by mistake of fact believing himself bound, by law 76. Nothing is an offence which is done by a person who is, or who by reason of a mistake of fact and not by reason of a mistake of law in good faith believes himself to be, bound by law to do it. Illustrations (a) A, a soldier, fires on a mob by the order of his superior officer, in conformity with the commands of the law. A has committed no offence. (b) A, an officer of a Court of Justice, being ordered by that Court to arrest Y, and, after due enquiry, believing Z to be Y, arrests Z. A has committed no offence. Essentials :-   act mus...
Read more