The operation of mobile courts in the criminal justice system of Bangladesh has been ongoing since 2009. However, after the independence of the judiciary i.e. judicial magistracy separated from the executive department on November 1, 2007, through whom the mobile court will be run or should be run or who is running the mobile courts of the neighboring countries are being discussed in the legal circles. Even if the mobile court is running properly on the constitutional question in the legal framework, the issue is pending before the Supreme Court of Bangladesh for final settlement.
However, there will be no discussion on pending matters. Law will run at its own pace. But what do the general public think about the mobile court as a conscious citizen or what is the demand of the revolutionary student crowd after the July-August Revolution? A few things can be said about the important topics that the students want to reform about law and judiciary reform.
According to the Mobile Court Act-2009, the mobile court is managed by the Executive Magistrate. Earlier, the High Court had disposed of three writ petitions stating that it was not constitutionally correct. Now the government has appealed and it is awaiting the final decision in the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court. Now the students think that the judiciary should be managed by judges and judicial magistrates. So we want speedy disposal of the petition pending in the High Court regarding Mobile Court. The judiciary also wants the same. But it is better to say something about the operation of the mobile court conducted by the executive judge, then the article will be relevant.
The Supreme Court of Bangladesh disposed of three writ petitions and declared the judicial proceedings conducted by the Executive Magistrate invalid as the power of the Executive Magistrate regarding the operation of the mobile court was not valid. How important the policy of ‘check and balance’ is in maintaining the balance of power, it needs to be observed in the context of our independent Bangladesh. Three divisions in the administration of the state; Law, governance and judiciary should be in an integrated framework. It is the basic spirit of the constitution that one section will prevail over the opinion of the students in the July Revolution rather than overpowering the other.
In Dainik Bangladesh Pratidir News (19 July 2020) I saw that fake medicines worth Tk 2 million were seized in Raber raid in Mitford, the pharmacy was sealed. Not only today, but throughout the year, I often see such good news and news of mobile court fines. Many will exclaim at this news that what a beautiful and speedy trial. But one has to wonder what such short-cut justice will bring in the long run. The article will discuss legal issues. I will discuss the text only academically. Please don’t be biased and biased.
According to the criminal justice system, there are apparently two methods of trial. in mobile courts, the other in regular judicial courts or tribunals. There is public satisfaction and dissatisfaction with the judgments of both courts. For example, the photo of the old man being held by the mobile court has gone viral, the lawyer has been sentenced for abusing his personal power, 123 children have been sentenced out of jurisdiction at the same time, etc.
However, I will not say that the mobile court is not successful. For example, the mobile courts play a very active role in preventing evictions and child marriages. However, the supersonic mobile court and its executive magistrates are in the midst of criticism and discussion. (The term supersonic bionic man came from the judgment of the Hon’ble High Court on the illegal sentencing of children). Final verdict of High Court: Sentencing of children in mobile court is illegal. (Source: Daily Times Light 12 March 2020)
I think some contextual and legal analysis should be given to the sentence passed yesterday by the learned Executive Magistrate on the drug store at Midford. Raber Mobile Court fined 7 lakh rupees to the owners of five pharmacies for selling and stocking fake, adulterated and unauthorized medicines in Mitford, Old Dhaka. Just hearing about adulterated medicine makes the body tremble. What a terrible and serious crime and the punishment, only a fine of two to three months in jail without payment. How strange!
Here the question remains, how parallel justice system is working. For example, the Special Powers Act of 1974 for sale and stocking of fake, adulterated and unauthorized drugs has very nicely defined the offense and the punishment for committing the offence. Apparently criminals played with people’s lives by selling or stocking fake medicines, insulin and expired ones. Nevertheless the learned Executive Magistrate of the Mobile Court released him with a fine of some Rs., and sealed the shop. In this trial, the criminal was properly judged? Of course not. Where there is a clear provision to file a case under the Special Powers Act at the police station or in the regular court for selling and stocking counterfeit, adulterated and unauthorized drugs, a sentence of two months only without payment of fine is not at all appropriate for such serious offences.
The Special Powers Act identifies serious offenses as: black-marketing of ration-provided goods and trading in ration licences, permits, etc.; stockpiling of goods in excess of the amount prescribed by law; Section: 25 (1) adulteration of food, drink, medicine and cosmetics or sale of adulterated articles; (Section-25C) and the Special Powers Act was enacted on February 9, 1974. Section 25 of the Act made in the English language punishes dealing in black market, Section 25 (A) punishes forgery of currency notes and government stamps, Section 25 (B) punishes smuggling, Section 25 (C) adulterates or sells food, drink, medicine, cosmetics. Penalty, Section 25(d) provides for penalty for commission of offense and Section 25(e) provides for offense by company. Now the Law Commission has recommended to insert 25 Gog new clause after 25 (C). Section 25 (c) of the Act has two sub-sections. There are two clauses in sub-section 2 of this. The Commission has now made it an offense to adulterate household goods or furniture or any other consumable article with substandard goods and by transporting or storing the same for sale or for sale; But that person shall be punished with rigorous imprisonment for life and with fine. (Source: August 14, 2014, Daily Prothom Alo.)
But is the sentence that the learned executive magistrate hastily gave in the mobile court law a suitable punishment? It should be seen whether the opportunity to commit the same crime again is created by paying the fine. Rather, what the learned Executive Magistrate could have done is that if he had registered a regular case under Sections 25 (1), 25 C of the Special Powers Act and related Acts (GR Case) and sent the accused to Jail, justice would have been done. The original trial was held in a special tribunal. In the law where there are more punishments or specific laws and regulations for the crime, the mobile court law raises the question of whether people can be deterred from crime if another judicial system and process is started at the same time. Merely paying a two-three month sentence without payment of fine for adulteration or hoarding of medicines is not a suitable punishment at all.
I am not against mobile courts and neither is this article against mobile courts. All I am saying is that justice should be done where the crime should be tried, taking into account the nature and seriousness of the crime. In other words, as mistakes were observed in the operation of the mobile court and the judicial process was not conducted according to the law, the wrong message is being sent to the public about the mobile court. As a result, mobile courts should be managed by learned magistrates who are well versed in law. Mobile Courts are already being run by Judicial Magistrates in several districts as per Environmental Courts Act and Pure Food Act which have already been appreciated.
Justice can in no way be thrown away while speeding up the trial. It is not enough to judge only, the people must be convinced that justice and the rule of law have been or are being established through that trial. Has the mobile court been able to establish public justice in all cases? That is also a valuable question. However, the current interim government is determined to establish speedy justice and for this reason, it has already implemented the Judiciary Reform, Constitution Reform, Police Reform, Election Reform and Public Administration Reform, along with the e-judiciary project to digitize the judicial system, legal aid and alternative dispute resolution and use of information technology by courts. Makes us optimistic.
Again, we often hear complaints that the existing criminal justice system delays the disposal of cases. To resolve why there is delay, how to bring speedy justice to the doorsteps of the people should be brought to the recommendation of the Judicial Reforms Commission and the Law Ministry should take initiatives accordingly at the earliest.
The mobile court should be molded into a legal framework in accordance with the constitution and the existing criminal justice system. The mobile court will run under the judiciary. It is not the responsibility of the executive to judge. No matter how popular other short-cut justice systems or mobile courts may become in parallel with the judiciary, people will be deprived of justice and the rule of law in the long run if the crimes described in the Mobile Court Act are not tried constitutionally by judicial magistrates.
Muhammad Tajul Islam: PhD Fellow, Constitution and Law Researcher and Columnist
Source: www.dhakatimes24.com
