`A person in the service of the Republic or of any statutory public authority` includes a person who is or has retired or is dismissed, removed or discharged from such service but does not include a person in the defence services of Bangladesh or of the Bangladesh Rifles.

The language used in the section makes it clear that the plaint has to be filed along with an affidavit, both as to the statements made in the plaint as well as to the documents annexed with the plaint. Therefore, non-compliance with the mandatory requirement of law has rendered the plaint invalid in the eye of law and consequently, the impugned order passed by the learned Judge of the Adalat cannot be sustained in law.

Evidence of interested witnesses:
The rule that the evidence of interested witnesses requires corroboration is not an inflexible one. It is a rule of caution rather than an ordinary rule of appreciation of evidence.

Appellate court below allowed the appeal in part holding that the deed was not acted upon since there is no evidence that possession was delivered to the defendant no.1. This finding is not correct. Where the instrument of gift has been registered, delivery of possession is not essential for the validity of a gift by a Hindu.

During the course of pendency of original proceedings in the Trial Court, the Court may permit the plaintiff to withdraw the suit with liberty to file a fresh one, when there is a formal defect in the suit or for any other reason as provided, but such a right is not available to the plaintiff when there is already a judgment against him as aforesaid manner.

When a higher authority, namely the NBR, has expressed its opinion agreeing with the proposal sent by the earlier Bond Commissioner (Mr. Helal Uddin), it became very much difficult for the subsequent Bond Commissioner (Mr. Enayet) to go for any other option but to follow the proposal as was agreed upon by the NBR. This being so, this Court is of the view that, the show cause notice dated 25.05.2004 was in fact a closed-minded show cause notice. Therefore, giving reply to the such show cause notice, or attending a hearing pursuant to such show cause notice, became a mere formality for the petitioner. This view is further strengthened when we see the actions taken by the Bond Commissioner against the petitioner at the same time of issuance of the said show cause notice. When the Bond Commissioner requests other concerned authorities to suspend a license for all practical purposes, no reasonable reading can be done from such actions that the said show cause notice was in fact a closed-minded show cause notice inasmuch as that the concerned Commissioner had already decided the fate of the petitioner`s license.

An Advocate to defend an undefended accused charged with capital punishment should be appointed well in time of the commencement of trial of the case to enable him to study the case and the lawyer should be of sufficient standing and able to render assistance. The lawyer should be provided with the papers similar to that of the Public prosecutor.

The application under sub-section (1) of section 7 shall contain the particulars as stipulated in Sub-section (1) of section 8 and also shall be accompanied by all the documents or the Photostat or true copies, as stipulated in Sub-section (2) of section 8 of the Ordinance No. LIV of 1985. In both the Sub-sections (1) and (2) of section 8 of the said Ordinance, the word `shall` has been used i.e. `shall contain` and `shall be accompanied. So the particulars in sub-section (i) and documents as per sub-section (2) of section 8 of the Ordinance are the essential condition in making an application under sub-section (1) of section 7 of the said Ordinance. Without any of the said particulars and documents, it is not possible to file an application under section 7 of the said Ordinance.

The Government- Respondent never issued and served any notice upon the owner and the occupier under Article 7 of P.O. 16 of 1972 or under Section 5(1)(b) of the Ordinance, 1985. Non-service of notice as required by law disentitled the Government-Respondent to claim that the property was legally declared abandoned and enlisted in the `Kha` list of the Abandoned Buildings. It is also noted that there is nothing on record to show that the Petitioner was ever asked to show cause about inclusion of the property or to surrender the same which has definitely denied the right of natural justice to the Petitioner.

The moment a bank or any other financial institutions reschedules a loan or grants any kind of loan, credit facilities or any other sort of financial assistance infavour of any person, it is virtually an admission on its part that the person to whom such financial assistance is being granted is not a loan defaulter under the definition provided in Section 5 GaGa of Bank Companies Act,1991.

Without the provisions of Artha Rin Adalat Ain, 2003 any question regarding any proceedings initiated or any order, judgment or decree passed by the Judge of the Artha Rin Adalat cannot be raised in any court or to any authority and no court or authority will take cognizance or accept any application praying for any remedy filed in any court or authority ignoring the said provisions of section 20 of the Artha Rin Adalat Ain, 2003.

There might be, as it appears, some animosity or hostility between the accused-appellant`s husband Ali Haider and the deceased`s father Abdur Rashid. But there was no such enmity between the accused-appellant and deceased`s father or mother. In view of the facts above and evidence given by the prosecution, it is beyond our comprehension as to how and on the basis of which the learned Session Judge became convinced with and relied upon the prosecution case of killing Rabbi by the accused-appellant. Since there was no such reason for the accused-appellant to have any motive of killing an innocent minor boy of only 3 1/2 years old, it seems to us hardly possible to believe in the alleged charge of causing death of Rabbi by the accused-appellant.

The person from whose exclusive control and possession arms and ammunition are found is the only person to be liable.

The defendant forfeited their right to stay in the suit properties by denying the title of the plaintiffs and as such the contents of the notice or any purported facts are insignificant here. Because if someone denies title of the land lord, notice under section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act may be dispensed with. Consequently the decision referred in 51 DLR 393 is not applicable here. On the other hand the case reported in 1 BLC AD 156 as reported by Mr. A.M. Amin Uddin has got semblance with the present case.

In our examination it is also found that opposite party received the money, executed a bainapatra and delivered the possession of the schedule land in question and the defendants has no objection to transfer the land by register deed in favour of the plaintiff- petitioner through the Court. The law of this area does not create any bar to transfer the land to the present petitioner. Prior approval is required only for those to transfer the lands who are not inhabitant of the same hill district. Moreover, we have also found that government pleader has no authority to file the suit on behalf of the Deputy Commissioner.