GENERAL CLAUSES ACT, 1897, SECTION

[X of 1897]

Section 3(16)—The information asked for by the impugned order from the petitioner is not something which is capable of being searched. Therefore the information asked for does not conform to section 94 of the Code. The impugned order purported under section 94 of the Code and Articles 31/50 of the Anti-Corruption Manual is unauthorised and illegal as they do not confer any power to direct a person to give information.

The information asked for the purpose of inquiry was of a roving nature and was merely fishing for information. If we are to believe that the inquiry was in response to the information received by the anonymous letter then the wholesale information of all cases handled by the petitioner from 1393 to 20394 cannot be said to be connected with the alleged remittance of the sale proceeds of the house at Motijheel and Guishan. The asking for such wholesale information of the cases handled by him for that period appears to us to be malafide, fishing for information only to harass the petitioner. Imtiazur Rahman Farooqui (Ml Farooqui) vs Bureau of Anti-Corruption 51 DLR 421.

Section 6—This Court is of the view that said amendment dated 9-2-2006 will have prospective effect on all cases to be filed after the amendment came into force as in the amending enactment as above no intention was expressly stated about retrospective effect of the same. Accordingly, there was no need for deposit of 50% of the amount of dishonoured cheque before filing of the concerned appeal. Impugned order of rejection of the memo of appeal being against the spirit of section 6 of General Clauses Act the same cannot be sustainable. Akhter Hossain Md vs Hasmat Ali and State 60 DLR 368.

Section 6(e)—If a statute deals merely with the procedure in an action, and does not affect the rights of the parties, it will be held to apply, prima facie, to all actions pending as well as future. Abdul Wadud vs State 48 DLR (AD) 6.

Section 9—Communication of grounds of detention within 15 days— there is no specific provision in the Special Powers Act for calculation of the period—In view of section 9 of the General Clauses Act the date of detention is to be excluded while computing the period of 15 days. Samirannesa vs Bangladesh 46 DLR 276.

Section 26-The statutory provisions recognise the Rule against double jeopardy and the principle of res judicata should apply to criminal proceedings in the same way as to civil proceedings but there being no conviction in the cases under reference, the principle of double jeopardy does not apply. Parveen vs State 51 DLR 473.

Disclaimer:

The information contains in this web-site is prepared for educational purpose. This site may be used by the students, faculties, independent learners and the learned advocates of all over the world. Researchers all over the world have the access to upload their writes up in this site. In consideration of the people’s participation in the Web Page, the individual, group, organization, business, spectator, or other, does hereby release and forever discharge the Lawyers & Jurists, and its officers, board, and employees, jointly and severally from any and all actions, causes of actions, claims and demands for, upon or by reason of any damage, loss or injury, which hereafter may be sustained by participating their work in the Web Page. This release extends and applies to, and also covers and includes, all unknown, unforeseen, unanticipated and unsuspected injuries, damages, loss and liability and the consequences thereof, as well as those now disclosed and known to exist.  The provisions of any state’s law providing substance that releases shall not extend to claims, demands, injuries, or damages which are known or unsuspected to exist at this time, to the person executing such release, are hereby expressly waived. However the Lawyers & Jurists makes no warranty expressed or implied or assumes any legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy, completeness or usefulness of any information, apparatus, product or process disclosed or represents that its use would not infringe privately owned rights. Reference herein to any specific commercial product process or service by trade name, trade mark, manufacturer or otherwise, does not necessarily constitute or imply its endorsement, recommendation or favouring by the Lawyers & Jurists. The views and opinions of the authors expressed in the Web site do not necessarily state or reflect those of the Lawyers & Jurists. Above all, if there is any complaint drop by any independent user to the admin for any contents of this site, the Lawyers & Jurists would remove this immediately from its site.