Artha Rin Adalat can only be constituted by Joint District Judge alone.

According to section 4, sub-sec­tion 7 of the the Artha Rin Adalat Ain, 2003, due to illness or for any other reason or the Court is in vacation, the Artha Rin Adalat cannot function with its regular work. The District Judge will appoint temporarily a Joint District Judge to continue function of Artha Rin Adalat.

So for the purpose of functioning of Artha Rin Adalat to be more par­ticular to hold the trial jurisdiction lies with the Joint District Judge. Section 41 of Ain clearly says that the District Judge and the Additional District Judge are the appellate authority to dispose of the appeal against the judgment and order passed by the Joint District Judge in the capacity of Artha Rin Adalat Judge…………(10)

আদালত প্রতিষ্ঠা-

(১) আর্থিক প্রতিষ্ঠান কর্তৃক মামলার বিচার ও এই আইনের সংশ্লিষ্ট অন্যান্য বিষয়ের উদ্দেশ্যপূরণ কল্পে সরকার, উপ-ধারা (২) ও (৩) এর বিধান সাপেক্ষে, সরকারী গেজেট প্রজ্ঞাপন দ্বারা, প্রত্যেক জেলায় এক বা একাধিক অর্থঋন আদালত প্রতিষ্ঠা করিতে পারিবে।

(২) সরকার, সুবিধাজনক মনে করিলে, দুই বা ততোধিক জেলার জন্য একটি অর্থঋণ আদালত প্রতিষ্ঠা করিতে পারিবে।

(৩) উপ-ধারা (১) বা (২) এর অধীনে অর্থঋণ আদালত প্রতিষ্ঠিত বা ঘোষিত না হইয়া থাকিলে, আর্থিক প্রতিষ্ঠানের ঋণ আদায় সম্পর্কিত মামলা সংশ্লিষ্ট স্থানীয় অধিক্ষেত্রের যুগ্ম-জেলা জজ আদালতের দায়ের করিতে হইবে এবং এই আইনের বিধানাবলী ঐ সকল মামলার শুনানী, জারী, আপীল ইত্যাদি যাবতীয় কাযক্রমে এমনভবে অনুসরণীয় হইবে, যেন উক্ত যুগ্ম-জেলা জজ আদালত এই আইনের অধীনেই প্রতিষ্ঠিত বা ঘোষিত আদালত এবং এই আইনের উদ্দেশ্য সাধন কল্পে উক্ত যুগ্ম-জেলা জজের আদালত এই আইনের অধীন অর্থঋণ আদালত হিসাবে গন্য হইবে।............(9) 

Prescribed period of limitation/Extension of the Period of limitation-

Period of limitation set under Section 7A of the Emergency Requisition of Property Act cannot be extended under section 14 or under any other provision of the Limitation Act, 1908 which has got no application to the special statute.

No scope for review of an order by which an award is made- Review is not a matter of procedure, it involves a substantive right.

There is no scope for review of an order by which an award is made under sub­section (1) of Section 7A of the Act. It is a settled principle of law the review is not a matter of procedure. It involves a substantive right.

The right of review like of an appeal will not be available unless it is expressly conferred by law. Person aggrieved by an award made under Sub-section (1) of section 7A of the Emergency Requisition Act can only bring a suit in a civil Court of competent jurisdiction for determination of the dispute, and he is not entitled to re-agitate the matter by way of review………………(6 &7) 

Whether the Nationalized Sonali Bank comes under the purview of the Shops and Establishments Act 1965 (Act No.VII of 1965)

The words "commercial establishment" have been defined in section 2(d) in The Shops and Establishments Act, 1965. Among other concerns "banking company" and "a bank" was also "included within" the definition of the said words. It is undisputed that before the nationalisation of banks in Bangladesh the National Bank of Pakistan and its branches were included within the definition of the words "commercial establishment".

The meaning of the “commercial establishment” applies no change after the nationalisation of banks. The nationalised banks and their offices maintain their character as "a bank" and therefore, even after nationalisation the said Act, has full force and application to all the nationalised banks and their offices, including the Sonali Bank……….(6)

Whether there arises violation of the Shops and Establishments Rules, particularly Rules 10,12,13,14, and 15 of 1970 which moved up cause of action against the accused-respondent.

If an Inspector visits a shop or establishment and asks for the particulars or registers mentioned in the aforesaid Rules and if the employer fails to produce those particulars and registers instantly to the Inspector, then that failure per se does not attract any penal provision. There must be evidence that the employer does not maintain those particulars and registers at all and that evidence is best furnished by calling for those documents by a notice and by a failure of the accused to respond to that notice.

Mere failure to show him the particulars and registers during the course of one surprise visit is no criminal offence. It is the failure to furnish the particulars and maintain the registers which is an offence. The Inspector should have served a notice on the accused-respondent to prove that the accused-respondent not only failed to produce the particulars and registers on demand but also failed to maintain the same which is evident from his failure to produce the same upon receipt of notice.

In the absence of any evidence in this regard the accused-respondent cannot be convicted of the offence charged with…………………..(17 & 18) 

No Eye-Witnesses and No Direct or Circumstantial Evidence- Unproven Oral Confession-
In the alleged oral confession nothing was said where, when and in what manner the murder was committed. Such oral confession was also not supported by any independent witnesses and cannot be believed.

Fabricated False Evidence and False Statement of Murder

Prosecution failed to prove the allegation of murder by any of the accused. On the hand it was proved that the accused-appellants have been falsely implicated with the murder of deceased by fabricating false evidence including the fabricated and false statement of confession Ext.3.

The court denounced the conduct of the Additional Sessions Judge in convicting and condemning the 6 accused-appellants to death in such careless, irresponsible and slip shod manner…………………..(24 & 27) 

Disputed Question of Title

A proceeding under section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is not a proceeding to decide disputed question of title rather the enquiry under section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is limited to the question as to who was in possession at the relevant time. This is for the Civil Court to decide. In order to find out actual possession on the day of the dispute, the Magistrate must not find possession on the basis of any alleged title or right to possess but on the basis of possession alone to the extent and manner a property is capable of being possessed.

Under section 146 of the Code of Criminal Procedure a Magistrate does not pass a final order as to possession because under section 146 of the Criminal Procedure Code if the Magistrate found that none of the parties was in possession or he was unable to satisfy himself as to which of the parties were in possession he may attach the property until a competent Civil Court would determines the rights of the properties thereto or the persons entitled to possession thereof.

Converted or Exchanged form of Property

Under section 517 of the Code of Criminal Procedure the term property would include not only the property that had been originally found under the control or possession of any party but also any such property into which or for which the same had been converted or exchanged and anything acquired by the conversion or exchange whether immediately or otherwise…… (6, 7 & 8) 

Second Prosecution Based On a Fresh Complaint-

As the earlier petition of complaint did not disclose whether the petitioners were the principal offenders, henceforth having been discharged formerly on the same cause of action, the accuseds will still continue on the same bail till the disposal of the case.

A second prosecution is launched on the same facts after the discharge of the accused persons, it cannot be said that those proceedings are always entirely without jurisdiction. It depends upon whether the second prosecution is in act a revival of the same proceedings or is based upon a fresh complaint. In case of the revival of the same proceedings, then the proceedings are without jurisdiction; but if the second prosecution is based on a fresh complaint, it will be valid because the Magistrate does not preside over the same proceedings. He takes cognizance of the same offence but in a different case altogether. He is functus officio in so far as the first proceedings are concerned but he is not functus officio in respect of the new proceedings.

Power of taking Cognizance Offence by Magistrates-

Magistrate has the sole jurisdiction to decide whether cognizance should be taken-

This power of taking cognizance of any offence is not limited only to those offences which are triable exclusively by the Magistrate, but also extends to offences which are triable exclusively by the Court of Sessions. A Magistrate taking cognizance of an offence on complaint shall at once examine the complainant and the witnesses present, if any, upon oath. In a complaint case the Magistrate after considering the statement on oath of the complainant and the witnesses and the result of the investigation or enquiry, if any, under Section 202 Cr.P.C., decides whether there is in his judgment no sufficient ground for proceeding or whether he shall send the case to the Court of Sessions.

Further Enquiry after Discharge-

If any one is aggrieved by an order of discharge passed by a Magistrate, although he connot file before the Magistrate a petition for revival of the same case, he can move the superior Court under Section 436 Cr.P.C. for further enquiry but the superior Court cannot direct the Magistrate to take cognizance of a case irrespective of the fact whether it is triable by a Magistrate or exclusively by the Court of Sessions. The superior Court can merely order further enquiry, but neither the Court of Sessions nor the High Court Division can direct the taking of cognizance. ………………(8 &12-15)