November 21, 2018, 10:15 am

Narcotics

Manufacturers of Homeopathic Drugs and Medicine are not affected

Section-2
Section 2 ( Kha), 10 (ga) & 2(kha) of the Second schedule.
Manufacturers of homeopathic drugs and medicines are not affected in their pursuit by the Narcotics Control Act ,1990. The alleged provisions are not in conflict with the provisions of the Drugs Act,1990,the rules framed there under and Drugs Control Ordinance,1982. Section 18 and serial 3 of the second Schedule of the Narcotics Control Act ,1990 are not ultra vires of the constitution. ( Bangladesh Homeopathic M .M Association Vs Bangladesh & Others.)
Section 2 (Kha), 10(ga) & 3(Kha) of the Second Schedule– The contention that unless the aforesaid provisions of laws are made to coexist by giving harmonious interpretation or the said offending provisions of the Narcotics Control Act are removed by amendment, members of the petitioner association as manufacturers of homeopathic medicine and drugs will be seriously affected is not real or justified. Bangladesh Homeopathic Medicine Manufacturers Association Vs Bangladesh and Others (Spl. Original 55 DLR 590 )

Section- 10(1)
Section 10 ( 1) – In the absence of any other proof of commission of murder of the wife in other way and in the absence of any explanation coming from the side of the husband for the murder of his wife in his custody, and it being proved bu evidence that the condemned petitioner demanded dowry some days before murder of his wife complied with the fact of his abscondance from the house on the night of the the occurrence of murder,being proved, the petitioner is guilty for murdering his wife for dowry, which is punishable under section 10(1) of Nari-O- Shishu Nirjatan Daman Bishes Bidhan,1995. Md Golam Murtazaa Vs The State. Criminal Petition for Leave to Appeal No. 212 of 2003. 24 BLD (Ad) 201. date of Judgment : January 11,2004,Result: Petion dismissed.

Section 10 ( 1) – There is no substance in the contention that even if it is believed that the petitioner murdered his wife, it is not a case under section 10(1) of the Nari-o Shishu Nirjatan daman (Bishesh) Bidhan Ain 1995 as the informant came to know that there was a quarrel between the petitioner and his wife and there was a mugging issue of their being childless. The High Court Division meticulously assessed the evidence both oral and documentary and there is no legal infirmity in the impugned judgment. Benajir Ahmed @ Shipon Vs The State.Criminal Petition for Leave to Appeal No. 212 of 2003. 25 BLD (AD) 89. date of Judgment : November 5,2003,Result: Petion dismissed.

 

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

     More News Of This Category