In clause ‘Firstly’ of section 54 the words ‘credible information’ and ‘reasonable suspicion’ have been used relying upon which an arrest can be made by a police officer. These two expressions are so vague that there is chance for misuse of the power by a police officer, and accordingly, we hold the view that a police officer while exercising such power, his satisfaction must be based upon definite facts and materials placed before him and basing upon which the officer must consider for himself before he takes any action. It will not be enough for him to arrest a person under this clause that there is likelihood of cognizable offence being committed. Before arresting a person out of suspicion the police officer must carry out investigation on the basis of the facts and materials placed before him without unnecessary delay. If any police officer produces any suspected person in exercise of the powers conferred by this clause, the Magistrate is required to be watchful that the police officer has arrested the person following the directions given below by this court and if the Magistrate finds that the police officer has abused his power, he shall at once release the accused person on bail. In case of arresting of a female person in exercise of this power, the police officer shall make all efforts to keep a lady constable present.

We hold that the plaintiff was entitled to get exclusion of the time of the absence of defendant Nos.1 and 2, the heirs of Syed Salamat Ali from Bangladesh and the High Court Division rightly gave the said benefit and held that the suit was not barred by limitation. We further hold that time was not the essence of the contract and with the execution and registration of the general power attorney in favour of the plaintiff by Salamat Ali, the earlier contract dated 06.03.1978 was novated and the High Court Division rightly held so.

Considering the facts and circumstances- especially the facts that minor S.A.M.M. Zohaibuddin has already attained the age of almost 7 years and he is now residing along with his ailing elder brother in his father’s house and is being taken good care of by his father, grandfather and grandmother, we are inclined to allow the prayer of the leave-petitioner to retain the custody of his minor son S.A.M.M. Zohaibuddin till disposal of Family Suit.

The plaintiffs did not take any step to get back the land of plot No.4 after expiry of the period of lease mentioned in the kabuliyat. Defendant Nos. 1 and 2, the under-raiyat, continued their possession in suit plot No.4 as lawful tenants under the plaintiffs by holding over and after acquisition of rent receiving interest, they became tenants directly under the Government.

The learned Judge of the Tribunal acted in accordance with the law in bringing the matter to the notice of the authority concerned in accordance with section 13 of the Acid Aparadh Daman Ain, 2002. We also note that the learned Judge of the Tribunal observed that all three Investigating Officers were negligent in their duties and a direction to the authority concerned was regarding all three of the Investigating Officers of that case. We find from the order of the Administrative Appellate Tribunal that it was observed that although no action was taken against the first Investigating Officer, namely Md. Akram Hossain and third Investigating Officer, Md. Mahfuzur Rahman for neglecting their duties, a departmental proceeding was started against the respondent Ranjit Krishna Mazumder, who was the second Investigating Officer. The Administrative Appellate Tribunal held that this was a discriminatory act and the respondent’s application before the Administrative Tribunal was rightly allowed.

A proceeding cannot be quashed depending on alleged procedural error in the method of collection of evidence to be adduced and used. The High Court Division failed to distinguish the allegations of demands, acceptance and attempts to accept gratifications and those with the procedure to collect evidence to substantiate allegations of acceptance and attempts to accept gratifications or demands, thereby, erroneously quashed the proceedings.