Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1947
Section 3: and
General Clauses Act
Section 16:
According to Section 16 of the General Clauses Act, where, by any Act of Parliament or Regulation, a power to make any appointment is conferred, then, unless a different intention appears, the authority having for the time being power to make the appointment shall also have power to suspend or dismiss any person appointed whether by itself or any other authority in exercise of that power. As the suspension of licence is not there in Section 3 of the Act of 1947, in our opinion, the provisions of Section 16 of the General Clauses Act can definitely be invoked in order to give a complete and harmonious interpretation of Section 3 of the Act of 1947. What we are driving at boils down to this: the authority making any appointment has the power to suspend the licence of any person appointed. ...First Money Changers Ltd Vs. Bangladesh Bank & others, (Civil), 2 SCOB [2015] HCD 95 ....View Full Judgment

Suspension of licence of money exchange—
The Principal, Bangladesh Bank has always power to take action against its agent for misdemeanour of criminal nature. Mustafa Zamil Ahmed Vs. Governor of Bangladesh Bank and others. 5 MLR (2000) (AD) 346.

The Constitution of Bangladesh, 1972
Article 102 r/w
The Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1947
Section 3(2)(iii)
Principle of natural justice– We are of the view that the High Court Division has correctly decided that in the facts and circumstances of this case the principle of justice has not been violated. Clearly, the petitioner did not feel sufficiently aggrieved by the lack of opportunity given him by way of show cause notice or opportunity of being heard. He did not immediately rush to the High Court Division challenging the violation of the principle of natural justice. On the contrary, he took the decision to make himself be heard by the authority concerned by making representations and by supplying other supporting evidence. .....Amzad Hussain =VS= Bangladesh Bank, [4 LM (AD) 33] ....View Full Judgment

Contract made in contravention of these provisions is not viod or contrary to section 23 of the Contract Act—
The scheme of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act is not to forbid the making of a contract but merely to insist that the contract shall be performed in a particular manner, namely, by taking the necessary permission of the competent authority which may be regularised by ex-post facto permission under section 21. Therefore it cannot be said that a contract done in violation of any of the provisions of Foreign Exchange Regulation Act is exfacie void or void abinitio or such a contract comes within the mischief section 23 of the Contract Act. Manwar Hussain Vs. Wait Mohammad. (1965) 17 DLR (SC) 369.

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, (Civil), 2016-[1 LM (AD) 1] ....View Full Judgment

Proceedings shall have to be initiated by complaint presented by person duly authorized by the Government or the Bangladesh Bank.
Proceedings against contraventions of any of the provision of the Act, shall have to be initiated on presentation of complaint by a person duly authorized by the Government or the Bangladesh Bank. In the instant case the police lodged the F.I.R and cognizance was taken on the charge sheet submitted by the police. The Appellate Division held the High Court Division was perfectly justified in quashing the proceedings which were abuse of the process of the court. The State Vs. Mirza Abbas 15 MLR (2010) (AD) 141.

Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1947
Section 23 r/w
Emergency Power Rules, 2007
Rule 194 T (1) and 19 T (5)
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, (Criminal), 2016-[1 LM (AD) 548] ....View Full Judgment

Jurisdiction of State Bank—
Conferment of power under rule 3(2) framed under section 27 of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, to the State Bank to fix the date within which to bring back the sale proceeds of the exported goods into Pakistan is not a delegation of legislative power and as such the State Bank acted illegally in fixing the period of repatriation of the sale proceeds. Kalipada Saha Vs. The State (1959) 11 DLR (SC) 239.