Section 2(b)—
If it is accepted that petitioner is not a public servant within the meaning of section 2(b) of the Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1958 then the offence under section 409 of the Penal Code cannot be tried by the Senior Special Judge but for this reason the criminal proceeding under section 409 of the Penal Code cannot be quashed.
Haji Md. Mohsin Vs. State 40 DLR 431.

Section 3—
Power of Special Judge— Creation of new Districts or Sessions Divisions does not require fresh Notifications as to Senior Special Judges. When a public functionary is found to have been acting in a particular capacity in normal course, the Court may presume that he has been duly empowered to act in that capacity.
Mozahar Ali Howlader Vs. Lal Miah Talukder 44 DLR (AD) 250.

Section 4—
The Special Judge has power to take cognizance of an offence even when the police submits final report. No direction for filing supplementary charge—sheet was necessary in the present case.
Mahbubur Rahman Vs. State 44 DLR 342.

Sections 4-6—
under provisions of the Criminal Law Amendment Act a Special Judge can initiate a proceeding under two conditions namely, on a complaint or on a police report.
Matiur Rahman Vs. State 40 DLR 385.

Sections 4(3)—
The wider territorial jurisdiction of the Divisional Special Judge has not conferred upon him any higher authority than that of the Senior Special Judge. In relation to the Senior Special Judge, the Divisional Special Judge is like any other Special Judge—power of taking cognizance of offence has not been given to him.
State Vs. Divisional Special Judge Khulna Division 44 DLR (AD) 215.

Sections 4(3) & 10(3)—
High Court Division may transfer a case pending in the court of any Special Judge to the court of another Special Judge irrespective of the territorial limits of either of the two Special Judges. But the jurisdiction of transfer of a case by the Senior Special Judge is limited within his district. The two sections have therefore no conflict.
State Vs. Divisional Special Judge, Khulna Division 44 DLR (AD) 215.

Section 6—
Reference to High Court Division—Provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code will apply to the proceedings of the Court of Special Judge only for the purpose of hearing and disposal of a special case. Transfer of a case from one Special Judge to another Special Judge does not appear to fall within the provision for hearing and disposal of a case.
State Vs. Divisional Special Judge, Khulna Division 44 DLR (AD) 215.

Section 6—
Provisions of section 339C and D shall apply to the proceeding before the Court of Special Judge. 1’his legal position has also been accepted by the legislature by enacting Act No. XIII of 1987.
AHM Kamaluddin Vs. State 43 DLR 294.

Section 6—
Accused is a public servant— Order of sanction to prosecute him submitted in court along with charge—sheet —Court of trial perused the sanction order and noted “seen” thereon, but omitted to mention it either in Order—sheet or in the Judgment_—Witness including the Investigation Officer remained silent about it while deposing. The trial is not vitiated by illegality in spite of the omission on the part of the prosecution to refer to the evidence as to the order of sanction since the trial is found to have been held by the Court on perusal of the order of sanction.
Liakat Ali Vs. State 42 DLR (AD) 30.

Section 6(5)—
Taking of cognizance by the Special Judge against the accused amount— ted to prosecuting him and this prosecution of a public servant cannot be done without the previous sanction of the Government. The Special Judge was directed to comply with the provision for sanction and then pass appropriate order in respect of prosecuting the petitioner.
Md. Arab Ali Vs. State 42 DLR 524.

Section 6(5)—
Meaning of taking cognizance of offence—Stage of determination of guilt when reaches under section 176 CrPC— difference between “prosecuted” without prior sanction under section 6(5) and “taking cognizance” without prior approval.
Mr. Matiur Rahman Vs. State 40 DLR 385.

Section 6(5)—
where facts are not referred to on the face of the sanction nor is it proved by extraneous evidence that they were placed before the sanctioning authority, the sanction is invalid and the trial Court would not be a court of competent jurisdiction.
Abdul Hakim Vs. State 45 DLR 352.

Section 6(5)—
It is not necessary in the case as the accused ceased to be a public servant when the Court took cognizance of his offence and framed charge.
HM Ershad Vs. State 45 DLR 533.

Section 9—
In case of criminal breach of trust by public servant the sentence of fine is not only compulsory but it should not be less than the amount misappropriated.
AMA Wajedul Islam Vs. State 45 DLR 243.