The Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1947
Section 18A
For rectification of the Registrar of Trade Marks by removing the appel- lant's trade mark registration ....(1) Unilac Sanowara (BD) Lid vs. BBonlac Foods Limited (Md. Abdul Matin J) (Civil) 5 ADC 721
Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1947
Section 18- The trial court concluded its finding holding that admittedly the defendant Inge Flatz being a foreigner the agreement was required to be executed with prior permission of Bangladesh Bank, but the plaintiff did not obtain permission and thus, the agreement was hit by section 18 of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act RAJUK VS-Manzur Ahmed & Others, [1 LM (AD) 1]
Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1947
Section 23- The Appellate Division observed that for contravention of any of the provisions of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1947 proceedings are to be initiated on presentation of complainant by a person duly authorized either by the Government or by the Bangladesh Bank. The F.I.R. on the basis of which the case was started and the court took cognizance of the case was filed by a police officer who was not at all authorized either by the Government or by the Bangladesh Bank to lodge that F.I.R. and in the circumstances the whole proceeding was illegal, hence it is dismissed....... The State VS= Ahmed Akbar, [1 LM (AD) 548]
Section 23-Person is authorized to keep upto US$ 5,000. In the instant case there were 5 accused who jointly were unthorized to hold US$ 25,000 Exhibit-9 prove that there were only US$ 20,857.79. Therefore, admittedly no offence has been committed. Bangladesh Bank by exhibit 10 confirms that upto US$ 5,000 a person can egally keep. None of the prosecution witnesses deposed that the accuseds have been holding more than US$ 25,000 and, as such, there is no legal evidence to sustain conviction neither the evidence adduced by the prosecution supports the conviction of the convict petitioner. Ahmed Akbar Sobhan vs State, 64 DLR 418
