The High Court Division committed gross error of Law in making use of such statements ignoring the

principle of Law that statement recorded under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of the
witness is not substantive evidence.

The High Court Division also did not consider that all omissions are not contradictions and in Order to
contradict the witness the specific part of the statements or omissions must be brought to the notice of
the witness which was not done in the instant case.

It further appears that the High Court Division disbelieved the statements of P.Ws. 2 and 3 relying upon
the police dairy. A police diary may be used by the court to contradict the police officer but the entrees
in the police diaries are not in themselves substantive evidence and as such the High Court Division
made illegal use of the police diary in disbelieving the P.Ws. 2 and 3.

It further appears that the High Court Division confused the pathway and the vacant land as two distinct
and different places whereas the pathway has been shown in the sketch map adjacent to the place of
occurrence and the place of occurrence is on the pathway and the vacant land by the side of the
pathway and therefore there was no shifting of the place of occurrence as misunderstood by the High
Court Division only because pathway has been depicted in the sketch map as "K" and the place of
occurrence as "A".

THE STATE vs. ANOWAR HUSSAIN PINTO ALIAS ANOWAR HOSSAIN AND ANOTHER (04.06.2009 - BDAD) :
LEX/BDAD/0031/2009

In the premises aforesaid, the High Court Division acted beyond its authority in entering into the field of
making law and to declare the pro-hartal and anti-hartal activities as cognisable offence.

Abdul Mannan Bhuiyan and another vs. State (02.12.2007 - BDAD) : LEX/BDAD/0019/2007

The High Court Division traveled beyond its jurisdiction in interfering with the judgment of the Court of
Settlement and considered extraneous facts were not relevant at all in deciding the matter. That's too,
ignoring the findings of the Court of Settlement that the appellant by resorting forgery wanted to have a
judgment from it.

The Secretary, Ministry of Housing and Public Works vs. Atika Khanam and Ors. (BDAD) :
LEX/BDAD/0051/2013
High Court Division, while making the Rule absolute, failed to consider all these aspects and rather
misdirected itself and, as such, came to an erroneous finding and conclusion which is required to be
interfered with by this Division.

Chowdhury Mosaddequl Isdani vs. Abdullah Al Munsur Chowdhury and Ors. (26.07.2016 - BDAD) :
LEX/BDAD/0164/2016