The question is whether theft of electric pumps will be an offence punishable within the meaning of section 16 of the Special Powers Act, 1974. It is held that theft of property belonging to the citizen does not attract the provision of section 2(1) of the Special Powers Act and a person can not be convicted under section 16 for committing theft of such property………………………..(13)

The charge under section 16 of the Special Powers Act, 1974 can not be invoked for alleged theft of electric power pumps and consequently the order of conviction and sentence is not sustainable in law………………………..(14) 

A notice under section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, for vacating a suit premise shall be for six months.

Section 18 of Premises Rent Control Act, 1991 puts emphasis on the bona fide requirement of the premises by the landlord. The premises in question must be required for a particular purpose.

Mere assertion in a notice is not sufficient to prove the plea of bona fide requirement. Bona fide requirement is not a mere wish, whim or fancy of the landlord but it means actual necessity by the land lord. There should be sufficient materials on record on which court can rely for the proof of the plea of bona fide requirement.  

Mere assertion of personal requirement in a notice under section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 will not exonerate the landlord from liability of establishing the bona fide requirement on adducing cogent evidence.

It is not a correct proposition of law to say that concurrent finding can not be disturbed in revisional jurisdiction. In fact finding though concurrent is open to interference if it is not based on evidence.  ......... (11, 12, 13) 

Every judgment shall be dated and signed by the presiding officer in open court at the time of pronouncing it. Hence putting the date along with the signature is mandatory. This is a legal provision under section 367 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. MK Zaman & others Vs. Matiar Rahman 20 DLR page 434 & Abdus Sattar Howlader Vs. The State & Vs. Kashem Ali 15 DLR 30 cited....................... (4)

It is a mandate of the Code to take statement of the accused in accordance with the provisions of law. It imposes a duty on the court to question the accused properly and fairly so as to bring home to him the exact case. It is intended for the protection and benefit of the accused and not in order to enable the prosecution to find out materials to support the prosecution case.33 DLR 101 and 28 DLR 103 cited ....... …………….(5) 

It is incumbent on the part of the 1^st Appellate court as final court of fact to discuss and assess evidence on merit and to give his own finding………............(10)

The 1^st Appellate Court shall have to refer to the evidence of witnesses examined and make analysis of evidence arriving at his own independent view in its judgment. ........ (11)  

The 1^st Appellate Court is supposed to consider the merits of the evidence independently with a clear consciousness of relevant points which arose for adjudication. It is also to afford the parties an opportunity of knowing and understanding the grounds of the decision to enable them to make the higher forum and to enable the High Court to judge whether lower Appellate Court has properly appreciated and decided the case. The 1^st Appellate Court is expected to give its own decision specially on materials relating on facts which would be self explanatory and in the nature of speaking order. Affirming judgment need not enter into detailed reasons to the same extent as that of the judgment of reversal. In a judgment of affirmance it is not necessary to record exhaustively all the reasons advanced in the Judgment of the Trial Court. The Crucial test is to see whether the Appellate Court has applied its mind to all salient facts and points for decision. ................(12)

It is the duty of the lower Appellate Court to discuss the evidence led by the parties as well as the point of law that arise and to give his finding thereon along with the reasons for those findings. The finding must be definite and not ambiguous or inferential. Where the 1^st Appellate Court did not discuss in his judgment the evidence led by the parties, the points of law arising in the appeal and give no reasons for decisions thereon, it appears that it failed to apply its conscious mind to the facts of the case and obviously judgment suffers from patent illegality inasmuch as it was violative of the provisions of Order XLI rule 31 CPC. ......................... (13)

The Appellate Court must not proceed on the assumption that it is bound by findings of the Final Court, it may give different reasons of its own for coming to a conclusion............... (15) 

Prior notice with date of hearing for enquiry should be served to the petitioner.

In hearing of an enquiry the presence of the petitioner is necessary, so that the petitioner is not deprived of the opportunity of cross-examining the witnesses examined by the Enquiry Officer and the petitioner was not afforded the opportunity of adducing any evidence in his defence. The petitioner should get an opportunity of being heard in person and enquiry proceeding should not be conducted ex parte. Principle of natural justice should prevail. .................................... (3)

The petitioner was an employee under the Government of Bangladesh and on deputation in the Bangladesh Agricultural Research Council, the Executive Vice-President of the Bangladesh Agricultural Research Council was not competent to impose any penalty on the petitioner and his case was to be referred to the Government for necessary action in view of Rule 14 of the Government Servants (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1976. In order to decide the applicability of Rule 14 of the Government Servants (Discipline and Appeal Rules, it has to be determined whether the petitioner was on the date of initiation of the proceeding against him, an employee of the Government or was an employee of the Bangladesh Agricultural Research Council.................(10)

Rule 14 of the Government Servants (Discipline and Appeal) Rules providing for referring the case of Government employee on deputation to the Government for initiating proceedings against the petitioner was not applicable……….......(10)

Government circular being Government circular under Memo-2/1-Pro-3/84 dated 11.01.84, wherein the conditions of service of the officers and staff of the erstwhile Agricultural Research Council of Pakistan who were absorbed on secondment from the Government of Bangladesh to the Bangladesh Agricultural Research Council were determined paragraph 18 of this circular provides that this order will be effective from the date of posting of these officials to the Bangladesh Agricultural Research Council. On the basis of Paragraph 18 it can not be argued that the order has been given retrospective effect and the plain meaning of paragraph 18 of the circular is that it would take effect from 11.01.84 that is, long after the impugned order against the petitioner had been passed Paragraph 16 of this circular however, empowers the opposite party to take disciplinary action against the employees of the Bangladesh Agricultural Research Council under the Government Servants (Descipline and Appeal) Rules, 1976. Since the circular was not in existence on the date on which the proceedings were initiated against the petitioner and the order of removal was passed against him, it can not be said that the opposite party initiated the proceedings against the petitioner under the Government Servants (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1976. When the proceedings were initiated against the petitioner no specific rules regulating such proceedings existed. In the absence of such specific rules governing or regulating the disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner the court has to see whether the basic principles of conducting and concluding such prceedings were followed by the opposite party..................(12)

Charges levelled against the petitioner should not be vague depriving the petitioner of his right to defend himself. In this case the entire proceedings initiated against the petitioner on the basis of such vague charges was, therefore, illegal and violative of the principles of natural justice and one of the charges i.e. charge No. 3, hardly constituted an offence warranting a penalty………………......(13) 

There cannot be any cognizance of the case on a Naraji petition without any additional material in the petition which was not mentioned in the first FIR on the basis of which on completion of investigation the police submitted final report which was accepted by the learned Magistrate.

Abdus Salam Master alias Salam and another Vs. The State referred.

No prima facie can be based on suspicion.

28 DLR (AD) 38 and 27 DLR (AD) 29 cited.

In the first case under reference three categories of case have been mentioned where the court can quash a pending legal proceeding (1) Where the facts alleged are so preposterous that they cannot from the basis of any prima facie case; (2) the cases where there is a legal bar to further proceedings, and (3) the cases where there is no legal evidence to prove the charge……………….. (7, 10) 

It is settled principle of law that mere declaratory suit is maintainable if it is found that the document with regard to which declaration is sought itself is void ab initio. This view was supported in the case of Pethen Permal Chetty Vs Muniandy Servai 35 (Cal) 551. In this case both the courts found that the deed of gift executed in favour of the defendant was void for want of deliverly of possession to the defendant.

The taking of possession of the subject matter of the gift of donee, either actually or constructively is necessary to complete a gift. Delivery of possession of a gift may be actual or constructive. When physical delivery of possession is not possible such possession as the property admits may be delivered. The donor must of course divest himself of his possession to complete the gift.  

Where a plaintiff is in possession of the suit land he is not required to ask for consequential relief which has been supported and reported in 42 CWN (730) PC. If the deed of gift is void transaction no question of cancelling or setting aside the same does arise.

 When in a suit for declaration an instrument is void and not binding upon the plaintiff the court finds that the instrument is void ab initio the suit is maintainable without seeking for cancellation of the instrument is void and not binding upon the plaintiff the court finds that the instrument is void ab initio the suit is maintainable without seeking for cancellation of the instrument whether the suit falls within the purview of section 39 or 42 or under both sections of the Specific Relief Act…………………………(7)