Anti-Corruption Commission Act, 2004

Anti-Corruption Commission Act (V of 2004)

Schedule-Non-inclusion of Money Laundering Prevention Act, 2009 in the schedule to Anti-Corruption Commission Act, 2004 shall not render the proceeding invalid. Tarique Rahman vs Bangladesh 62 DLR 524.

Section 2A

In view of the non-obstante clause appearing in section 2A of the Act of 2004, the provisions of the Act of 2004 shall prevail over other provisions of law.

It is a well known canon of interpretation of statute that a Special Law overrides the general law and in a conflict between general statute and special statute the latter prevails. [73 DLR 296]

Editors’ Note:

In the instant suo motu rule questions came up for consideration whether court can punish journalists for the publication of defamatory, false and fabricated news report touching the Anti-Corruption Commission and whether the journalists are protected by the laws in not disclosing the sources of information. The High Court Division held that the Media and the Journalist are authorized to publish news report on corruption and if anyone is aggrieved by the report, they can lodge complaint before the Press council for redress. Analyzing various provisions of laws like the Constitution, the Press Council Act 1974, the Public-interest Information Disclosure Act (Provide Protection), 2011 etc. the High Court Division also held that laws have given protection to the Journalists in not disclosing the sources of information.

Article 39 of the Constitution:

It is worthwhile to mention that Article 39 of the Constitution has guaranteed freedom of thought and conscience. More specifically, Article 39 (2)(b) has clearly mentioned about the term of ‘freedom of the press’. Furthermore, Article 39 of the People’s Republic of Bangladesh guarantees freedom of press and the right of every citizen to freedom of speech and expression subject to certain exceptions. That such exceptions are namely (i) in the interests of the security of the State, (ii) friendly relations with foreign states, (iii) public order, decency or morality, or (iv) in relation to contempt of court, (v) defamation or (vi) incitement to an offence. Apart from the above, investigative journalism is the necessary corollary of such freedom. In a democracy, there should be an efficient and fearless press to act as watchdog of democracy: Investigation by a journalist includes research, gathering information from different sources, observation and due diligence. In doing so, the journalists act as the fourth pillar of democracy and consequently, serve the nation. They are the part and parcel of a democratic process. In a modern world, right to information is being treated as one of the pre-conditions for expression of opinion. Journalists act as helping hands for ensuring rule of law and democracy which have been recognized as the basic structure of the Constitution. They work as watchdogs and in appropriate situation; they ventilate information not to undermine any person but to serve the cause of justice. In a democracy, there should be an efficient and fearless press to act as watchdog of democracy. Newspapers make people aware of every field of society. In the present age, corruption is present in all walks of life. Newspapers play an important role in highlighting the menace of corruption and thereby the people are made aware of the corrupt practices if any prevalent in various state-run departments, organisations, agencies and private organisations. (Para-38)

The media and the journalists are constitutionally and legally authorised to publish news reports on corruption and corrupted practices: Corruption is an insidious plague that has a wide range of corrosive effects on societies. It undermines democracy and the rule of law, leads to violations of human rights, distorts markets, erodes the quality of life and allows organized crime, terrorism and other threats to human security to flourish. Under the aforesaid discussions, our considered view is that the media and the journalists are constitutionally and legally authorised to publish news reports on corruption and corrupted practices along with money laundering if any including other important news on the matters of public interest. (Para-38)

Section 2(5) of the Public-interest Information Disclosure Act (Provide Protection), 2011:

Section 2(5) of the Public-interest Information Disclosure Act (Provide Protection), 2011, provides that “whistleblower” means the person who discloses the public interest information to a competent authority, Section 4 of the aforesaid Act contemplates that any whistleblower can make public interest disclosure, if considered reasonable, to a competent authority and Section 5(1) of the aforesaid Act indicates that if any whistleblower discloses any authentic information under sub-section (1) of Section 4, his identity cannot be divulged without his consent.” (Para 40)

Section 2(4) of the Public-interest Information Disclosure Act (Provide Protection), 2011:

Protection of publisher/news agency: A reference to Section 2(4) of the Public-interest Information Disclosure Act (Provide Protection), 2011 and Rules, 2017 provide for protection of publisher/news agency of information of public interest relating to a) irregular and unauthorized use of public money; b) mismanagement of public resources; c) misappropriation or misuse of public money or resources; d) abuse of power or maladministration; e) committing criminal offense or illegal or prohibited acts; f) a conduct that is harmful or dangerous for public health, safety or to the environment; or; g) corruption. (Para 44)

Section 28B of the Anti-Corruption Commission Act, 2004:

Section 28B of the Anti-Corruption Commission Act, 2004 provides that no information given by any person about any offence under this Act and specified in its Schedule be admitted as an evidence in any civil or criminal court, or no witness shall be allowed or compelled to disclose name, address and identity of the informant, or cannot be allowed to present or disclose any information which discloses or may disclose the identity of the informant. Therefore, the required disclosure of the papers and documents by Respondent No. 02, at the prayer of ACC, may be violative of the above provision of the Anti-Corruption Commission Act, 2004 in view of the above statement of law and analogical reasoning as well. (Para 45)

So, under the above facts and circumstances and the propositions of law, we have no hesitation to hold the view that the laws have given protection to the journalists in not disclosing the source of information. (Para-48) [17 SCOB [2023] HCD 4]

Section 2(3)-Corruption Whatever amendment is made in the definition of "তদন্তকারী সংস্থা" in the Money Laundering Ain, 2012, the Commission is not pre- cluded from making inquiry and investiga tion relating to the offence of any kind of "দুর্নীতি" under the Money Laundering Act, 2012 besides other investigation agencies, including this particular case. Abdus Salam vs State, 69 DLR 463

Section 2(Umo) of the Act contemplates that “দুর্নীতি” means the offences mentioned in the schedule of the Act. It is an indisputable fact that the alleged offences were not scheduled offences of the Act at the relevant point of time. So the question of enquiry into the alleged offences by the respondent no. 3 is out of the question. What we are driving at boils down to this: the respondent no. 3 was not empowered to enquire into the alleged offences, but none the less, he enquired thereinto. Furthermore, it is an admitted fact that the enquiry report submitted by the respondent no. 3 was treated as an ejahar by the concerned Police Station which gave rise to the instant case. In this regard, Mr. Md. Khurshid Alam Khan has candidly conceded that the treatment of the enquiry report as an ejahar is not sustainable in law. This being the panorama, we feel constrained to hold that the very initiation of the case is ‘de hors’ the law. ...Dr. Muhiuddin Khan Alamgir Vs. Bangladesh & others, (Civil), 2 SCOB [2015] HCD 36

Sections 3, 4, 5, 18(2) and 26-Notice under section 26 read with section 18 of the Act was issued in conformity with the purposes of the ACC Act and functions of the Commission when the Commission was not properly constituted as per provisions of section 5 of the Act though as an institution the Commission was very much in existence as per provisions of sections 3 and 4 of the Act, inasmuch the Commission was having its Head Office in Dhaka and its Branch Offices all over the country. According ex-post facto approval to the issuance of order/notice by the Secretary of the Commission is very much legal pursuant to the provisions of section 18 (2) of the Act and in conformity with the purposes, objectives and functions of the Commission. Moudud Ahmed vs State. 68 DLR (AD) 118

Sections 3 and 5-Previous Commis- sioners resigned from the Commission on 7-2-2007 and it was reconstituted on 24-2- 2007 and, as such, although the Commis- sion existed as an institution on 18-2-2007 where the notice was issued, there was no commission within the meaning of section 3 read with 5 of the Act, and, as such, the notices issued on 18-2-2007 under signature of the Secretary of the Commis- sion is not a proper notice in the eye of law. Joynal Abedin Hazari vs State, 64 DLR 58

Section 3(2)- Insertion of section 32ka of the Act, 2013 has interfered with the independence of the function of the Commission and have frustrated the object of the Anti-Corruption Commission Act, 2004. Human Rights and Peace for Bangladesh vs Hon'ble Speaker, Bangla- desh Jatiyo Sangsad, 67 DLR 191

Sections 3 and 5-The proceeding of special case against the appellants being on an invalid notice, the Judgment and Order of conviction is void. See 62 DLR (AD) 290. Barrister Nazmul Huda vs State 63 DLR 252.

Section 3(2)-ACC did never wanted to know it by affording the petitioner an opportunity of being heard or by calling for a written statement from him, which it had power to under Rule 8 and 11 of the ACC Rules, 2007. Such dis- cretion is neither unfettered, nor it has been vested in the ACC to arm it with redundant power or to exercise its discretion with caprice, but be guided by the provisions of section 3(2) of the Act. Obaidul Kader vs State 63 DLR 425.

Section 3(2)-The ACC should not abstain from exercising its discretionary power arbitrarily or without recording any reason for such abstention, so that it can be Judged if the ACC had acted in compliance with provisions of section 3(2) of the Act. Obaidul Kader (Md) vs State 63 DLR 425.

Section 3(2)-The word 'স্বাধীন' or indepen- dent cannot be read in isolation of the expression "ও নিরপেক্ষ" i.e. "and neutral", inasmuch as the word 'স্বাধীন' has been used in the company of the expression "ও নিরপেক্ষ" with intent to denote that the ACC should be an independent and neutral body in exer-cising its powers and discretion under the Act. Obaidul Kader (Md) vs State 63 DLR 425.

Sections 5 and 18(2)- In 62 DLR (AD) 290 the vires of the law, section 18(2), was not challenged before a competent court of law and no issue in respect of vires of the law was raised, deliberated upon and decided by the competent court. Therefore, in a hearing of a Criminal Petition for Leave to Appeal a provision of law cannot be struck down or repealed by indirect means or by implication. Moudud Ahmed vs State, 68 DLR (AD) 118

Sections 5 and 8

Section 5 of the Ain, 2004 “Commission” means all the three members of the Commission. The provision as laid down in section 18 has clearly empowered member of the Commission to perform the duty of the Commission. Admittedly one of the members of the Commission has been empowered to accord sanction on behalf of the Commission. Habibur Rahman Molla vs State 61 DLR 1.

Sections 5 and 8-Section 5 of the Ain, 2004 "Commission" means all the three members of the Commission. The provision as laid down in section 18 has clearly empowered member of the Commission to perform the duty of the Commis- sion. Admittedly one of the members of the Com- mission has been empowered to accord sanction on behalf of the Commission. Habibur Rahman Molla vs State 61 DLR 1.

Sections 6(3) and 36

The intent of the legislature in using of word "felt" in the ACC Act,2004 is to mean the date of joining in the work and, therefore, not the date of publication of any appointment order. Advocate Mirza AI Mahmood, Advocate -Vs-Mr. Golam Rahman and others 2 ALR (2013)(HCD) 501

Anti-Corruption Act [II of 1957]

Section 35(1)(Ka) read with General Clauses Act, 1897

Section 6- Whether a police report submitted by an officer of the defunct Bureau. of Anti-corruption after investigation in respect of an offence punishable under the Durnity Daman Commission Ain before retaining him as an officer of the Commission after scrutiny will be legal one. Or in the alternative, whether an officer of the defunct Bureau of Anti-Corruption can investigate into a case before he has been retained as an officer of the Commission in accordance with the Rules.

The Appellate Division observed that there is no scope to hold the view that the police reports submitted by the officers of the defunct Bureau in the above cases can be said to be illegal or without jurisdiction since the investigation officer has not been retained by the Commission after scrutiny. Secondly, the Ain clearly provides that the investigation into any allegation pending under the repealed Act shall be performed by the Commission under the Ain. The High Court Division has totally fell in error in declaring the gazette notification appointing the investigation officer to be without lawful authority. As regards the second point raised by the learned counsel for the accused is devoid of substance in view of the fact that the Ain is a special law and this Ain will prevail over any other law. The learned counsel has given emphasis on the words 'যাচাই বাছাই' used in sub-section (2) of section 35. As observed above, it will be inappropriate if the language used in Ain is used in narrower meaning and this provision for scrutiny is for the purpose of retaining the employees and officers of the Bureau in the Commission permanently. This appointment of the investigation officer without scrutiny will not affect the police reports in view of the savings clause. The functions of the Commission shall continue in the same manner as has been undertaken by the Bureau in view of sub-section (3) of section 38 of the Ain read with sub- sections (2) and (3) of Section 3 of the Anti-Corruption Act, 1957. Durniti Daman Commission -Vs-Sheikh Amin Uddin and others (Civil) 15 ALR (AD) 198-204

Section 9- Act of 2009 though not included in the schedule to the ACC Act, 2004, yet Section 9 of the Ain of 2009 provides that the offences committed under the said Ain shall be deemed to be scheduled offences under the ACC Act, 2004. Tarique Rahman vs Governmentof Bangladesh 63 DLR (AD) 18.

Section 9

Act of 2009 though not included in the schedule to the ACC Act, 2004, yet Section 9 of the Ain of 2009 provides that the offences committed under the said Ain shall be deemed to be scheduled offences under the ACC Act, 2004. Tarique Rahman vs Government of Bangladesh 63 DLR (AD) 18.

Section 15-Schedule offences Offences punishable under sections 420, 462A, 4628, 466, 467, 468, 469 and 471 of the Penal Code have been inserted in the schedule for the first time as offences triabie by the Special Judge under the Durnity Daman Commission Ain without specifying as to whether those offences are connected with the offences mentioned under the Prevention of Corruption Act and offences punishable under sections 161, 162, 163, 164, 165, 166, 167, 168, 169, 217, 218, 409 and 477A of the Penal Code have been arrayed as offences triable by the Special Judge. By reason of this insertion of those offences, the investigations and trials of the proceedings under the said offence have been postponed and thereby administration of criminal justice is being hampered. Yunus (Md) vs State, 68 DLR (AD) 109

Section 17(Ta) and 19(Cha)

Constitution of Bangladesh, 1972

Article 36 r/w

Anti-Corruption Commission Act, 2004

Section 17(Ta) and 19(Cha)

The provision provided in Article 36 safeguard the right to go abroad against executive interference which is not supported by ‘inacted law’– It is observed:-

1. The fundamental right guaranteed under Article 36 of the Constitution is non-absolute right. The right to leave one’s country has therefore never been considered an absolute right. The right may be restricted in certain circumstances.

2. Article 36 of the Constitution permits imposition of restrictions. However, such restrictions must be by way of the law enacted and must be reasonably needed in the public interest.

3. Without backing of law imposition of restriction on the freedom of movement by an executive order will be unconstitutional.

4. The legislative view of what constitute reasonable restriction shall not be conclusive and final and that it shall be subjected to supervision by the Court.

5 . A restriction in order to be referred to as reasonable shall not be arbitrary and shall not be beyond what is required in the interest of the public. The restriction imposed shall have a direct or proximate nexus with the object sought to be achieved by the law.

6. Freedoms if absolute would always be detrimental to smooth functioning of the society. Reasonableness demands proper balancing.

7. The right to leave the country and to possess a passport may be restricted, most notably if the person’s presence is required due to their having been charged with a criminal offence. However, merely because a person is involved in a criminal case, he is not denude of his fundamental rights.

8. Restriction may be imposed on travel in order to prevent exit from the country by persons who leave quickly to avoid due process of law. However, this would be subject to confirmation by the appropriate Court within a period of 3 working days.

With the observations, all the petitions are disposed of. ...Durnity Daman Commission, Dhaka =VS= G.B. Hossain, (Civil), 2021(2) [11 LM (AD) 97]

Section 17

Section 17 of the ACC Act, 2004 the ACC shall enquire into and conduct investigation of offences mentioned in the schedule and file cases on the basis of inquiry or investigation and conduct prosecution of the case before the Court of Special Judge. Tarique Rahman vs Government of Bangladesh 63 DLR (AD) 18.

Section 17-Section 17 of the ACC Act, 2004 the ACC shall enquire into and conduct investigation of offences mentioned in the schedule and file cases on the basis of inquiry or investigation and conduct prosecution of the case before the Court of Special Judge. Tarique Rahman vs Government of Bangladesh 63 DLR (AD) 18.

Section 17 and 19

At the stage of inquiry, which is nothing but a fact finding process, there is no scope to arrive at a definite conclusion that the alleged allegation/offence will not fall within the preview of relevant Money Laundering Protirodh Ain, which is in the schedule of the Act of 2004. ...Eastern Diplomatic Services Vs. ACC & ors., (Civil), 10 SCOB [2018] HCD 198

Section 17

Moreover, to prevent corruption the commission has got wide and unfettered power. Section 17 (U) of the Act of 2004 contemplated that Commission has the power to do any such act to prevent corruption. The said provision is as under. ...Eastern Diplomatic Services Vs. ACC & ors., (Civil), 10 SCOB [2018] HCD 198

Section 17

The Constitution has not given any immunity to the prime Minister or Cabinet in respect of any criminal offence. There is neither any constitutional nor any statutory or legal bar on A.C.C to conduct any enquiry in respect of allegation of Commission of offences mentioned to the schedule of the A.C.C Act, 2004 and schedule to the Criminal Law Amendment Act-1958. Therefore, we are of the view that not only on the basis of any complaint but A.C.C itself is legally empowered under section 17 of the A.C.C. Act- 2004 to conduct any inquiry or investigation. ...Begum Khaleda Zia Vs. Anti-Corruption Commission & ors, (Civil), 8 SCOB [2016] HCD 40

Section 17-There is nothing whatso-ever to stop the ACC to prosecute the petitioner for any act of criminality beyond or in excess of that which was the subject of TAC's adjudication. Dilwara Begum vs People's Republic of Bangladesh, 65 DLR 319

Section 17-The functions of the Commissions are to determine the procedure of the enquiry, investigation, filing cases and also procedure of according sanction of the Commission filing case against corruption. Human Rights and Peace for Bangladesh vs Hon'ble Speaker, Bangladesh Jatiyo Sangsad, 67 DLR 191

Section 17-Constitution has not given any immunity to the Prime Minister or the Cabinet in respect of any criminal offence. There is neither any constitutional nor any statutory or legal bar on the ACC to conduct an enquiry in respect of allegation of commission of offence mentioned in the schedule. Begum Khaleda Zia vs Anti- Corruption Commission, 68 DLR 1

Section 17-The Commission has got the unfettered power to make any enquiry, investigation and to take necessary actions/steps in accordance with law as it thinks fit and proper in respect of any offences relating to "দুর্নীতি", no matter whether the offence is investigatory by the police or by other investigating agencies. Mohua Ali vs State, 70 DLR 816

Section 17-ACC is legally empowered under section 17 to conduct any enquiry, the subject matter of which may fall under Article 145 of the Constitu- tion, so long as it attracts criminal liability and ACC acts within the ambit of law. Begum Khaleda Zia vs Anti-Corruption Commission, 68 DLR 1

Sections 17, 18 and 33-Ain of 2004 has given exclusive power to the Commission to conduct it's cases including appeals in exercise of powers under section 5(2) of the Code read with section 17, 18 and 33 of the Ain, 2004. Commission is a necessary party in appeals to be filed by the convicts and that the Commission through its prosecution unit has exclusive power to defend the judgments passed by a Special Judges in appeals pending in the High Court Division by accused-persons. Anti- Corruption Commission vs Monjur Morshed Khan, 64 DLR (AD) 124

Sections 17, 18 and 33-The High Court Division failed to notice that provision for instructing the public prosecutor by a private lawyer contained in section 493 is not applicable to cases instituted under the Ain of 2004 in view of the fact that the Ain of 2004 is a special law providing provisions for investigation, inquiry, filing of cases and conducting them. Anti-Corruption Commission vs Monjur Morshed Khan, 64 DLR (AD) 124

Sections 17, 18, 19, 20, 28 and 33 The Commission under the Ain of 2004 has been given exclusive power to conduct cases instituted under the Ain. Anti- Corruption Commission vs Monjur Morshed Khan, 64 DLR (AD) 124

Sections 17, 19 and 20-Power of Commission-Unless and until the then Bureau, now the Commission, is satisfied that there is prima-facie materials against a public servant, who has allegedly committed an offence under the Ain, the Commission normally does not disturb such public servant in the manner the police officer can arrest an ordinary offender on the basis of information regarding the commission of cognizable offence. Under the Ain of 2004, the horizon has been expanded and besides a public servant, the Commission has power to hold inquiry in respect of schedule offences against any person who has allegedly committed any offences. Anti-Corruption Commission, Dhaka vs Abdul Azim, 69 DLR (AD) 208

Sections 17, 19, 20 and 21-Anti- Corruption Commission Act is applicable in respect of public servant as well as "any other person". The Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 and Anti-Corruption Commission Act and Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1958 are the enactments which are meant for the benefit of the public. The main aim of those Acts are eradiction of the corruption which is permeating every nook and corner of the country. Corruption by public servants has now reached a monstrous demension in Bangladesh. Its tentacles have been grappling even the institutions established for the protection of the State. Those must be intercepted and impeded the orderly functions of the public officer, through strong legislative, executive as well as judicial exercises the corrupt public ser vants could even paralyze the functioning of such institutions and thereby hinder the democratic polity. Hence, the laws should be so interpreted which would serve the object of the Acts. Anti-Corruption Commission vs Md Shahidul Islam @ Mufti Shahidul Islam, 68 DLR (AD) 242

Section 17(Ka) Schedule offences Offences punishable under sections 420, 462A, 4628, 466, 467, 468, 469 and 471 of the Penal Code have been inserted in the schedule for the first time as offences triable by the Special Judge under the Durnity Daman Commission Ain without specifying as to whether those offences are connected with the offences mentioned under the Prevention of Corruption Act and offences punishable under sections 161, 162, 163, 164, 165, 166, 167, 168, 169, 217, 218, 409 and 477A of the Penal Code have been arrayed as offences triable by the Special Judge. By reason of this insertion of those offences, the investigations and trials of the proceedings under the said offence have been postponed and thereby administration of criminal justice is being hampered. Yunus (Md) vs State, 68 DLR (AD) 109

Section 18-Sanction for prosecution accorded by one member of the Commission duly authorized by the Commission is enough to prosecute the accused of the schedule offence. Golam Nabi vs Anti-Corruption Commission, 65 DLR 181

Section 18(1)- The views expressed in the 62 DLR (AD) 290 and 297 paragraphs 42 and 43 of this Division do not convey the correct principle of law. Because the preamble of the Act, 2004 envisages that for constitution of an independent Com- mission, for prevention of corruption and offences relating to corruption and for enquiry into, and investigation of corrup- tion and certain other offences and matters connected thereto the Act is enacted. Sub- section (1) of section 18 provides that subject to the provisions of this Act the Commission may, in the discharge of its duty, empower any Commissioner or Officer of the Commission to do an act on its behalf and the Commissioner or Officer would be able to exercise the power. Moudud Ahmed vs State, 68 DLR (AD) 118

Sections 18(2)-The observations of this Division are not relevant in the case, because the respondent did not raise any objection as to the issuance of notice/order under section 26 (1) of the Act while he was in custody. Rather he complied with the same by submitting the statement of assets and liabilities within the stipulated time. Moreover, he was allowed to submit long after the stipulated date a supple- mentary statement of assets and liabilities which was marked as an exhibit during the course of trial. This issue was not raised, deliberated upon and decided before the trial court and the High Court Division in as much as no such issue was raised and deliberated upon before the Appellate Division and that this observation being an obiter dictum cannot operate as a binding precedent, which is not a law declared by the Appellate Division pursuant to Article 111 of the Constitution and, as such, it is not binding on the High Court Division and all other courts and tribunals as a legal precedent. Moudud Ahmed vs State, 68 DLR (AD) 118

Section 18(2)- The observations of this Division are not tenable in law because sub-section (2) of section 18 of the Act in unequivocal terms made it abundantly clear that the Commission can accord ex-post facto approval pursuant to the amending Ordinance. Moudud Ahmed vs State, 68 DLR (AD) 118

Sections 18(2)- The view expressed by this Division regarding the effect of section 18(2) of the Act, granting ex-post facto approval of any act done or power exercised by an Officer of the Commission during the period when the Commission was not properly constituted as per section 5 of the Act does not reflect the correct principle of law. Moudud Ahmed vs State,68 DLR (AD) 118

Section 18(2)- Sub-section (2) of section 18 of the Act enables the Commis- sion to accord ex-post facto approval to any act done or power exercised by the Officer of the Commission which is very much inconformity with the purposes, objectives and functions of the Commission but not the approval of the satisfaction of the Secretary. Moudud Ahmed vs State, 68 DLR (AD) 118

Section 18(2)-In view of the section 18 (2) of the Act notice issued by the Secretary of the Commission was given ex- post facto approval on satisfaction of the new Commission through the resolution in as validated by the ex-post facto amending Ordinance, it cannot be said that the notice under section 26(1) of the Act was defective. Moudud Ahmed vs State, 68 DLR (AD) 118

Section 18(2)- Since the amendment was effected within the validity period of the Ordinance and action was taken under the amended section 18 within the validity period and that the period for which ex-post facto approval accorded was a very short period that is from 7th February to 24th February 2007 when the Commission was not properly constituted, it is immaterial to argue that the Ordinance being a temporary law the provision of the General Clauses Act, 1887 is not applicable in the case. Moudud Ahmed vs State, 68 DLR (AD) 118

Section 18(2)-In disposing the leave petition, if the opinion formed by this Division on the effect of the ex-post facto amending Ordinance is treated to be correct, then it would amount to declaring the law ultra vires or repeal of the law, section 18(2), without examining the vires of the law by a competent court. declaring a law ultra vires or striking down a law or treating a law to be repealed or nullity without having assailed the vires of the law would tantamount to legislation by the court which is unknown to our jurispru- dence. Moudud Ahmed vs State, 68 DLR (AD) 118

Section 18(2) and 26-The obser- vations of this Division in paragraph 44 of the judgment in respect of service of notice under section 26 read with section 18(2) of the ACC Act upon the respondent No. 1 when he was in custody was not an issue in the case before the court. The very observa- tion was not at all necessary for the decision of the case and does not relate to the material facts in issue. The observations made in 62 DLR (AD) 290 and 297 para 44 is contrary to the purpose and intendment of the Act, 2004. Moudud Ahmed vs State, 68 DLR (AD) 118

Sections 18 & 26-Section 26 envisages that before issuance of the notice, the Commis- sioner(s) must be satisfied about the allegation. It is their satisfaction and of nobody elses. But by sub-section (2) of section 18, the Commissioners can only ratify the 'satisfaction' of the Secretary which is certainly not stipulated in section 26. Anti-Corruption Commission vs Dr Mohiuddin Khan Alamgir 62 DLR (AD) 290.

Section 18(2)- If any person acts beyond his authority, to the prejudice of any person, such acts cannot be ratified of validated by post facto legislation and, as such, his action remains void. Iqbal Hasan Mahmood @ Iqbal Hasan Mahmood Tuku vs State 63 DLR 660.

Section 19-On the allegation of corruption on any subject matter as well as on the allegation of commission of schedule offences the Commissioner or the officers of the Commission entrusted with the power to enquire is empowered under section 19 of the Ain, 2004 read with rules 8 and 20 of the Rules, 2007 to direct the person, against whom a complaint is made, to appear before the Commission to give explanation either orally or in writing, with a view to find out the correctness of the allegation. Issuance of the order directing the petitioner and 4 (four) others to appear before the Commission to record their statements does not suffer from any illegality requiring interference by this court. Shahidullah Miah (Md) vs Govern- ment of Bangladesh, 66 DLR 444

Sections 19 and 20-The opinion in guise of direction expressed in the impugned letter was not the upshot of any judicial determination. Such a mere administrative letter although issued as per the verbal instruction of the Hon'ble Chief Justice, patently impinges upon the rights and lawful authority of the Commission to go on with the inquiry into an allegation of corruption. State vs Registrar General. Supreme Court of Bangladesh, 70 DLR 543

Sections 19 and 20-By issuing the letter the Supreme Court authority had flouted the provisions of law and that the opinion expressed in the letter that it would not be proper (সমীচিন হবে না) to take any action against Mr Justice Md Joynul Abedin is nothing but an attempt to create obstacle in the process of inquiry. State vs Registrar General, Supreme Court of Bangladesh, 70 DLR 543

Sections 19 and 20-Commission is not bound by the opinion expressed in the impugned letter which was given in the form of direction by the Supreme Court administration. The Commission is under obligation to proceed with the matter in accordance with law. State vs Registrar General, Supreme Court of Bangladesh, 70 DLR 543

Sections 19 and 20-Prosecution is always at liberty to cause further investi- gation to be made if it is required for ends of justice. The initial investigating officer, without collecting evidence required by law, simply recommended for discharge on the basis of the statements of the accused persons, recorded under section 161 of the Code. Commission had no other alternative but to pass an order for further investi gation asking him to unearth facts behind the deal involving huge public money. Anti-Corruption Commission, being a prosecuting agency rightly passed an order of further investigation in a case involving huge public money as has been sub-section (3B) of section 173 of the Code empowered by sections 19 and 20 of the দুর্নীতি দমন কমিশন আইন-২০০৪। Begum Khaleda Zia vs State, 68 DLR 277

Sections 19 and 20-No where within the four corners of the notice the respective petitioner has been indentified as "অভিযোগের সহিত সংশ্লিষ্ট কোন ব্যক্তি" hence, he has been called upon by the Commission to appear as a witnesses in connection with an inquiry "অনুসন্ধানের স্বার্থে". As such, it is a notice under section 19(1) of the Ain and a mere quoting of section 20 of the Ain, will not go to vitiate the effect of the notice. AKM Khurshid Hossain vs Anti-Corruption Commission, 66 DLR 645

Anti-Corruption Commission Act (V of 2004)

Sections 19 and 20

It is well settled that ACC has authority to issue notice for the purpose of inquiry and investigation. [73 DLR 34]

Code of Criminal Procedure (V of 1898)

Section 476

Since as per claim of the petitioner, the inquiry officer and others made phone calls and talked with the petitioner and his people with malafide intention to cause harassment to the petitioner and with a purpose of gaining something illegally from the petitioner and since a question has been raised as to the genuineness of the document, the allegation with regard to phone calls and conversations is required to be inquired by the probe committee to be formed by the Anti Corruption Commission and the allegation is required to be inquired by the Registrar, High Court Division, as per the provision of section 476 of the Code. [73 DLR 34]

Anti-Corruption Commission Ain (V of 2004)

Section 17

Schedule Offences-There is no bar to seize the passport of a person/accused who is involved in the commission of the schedule offences by the Commission during inquiry/ investigation/ further investigation into the allegation of the schedule offences of the Ain, if the circumstances demand to do the same. [73 DLR 206]

Anti-Corruption Commission Ain (V of 2004)

Section 17(Ka)

Schedule Offences-The Commission can seize the passport of a citizen if that person commits the schedule offences of the Act, if there is an apprehension to it that the person involved in the commission of schedule offences may flee away from the country and tamper the materials/evidence on which the prosecution will rely.

It is true that for the right guaranteed in Article 36 of the Constitution, a citizen can freely move throughout Bangladesh and to leave and re-inter Bangladesh, but that right is not an absolute one and is subject to reasonable restriction imposed by law. However, the government in the interest of sovereignty, integrity or security of Bangladesh or in the public interest can impound/revoke a passport of a citizen if it appears to it necessary to do it, but of course assigning reasons whatsoever in support of impounding/revoking the passport under the Bangladesh Passport Order, 1973. [73 DLR 207]

Sections 18 & 26

Section 26 envisages that before issuance of the notice, the Commissioner(s) must be satisfied about the allegation. It is their satisfaction and of nobody elses. But by sub-section (2) of section 18, the Commissioners can only ratify the ‘satisfaction’ of the Secretary which is certainly not stipulated in section 26. Anti-Corruption Commission vs Dr Mohiuddin Khan Alamgir 62 DLR (AD) 290.

Section-19 (1) and (2)

Anti-Corruption Commission Act, 2004

Section-19 (1) and (2)

Section 63A of the Registration Act, 1908

Stamp Act, 1899

Evasion of registration fees and other duties for registering a deed of sale does not come within the schedule offences of the Anti-Corruption Commission Act, 2004:

With reference to the legal decision taken in the case of Sonali Jute Mills Ltd Vs. ACC reported in 22 BLC (AD) 147, the submission of the learned Advocate for the ACC is that sub-section(1) and (2) of section-19 have given wide jurisdiction to the Commission to inquire into and investigate any allegations whatsoever as covered in its schedule and in doing so, the ACC may direct any authority, public or private to produce relevant documents. But the allegation under the instant inquiry which is admittedly initiated on the allegation as stated in the application dated 11.12.2018 (Annexure-N) filed by the Respondent No.05 with regard to taking possession of RAJUK plot unlawfully creating forged documents and evasion of registration fees and other duties for registering a deed of sale does not come within the schedule offences of the Anti-Corruption Commission Act, 2004 rather it may come under the purview of Section 63A of the Registration Act, 1908 and under the provision of Stamp Act, 1899 and thus the said case law is not applicable to the case of the petitioners. It appears from the annexures of the writ petition that the subsequent sale between the petitioners and the Respondent No.4 was also held by a Court of law pursuant to a decree of specific performance of contract and thus there is no scope of taking possession of RAJUK plot unlawfully creating forged documents and evasion of registration fees and stamp fees at all. …Md. Atiqur Rahman & anr Vs. Bangladesh & ors, (Civil), 16 SCOB [2022] HCD 70

S. 19(1)(2)-Under sub-section (1) and (2) of section 19 the Commission has wide jurisdiction to inquire or investigate any allegation whatsoever as covered in its schedule and in so doing may direct the authority concern to produce the relevant documents, be it, public or private. In compliance of the direction the person concern shall be bound to supply the same. Sonali Jute Mills Ltd. Vs. Anti-Corruption Commission (Spl. Original), 18 BLC (2013)-HCD-723.

Sections 19 and 20

Anti-Corruption Commission Act, 2004

Sections 19 and 20 and

Rule 20 of the Anti-Corruption Commission Rules, 2007 read with

Section 160 of the Code of Criminal Procedure:

It appears from the record that the ACC in the name of exercising discretionary power issued the impugned notices hurriedly during pendency of Writ Petition 1087 of 2019 directing the petitioners to appear before the ACC to make statements with respect to taking possession of RAJUK plot unlawfully creating forged documents and evasion of registration fees and other taxes at the time of purchase of the land in question, which is tantamount to interference in the administration of justice that cannot escape characterization of a mala fide act having something in the mind of the Respondent No.3 and that is why we have no hesitation to say that the impugned notices have been issued abusing of the discretion and thus the same are liable to be interfered with by this Court. …Md. Atiqur Rahman & anr Vs. Bangladesh & ors, (Civil), 16 SCOB [2022] HCD 70

Anti-Corruption Commission Act

(V of 2004)

Sections 19 and 20-If the Commission is not satisfied with wealth statement, there is provision for filling case against the writ- petitioner, but the Commission cannot issue repeated notice upon any person for submitting wealth statement. This is a malafide act on the part of the Commission. Ashraful Haque (Md) vs Anti-Corruption Commission (Civil) 75 DLR (AD) 7

Sections 19 and 20-Commission has got the power to issue notice upon the person(s) against whom an inquiry or investigation is going on to appear before the Commission for giving him a chance to hear and to place or submit his written or verbal statement and connecting documents with regard to the allegation brought against him. Anti-Corruption Commission vs Md Ashraful Haque (Civil) 75 DLR (AD)

Section 19(2)-The word 'any person used in section 19(2) includes the person(s) against whom inquiry or investigation as the case may be is going on. Provisions have been made for the interest and benefit of a person(s) against whom an inquiry or investigation is going on as he is giving opportunity to defend himself in inquiry or investigation stage. Anti-Corruption Commission vs Md Ashraful Haque (Civil) 75 DLR (AD) 1

Section 19

Anti-Corruption Commission Rules, 2007

Rule 8 and 11 and 20

If Appellate Division meticulously examine the above two provisions i.e., section 19 of the Act, 2004 and 20 of Rules, 2007, coupled with rule 8 and 11 of the above Rules, then this Division has no hesitation to hold that those provisions have been made for the interest and benefit of a person(s) against whom an inquiry or investigation is going on as he is giving opportunity to defend himself in inquiry or investigation stage. Thus, there is no room to say that issuance of such notice by the Commission or its authorized officer is harassing, malafide and prejudiced to the concerned person(s). .....Durnity Daman Commission =VS= Md. Ashraful Haque, (Civil), 2023(1) [14 LM (AD) 499]

Anti-Corruption Commission Ain (V of 2004)

Sections 19 and 20

Section 20 of the Ain, speaks to the effect that notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, the offences under the Act and specified in its schedule shall be inquired into or investigated only by the Commission. The Commission can proceed with the matter of inquiry/investigation into any allegation of corruption, bribery and money laundering independently if the elements of corruption and bribery are there......(34) [73 DLR 207]

Section 20- Continuation of the investigation of the case in question by the police after coming into force of the Ain, 2004 was illegal and without jurisdiction. ...Kaisor-uz-Zaman(Md.) =VS= Deputy Commissioner, Sylhet, [10 LM (AD) 483]

Section 20Ka(1) Quashing the proceeding of Special Case No. 21 of 2007- The First Information Report was lodged on 12-5-2015 and the Investigating Officer, holding investigation, submitted its report on 30-12-2016. The Senior Special Judge, Cox's Bazar took cognizance of the offence against the respondent and others on 19-4-2017 under sections 409/420/109 of the Penal Code read with section 5(2) of the Act II of 1947.

We do not find any such default clause in section 20Ka that if the Investigating Officer fails to complete the investigation within stipulated time or extended time the proceeding shall stand stopped or to be dropped. The only provision is that if the Investigation Officer fails to complete the investigation within time, the Commission shall appoint another Investigating Officer and shall take step against the Investigating Officer.

In view of the aforesaid provision of law, the High Court Division committed an error of law in quashing the proceeding holding that since the mandatory provision had not been complied with, the proceeding was liable to be quashed. The arrived at by the High Court Division is erroneous,

The petition is disposed of. The judgment and order of the High Court Division is set aside. The Divisional Special Judge, Chittagong is directed to proceed with the case in accordance with law. Anti- Corruption Commission -VS- Md Shafiul Alam, [8 LM (AD) 620]

Section 20-The Durnity Commission Commission is at liberty to hold further investigation into the case and submit report and for that purpose no formal order is needed from the Court. Durnity Daman Commission vs Monjur Morshed Khan, 69 DLR 380

Section 20-The Court cannot play into the hands of the investigating officer who designedly made a perfunctory investigation and misled the Commission and Court should act objectively in a correct perspective. Durnity Daman Com- mission vs Monjur Morshed Khan, 69 DLR 380

Section 20-Filing of naraji and the application for further investigation after acceptance of the report under section 173 of the Code are misconceived attempt. Moreover, Commission cannot file a naraji petition against a report of investigation which was done or conducted by itself. Durnity Daman Commission vs Monjur Morshed Khan, 69 DLR 380

Sections 20 and 32-The report was prepared in a perfunctory manner. The Special Judge accepted the report mecha-nically without applying its judicial mind. He was not precluded to send the case for further investigation despite the sanction of the Commission. Durnity Daman Commis- sion vs Monjur Morshed Khan, 69 DLR 380

Sections 20(1) Sub-section (2) of section 3 of the Act of 1957 authorized the government to empower the officers of Bureau to enquire into and investigate into cases in respect of offences specified in the schedule 'which the police officers' had in connection with the investigation of such offences. This power of the government has been invested to the Commission under sub-section (1) of section 20 of the Ain. In exercise of that power the Commission has issued the notification. It says that notwithstanding anything contained in the Code, the Commission can empower any officer for investigation of any offence under the Ain by gazette notification. Durniti Daman Commission vs Sheikh Amin Uddin, 69 DLR (AD) 373

Sections 20(1) and 32-There was no scope to hold that sanction of the Government was mandatory to make inquiry of the offence of the case as per provision of section 188 of the Code. Section 188 of the Code was not applicable to this particular case and rather it was inconsistent with the provision of sections 20(1) and 32 of the Ain, 2004 and sections 4(4) and 6(1) of the Act, 1958.Mafruza Sultana vs State, 67 DLR (AD) 227

Section 20

Continuation of the investigation of the case in question by the police after coming into force of the Ain, 2004 was illegal and without jurisdiction. ...Kaisor-uz-Zaman(Md.) =VS= Deputy Commissioner, Sylhet, (Criminal), 2021(1) [10 LM (AD) 483]

Section 20Ka(1)

Durnity Daman Commission Ain (as amended by Act XVI of 2013)

Section 20Ka(1) read with

The Code of Criminal Procedure

Section 561A

Quashing the proceeding of Special Case No. 21 of 2007– The First Information Report was lodged on 12-5-2015 and the Investigating Officer, holding investigation, submitted its report on 30-12-2016. The Senior Special Judge, Cox's Bazar took cognizance of the offence against the respondent and others on 19-4-2017 under sections 409/420/109 of the Penal Code read with section 5(2) of the Act II of 1947.

In view of the aforesaid provision of law, the High Court Division committed an error of law in quashing the proceeding holding that since the mandatory provision had not been complied with, the proceeding was liable to be quashed. The conclusion arrived at by the High Court Division is erroneous.

The petition is disposed of. The judgment and order of the High Court Division is set aside. The Divisional Special Judge, Chittagong is directed to proceed with the case in accordance with law. …Anti-Corruption Commission =VS= Md Shafiul Alam, (Criminal), 2020 (1) [8 LM (AD) 620]

Section 20Ka(1)(2)

Directory provisions are not intended by the legislature to be disregarded yet the seriousness of non-compliance is not considered so great that liability automatically attaches for failure to comply–– Investigating Officer failed to investigate the respective cases within the stipulated time. ––In case of failure to complete investigation within 120 days and within the extended period of 60 days the Investigating Officer of the case is to be changed and there is no consequence in the law to the effect that in case of failure to complete investigation within the time stipulated in section 20Ka(1) and extended period in section 20Ka(2) of the Act the proceeding initiated is to be treated as bad in law. Although directory provisions are not intended by the legislature to be disregarded yet the seriousness of non-compliance is not considered so great that liability automatically attaches for failure to comply. The word "shall" is not always decisive. Since there is no consequence except the provision of changing the Investigating Officer, Appellate Division is of the view that there is no scope to quash the proceeding on the ground that as the Investigating Officer failed to complete investigation within time stipulated in 20Ka(1) and 20Ka(2) of the Act, the proceeding would render be void. .....Anti-Corruption Commission =VS= Md Monjurul Huq, (Criminal), 2023(1) [14 LM (AD) 318]

Section 20Ka-The provision of completion of investigation within the stipulated period is not mandatory in nature and, as such, non-submission of the report by the investigating agency within the stipulated working days cannot be a ground for quashing the proceedings, since no consequences have been provided regarding the proceedings. Mohua Ali vs State, 70 DLR 816

Section 21-Since these offences punishable under the Ain are cognizable, a private person or a police officer or an officer of the Commission may arrest a suspected offender if he is satisfied that such suspected person has committed a cognizable offence either punishable under the Ain or under any other Ains, and lodge an FIR with the local police station without the permission of the Commission. If the police finds that the offence attracts the offences punishable under the Durnity Daman Ain, it may intimate the matter to the Commission for taking action under the Ain. Iqbal Hasan Mahmood alias Iqbal Hasan Mahmood Tuku vs Anti-Corruption Commission, 70 DLR (AD) 109

Anti-Corruption Commission Act (V of 2004)

Section 22

The notice did not infringe the fundamen- tal rights of the writ-petitioner because it is simply an invitation to make statements upon the allegations.

ACC acted within the provision of law for issuance of the impugned notice for the interest of justice and also for the transparency to pursue any person if there any allegation of corruption or earning property from any unknown source of income. [73 DLR 296]

Section 26

Satisfaction—Satisfaction must be of the Commission itself constituted of no other person than its Commissioners. The relevant order to submit assets may be issued by any of its authorised officials but the decision to issue such an order must be recorded by the Commissioner(s). Anti-Corruption Commission vs Dr Mohiuddin Khan Alamgir 62 DLR (AD) 290.

Section 26

If any person acts beyond his authority, to the prejudice of any person, such acts cannot be ratified or validated by post facto legislation, his action remains void. Anti-Corruption Commission vs Dr Mohiuddin Khan Alamgir 62 DLR (AD) 290.

Section 26

Notice—A notice must allow a reasonable time to check-up the details of the assets of a person, if necessary, on examination of his records and after consultation with his lawyers and other concerned persons. Section 26 certainly does not envisage a notice upon a person who is in detention and he is not expected to give any details of his assets within the time specified. The person concerned must be afforded a fair and reasonable opportunity to respond to the notice, otherwise, it is no notice in the eye of law. A notice issued under section 26 of the Act to a detenu, away from his hearth and home, cannot be said to be a fair and bonafide exercise of power. Anti-Corruption Commission vs Dr Mohiuddin Khan Alamgir 62 DLR (AD) 290.

Section 26-Prior giving notice under section 26 of the Ain, the Commission has got the power to make an inquiry. The Commission, if after receiving the statement furnished by the concerned person(s) pursuant to the notice under section 26 of the Ain, is not satisfied, then as per rule 6 of the Rules, 2007 the Commission for the purpose of holding inquiry is empowered to appoint an inquiry officer, and in course of inquiry the Commission or concerned officer as authorized to do so is also empowered to issue notice as per provision of rule 8 of the Rules, 2007 upon the concerned person(s) for the purpose of inquiry asking him to submit or place his written or verbal submissions and the relevant documents Anti-Corruption Commission vs Md Ashraful Haque (Civil) 75 DLR (AD)

Section 26 Notice has been issued for the purpose of proper and effective inquiry and the writ petitioner was asked to submit/provide the documents in support of his wealth statement submitted before the Commission in pursuant to the notice under section 26 of the Ain Anti- Corruption Commission vs Md Ashraful Haque (Civil) 75 DLR (AD) 1

Sections 26 and 27(1) read with Offences under sections 26 and 27(1) of the ACC Act, 2004 and sections 165 and 166 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1984 are completely separate and distinct and one is not dependant on others. Therefore, the present case under sections 26 and 27(1) of the ACC Act, 2004 shall proceed. independently. Although the petitioner was earlier acquitted in a case under sections 165 and 166 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1984 it will not put any embargo on the trial of the present case. Mirza Abbas Uddin Ahmed vs State (Criminal) 75 DLR (AD) 182

Sections 26 & 27

Whether the appellant has disproportionate wealth, he has concealed his known source of income, there is mis-joinder of charges and the trial of the appellant on facts allegedly committed prior to the promulgation of Durnity Daman Commission Ain, 2004 constitute offence under the Durnity Daman Commission Ain are disputed facts can only be decided on evidence at the trial. Habibur Rahman Mollah vs State 62 DLR (AD) 233.

Sections 26 & 27

Since the prosecution is almost over and the appellant put his defence by cross-examining the witnesses, in view of the consistent views of the superior courts of this sub-continent that the High Court Division which exercising its power under section 561A of the Code should not usurp the jurisdiction trial Court. Habibur Rahman Mollah vs State 62 DLR (AD) 233.

Section 26(2)

No legal impediment for the Commission to issue fresh notice under section 26 of the Act, if so advised, but not in those cases where the accused has already been acquitted on merit of the case as is in this case. Anti-Corruption Commission vs Dr Mohiuddin Khan Alamgir 62 DLR (AD) 290.

Sections 26(2) and 33

Anticipatory Bail/pre-arrest Bail - lt is an extra-ordinary remedy and an exception to the general rule of bail which can be granted only in extra-ordinary and exceptional circumtrances upon a proper and intelligent exercise of discretion. The High Court Division cannot exercise its discretion whimsically at its suit will. The High Court Division has not properly exercised its discretion in granting the accused- respondent on anticipatory bail. We have given a cursory glance of the application for pre-arest bail. 'The grounds are also not relevant for the purpose of exercising discretion in the case. More so, the case having been filed by the Durnity Daman Commission in exercise of its power under Act of 2004, the Durnity Daman Commission is a necessary party but, the accused-respondent has not made it a party. Durnity Daman Commission. -Vs.- Jesmin Islam and another 5 ALR (AD)2015(1) 46

Section 26 and 32

Section 26 and 32 Authority of the Commission to issue notice requiring a person to submit statement of his assets and liabilities.Requirement of sanction for the prosecution to be accompanied with the charge-sheet.

Requirement of the law is that the person asking to submit statement of his assets and liabilities must be given reasonable time and opportunity. Directing to submit the statement at the time the person was in detention is not a legal notice in the eye of law. Proceedings initiated on such invalid notice and the conviction and sentence passed therein is illegal and not sustainable in law. Only one sanction of the Commission is necessary. Anti-Corruption Commission, represented by its Chairman Vs. Dr. Mohiuddin Khan Alamgir and others 15 MLR (2010) (AD) 406.

Sections 26(1) and 27(1)

No notice is required to be served by the Commission for prosecution of an offender in respect of an offence punishable under section 27(1) of the said Ain– The offences punishable under sections 26(1) and 27(1) of the Ain, 2004 are distinct and that no notice is required to be served by the Commission for prosecution of an offender in respect of an offence punishable under section 27(1) of the said Ain. The High Court Division on misconstruction of law quashed the proceedings. We find no cogent ground to depart from the same. In view of the above, we find infirmity of the judgment of the High Court Division. The impugned judgment of the High Court Division is set-aside. ...Anti-Corruption Commission =VS= Ruhul Quddus Talukder Dulu, (Criminal), 2021(1) [10 LM (AD) 495]

Sections 26(1) and 27(1)

দুর্নীতি দমন কমিশন আইন, ২০০৪

Section 27 r/w

The Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947

Sections 5(1)(e) and 5(2)

The Penal Code

Section 109

From the testimonies it is luminous that the evidence of prosecution are so incompatible, improper and unreasonable which are not only reprehensible, rather, full of dissonance and totally blameworthy. The prosecution case, therefore, cannot be believable.

Carefully gone through the judgment of the trial Court and the judgment of the High Court Division. On perusal of the judgment of the High Court Division, we find that the High Court Division has elaborately discussed the evidences and considered the facts and circumstances of the case, recorded the acquittal in accordance with law. This petition is dismissed. ...Anti-Corruption Commission =VS= Md. Lutfor Rahman, (Criminal), 2021(1) [10 LM (AD) 510]

Section 26

Notice– A notice must allow a reasonable time to check-up the details of the assets of a person, if necessary, on examination of his records and after consultation with his lawyers and other concerned persons– The notice dated 18.02.2007 was not a notice required by law, the notice directed the respondent no. 1, a detenu, to submit return of his assets within a period of 72 hours, is itself a worst example of arbitrary action on the part of the concerned authority. A notice must allow a reasonable time to check-up the details of the assets of a person, if necessary, on examination of his records and after consultation with his lawyers and other concerned persons. Section 26 certainly does not envisage a notice upon a person who is in detention and he is not expected to give any details of his assets within the time specified. The person concerned must be afforded a fair and reasonable opportunity to respond to the notice, otherwise, it is no notice in the eye of law. A notice issued under section 26 of the Act to a detenu, away from his hearth and home, cannot be said to be a fair and bonafide exercise of power.

That the notice dated 18.02.2007, issued by Secretary to the Commission, was without any lawful authority, as such, void and any proceeding based on the said void notice is a nullity in the eye of law. …Anti-Corruption Commission =VS= Dr. Muhiuddin Khan Alamgir, (Criminal), 2020 (1) [8 LM (AD) 607]

Section 26-Satisfaction-Satisfaction must be of the Commission itself constituted of no other person than its Commissioners. The relevant order to submit assets may be issued by any of its authorised officials but the decision to issue such an order must be recorded by the Commis- sioner(s). Anti-Corruption Commission vs Dr Mohiuddin Khan Alamgir 62 DLR (AD) 290.

Section 26-If any person acts beyond his authority, to the prejudice of any person, such acts cannot be ratified or validated by post facto legislation, his action remains void. Anti-Corrup- tion Commission vs Dr Mohiuddin Khan Alamgir 62 DLR (AD) 290.

Section 26-Notice-A notice must allow a reasonable time to check-up the details of the assets of a person, if necessary, on examination of his records and after consultation with his lawyers and other concerned persons. Section 26 certainly does not envisage a notice upon a person who is in detention and he is not expected to give any details of his assets within the time specified. The person concerned must be afforded a fair and reasonable opportunity to respond to the notice, otherwise, it is no notice in the eye of law. A notice issued under section 26 of the Act to a detenu, away from his hearth and home, cannot be said to be a fair and bonafide exercise of power. Anti-Corruption Commission vs Dr Mohiuddin Khan Alamgir 62 DLR (AD) 290.

Sections 26 & 27-Whether the appellant has disproportionate wealth, he has concealed his known source of income, there is mis-joinder of charges and the trial of the appellant on facts allegedly committed prior to the promulgation of Durnity Daman Commission Ain, 2004 constitute an offence under the Durnity Daman Commission Ain are disputed facts can only be decided on evidence at the trial. Habibur Rahman Mollah vs State 62 DLR (AD) 233.

Sections 26 & 27-Since the prosecution case is almost over and the appellant put his defence by cross-examining the witnesses, in view of the consistent views of the superior Courts of this sub-continent that the High Court Division which exercising its power under section 561A of the Code should not usurp the jurisdiction of the trial Court. Habibur Rahman Mollah vs State 62 DLR (AD) 233.

Section 26(1)- A well-established legal principle is that a person upon whom power is delegated cannot delegate the same to another person. In the instant case the legal provision in Rule 17(1) is such that the Commission itself could delegate the power to issue a notice for submission of wealth statement to anyone of its officers not below the rank of Deputy Director (DD). Akbar Khan vs Anti-Corruption Commis- sion 62 DLR 20.

Section 26(1)- In any event, the Commis- sion may itself issue the notice or delegate the authority to issue the notice or may empower any of its Commissioners to delegate the authority to issue the notice. The memo dated 9-11-2009 issued by the Director (Additional charge), ACC Divisional Office, Chittagong specifically directed the DD to issue the notice under his (the DD's) signature and to serve the same. This chain of delegation is not contem-plated by the law. A Director of the Divisional Office does not have the power of delegation. Akbar Khan vs Anti- Corruption Com-mission 62 DLR 20.

Section 26(1)- The strict interpretation of the law, is that the power to delegate lies with the ACC or any Commissioner empowered by the ACC. There is nothing to prevent the ACC even now to authorise the DD of the Anti-Corruption Commis-sion, Integrated District Office (সমন্বিত জেলা কার্যালয়), Rangamati to issue the notice upon the petitioner. The Commission may directly authorise any DD of the Commission. Equally, the ACC could empower any of its Commissioners and that Commissioner so empowered could delegate his authority upon anyone not below the rank of DD of Anti-Corruption Commission to issue the notice and there is no legal bar to do so even now by issuing a fresh authority in accordance with law. The delegatee, namely the DD, if so authorised by the proper authority, may issue a fresh notice. But from the facts and circumstances of the instant case, we do not find any authority given to the Director of the Divisional Office, Chittagong to delegate his authority to the DD to issue the impugned notice. It is a highly technical legal defect which can be cured. Akbar Khan vs Anti-Corruption Commission 62 DLR 20.

Section 26(2)- No legal impediment for the Commission to issue fresh notice under section 26 of the Act, if so advised, but not in those cases where the accused has already been acquitted on merit of the case as is in this case. Anti-Corruption Commission vs Dr Mohiuddin Khan Alamgir 62 DLR (AD) 290.

Section 26(2)-The matter is at the very initial stage and no proceedings are yet drawn up against the petitioner. It may be legitimately argued that the petitioner did not suffer any pre- judice since the notice was issued by a DD who under the law has the rank and status to be authorised to issue the notice. The point raised by the petitioner is highly technical and should not be allowed to obstruct the course of justice. Akbar Khan vs Anti-Corruption Commission 62 DLR 20.

Anti-Corruption Commission Act, 2004

Sections 26 and 27(1)

The Income Tax Ordinance, 1984

Sections 165 and 166

The Code of Criminal Procedure

Sections 235(2)/236/403

The Anti-Corruption Commission of offence where the wealth of a person is found not in proportionate to his known sources of income. The intention of the legislature behind the enactment of ACC Act, 2004 is prevent corruption–– It has been held that the Income Tax Ordinance is purely a law relating to prevention of tax evasion and realization of income tax, which is completely distinct offence unlike the present one which relates to corruption. ––It is evident that the offences under Sections 26 and 27(1) of the ACC Act, 2004 and Sections 165 and 166 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1984 are completely separate and distinct and one is not dependant on others. Therefore, the present case under Sections 26 and 27(1) of the ACC Act, 2004 shall proceed independently. Although the petitioner was earlier acquitted in a case under Sections 165 and 166 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1984 it will not put any embargo on the trial of the present case. .....Mirza Abbas Uddin Ahmed =VS= The State, (Criminal), 2022(2) [13 LM (AD) 643]

Section 26(1)

Afresh notice issue–– Appellate Division does not find any substantial wrong in the issuance of notice by the ACC. The ACC may issue notice in writing, if require, any person being an individual to furnish, on the date specified in the notice, a statement of wealth. ––Since notice was issued on 12-1-2009 and challenging that notice the petitioner got Rule and an order of stay operation of the impugned notice and that, in the meantime, more than 10 years has elapsed and that in that notice there was direction to submit wealth statement of the petitioner within 7(seven) days from the date of issuance of the notice which has expired long ago, This Division is of the view that said notice lost its effectiveness. ––In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the ACC may issue notice afresh if it feels the need. .....Sigma Huda =VS= Ministry of Home Affairs, Bangladesh, (Civil), 2023(1) [14 LM (AD) 190]

Section 26

The Commission has discretionary power to proceed against the alleged offender under any provisions of the Ain, but its satisfaction is subject to the confirmation by the court. The question of prior knowledge of the Commission before issuing notice under section 26 is not required to be reflected in the FIR or the police report. The law enjoins the Commission to exercise its discretion and in exercising its discretion, the offender does not have any say. It may collect information on the basis of notice issued under section 26 or it may form its opinion from other sources. .....Iqbal Hasan Mahmood Tuku =VS= Anti-Corruption Commission, (Criminal), 2018 (2) [5 LM (AD) 226]

Section 26(1)

We are of the view that the High Court Division erred in law in holding the view that the dispute as to non-service of notice cannot be looked into in writ jurisdiction. Police report clearly shows that no notice was served upon the petitioner, inasmuch as, she was away from the country. Accordingly, the High Court Division has committed fundamental error in not interfering with the matter. As the point is subtle one as to service of notice under section 26(1) for submission of wealth statement we are not inclined to drag the matter by granting leave and dispose of the petition summarily since both the parties are present before us. We direct the Durnity Daman Commission to issue proper notice upon the petitioner to her known address without delay and dispose of the matter in accordance with law. The judgment of the High Court Division and the proceedings initiated against the petitioner quashed. .....Syeda Iqbal Mand Banu =VS= Anti-Corruption Commission, (Civil), 2018 (1) [4 LM (AD) 338]

Sections 26 & 27

The offences punishable under sections 26 and 27 of the Ain, 2004 are distinct and that no notice is required to be served by the Commission for prosecution of an offender in respect of an offence punishable under section 27 of the said Ain. The High Court Division on misconstruction of law quashed the proceedings. The question has already been settled by this Division. .....Anti-Corruption Commission =VS= Mosaddek Ali Falu(Md), (Criminal), 2017 (2)– [3 LM (AD) 512]

The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898

Section 561A

The Anti-Corruption Commission Act, 2004

Section 26(2), 27(1) r/w

The Penal Code, 1860

Section 109

The Emergency Power Rules, 2007

Section 15(D)(5)

Appellate Division is of the view that the petitioner was a fugitive in the eye of law when she filed the application under section 561A of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Direction of the High Court Division in the concluding portion of the impugned judgment and order that: “However, since at the time of issuing the Rule this Court dispensed with the appearance of the petitioner, she should be allowed to appear before the concerned Court without any hindrance. The petitioner is directed to appear before the concerned Court within 08(eight) weeks from the date of taking cognizance of the offence, if any so that she can defend herself in accordance with law.” -is outside the purview of law and hence struck off. Thus the impugned judgment and order is modified with the above observation. Accordingly, the criminal petition for leave to appeal is dismissed. .....Dr. Zubaida Rahman, wife of Tarique Rahman =VS= The State, (Criminal), 2022(1) [12 LM (AD) 523]

Sections 26(2) and 27(1)

Durnity Daman Commission Ain, 2004

Sections 26(2) and 27(1) r/w

The Emergency Powers Rules, 2007

Rule 15Gha (5)

It is established that the accused has disproportionate to his known source of income or that he has committed an offence by concealment of and/or suppression of wealth as per provisions of Durnity Daman Commission Ain. The Court is required to look into the allegations made in the first information report that whether the same discloses any offence or not. If the allegations do not disclose an offence the High Court Division is perfectly justified in invoking its inherent power on the reasoning that the continuation of the proceeding is a sheet-abuse of the process of the Court. The learned Judges of the High Court Division, in the premises, are perfectly justified in refusing to exercise their inherent power in the facts and circumstances of the case. The appeal is dismissed. .....Habibur Rahman Mollah (Ex-MP) =VS= State, (Criminal), 2022(1) [12 LM (AD) 644]

Section 26- The Commission has discretionary power to proceed against the alleged offender under any provisions of the Ain, but its satisfaction is subject to the confirmation by the court. The question of prior knowledge of the Commission before issuing notice under section 26 is not required to be reflected in the FIR or the police report. The law enjoins the Commission to exercise its discretion and in exercising its discretion, the offender does not have any say. It may collect information on the basis of notice issued under section 26 or it may form its opinion from other sources...... Iqbal Hasan Mahmood Tuku VS Anti-Corruption Commission, [5 LM (AD) 226]

Section 26- Notice A notice must allow a reasonable time to check-up the details of the assets of a person, if necessary, on examination of his records and after consultation with his lawyers and other concerned persons The notice dated 18.02.2007 was not a notice required by law, the notice directed the respondent no. 1, a detenu, to submit return of his assets within a period of 72 hours, is itself a worst example of arbitrary action on the part of the concerned authority. A notice must allow a reasonable time to check-up the details of the assets of a person, if necessary, on examination of his records and after consultation with his lawyers and other concerned persons. Section 26 certainly does not envisage a notice upon a person who is in detention and he is not expected to give any details of his assets within the time specified. The person concerned must be afforded a fair and reasonable opportunity to respond to the notice, otherwise, wise, it is no notice in the eye of law. A notice issued under section 26 of the Act to a detenu, away from his hearth and home, cannot be said to be a fair and bonafide exercise of power.

That the notice dated 18.02.2007. issued by Secretary to the Commission, was without any lawful authority, as such, void and any proceeding based on the said void notice is a nullity in the eye of law....Anti-Corruption Commission =VS Dr. Muhiuddin Khan Alamgir, [8 LM (AD) 607]

Sections 26 & 27- The offences punishable under sections 26 and 27 of the Ain, 2004 are distinct and that no notice is required to be served by the Commission for prosecution of an offender in respect of an offence punishable under section 27 of the said Ain. The High Court Division on misconstruction of law quashed the proceedings. The question has already been settled by this Division......Anti- Corruption Commission -VS- Mosaddek Ali Falu (Md), [3 LM (AD) 512]

Section 26(1) - We are of the view that the High Court Division erred in law in holding the view that the dispute as to non- service of notice cannot be looked into in writ jurisdiction. Police report clearly shows that no notice was served upon the petitioner, inasmuch as, she was away from the country. Accordingly, the High Court Division has committed fundamental error in not interfering with the matter. As the point is subtle one as to service of notice under section 26(1) for submission of wealth statement we are not inclined to drag the matter by granting leave and dispose of the petition summarily since both the parties are present before us. We direct the Durnity Daman Commission to issue proper notice upon the petitioner to her known address without delay and dispose of the matter in accordance with law. The judgment of the High Court Division and the proceedings initiated against the petitioner quashed.......Syeda Iqbal Mand Banu =VS Anti-Corruption Commission, [4 LM (AD) 338]

Sections 26(1) and 27(1) - No notice is required to be served by the Commission for prosecution of an offender in respect of an offence punishable under section 27(1) of the said Ain- The offences punishable under sections 26(1) and 27(1) of the Ain, 2004 are distinct and that no notice is required to be served by the Commission for prosecution of an offender in respect of an offence punishable under section 27(1) of the said Ain. The High Court Division on misconstruction of law quashed the proceedings. We find no cogent ground to depart from the same. In view of the above, we find infirmity of the judgment of the High Court Division. The impugned judgment of the High Court Division is set-aside. ...Anti-Corruption Commission =VS= Ruhul Quddus Talukder Dulu. [10 LM (AD) 495]

Section 26/27, 26(1)

Admittedly, the respondent No. I-writ- petitioner is fugitive from justice. More- over, the facts made in affidavit-in- opposition has not been controverted by filing affidavit-in-reply by the writ-petitioner; that the respondent No.1-writ- petitioner failed to satisfy the Court by filing affidavit regarding the latest position of the trial Court and a duty is cast upon the respondent No.1-writ- petitioner to file a specific statement in the writ petition and as such, in view of the fugitive from justice. Anti-Corruption Commission vs. Md. Abul Kalam Shamsuddin (Mohammad Fazlul Karim J) (Civil)6 ADC 323

Section 26 of the Ain does not envisage a notice upon a person, who is in detention, the notice served upon the petitioner of the instant case while he was in detention is also to be held not in accordance with law, without lawful authority and no notice in the eye of law. (Para 13). Giridhari Lal Modi Vs. ACC, I CLR (2013)-HCD-301.

S. 27(2)Section 27(2) clearly provides that the accused shall have to rebut presumption about the allegation and explain his position as to the acquisition of disclosing source of income. Abdul Wahab (Md) Vs. State 18 BLC (2013)-HCD-382.

S. 27(2)-Since there are prima-facie allegations against the accused-petitioner attracting ingredients of both the offences and he is under legal obligation to clear his position and account for in respect of possession of properties allegedly disproportionate to his known sources of income to the satisfaction of the Court at the time of trial having onus to rebut presumption of guilt under Section 27(2) of the Act there is nothing to be prejudiced if the trial of the case is allowed to continue. Dr. Khandaker Mosharraf Hosain Vs. State, 65 DLR (2013)-HCD-I.

S. 26-Section 26 of the Act, does not contemplate that a notice for submission of wealth statement cannot be issued or served upon a person who was in detention. So, it cannot be said that notice served on a person who is in detention will automatically be invalid notice. Dr. Khandaker Mosharraf Hossain Vs. State, 65 DLR (2013)-HCD

S. 26(1-Since the Appellate Division stayed operation of the ad-interim order passed by the High Court Division, there is no reason as to why the notice issued under section 26(1) should not revive. Mahmudur Rahman Vs. State, 65 DLR (2013)-HCD-437.

S. 26-There is no gainsaying the fact that notice under Section 26(1) of the Act is necessary to be served upon the principal accused and the abettors to proceed against them under Section 26(2) of the ACC Act, 2004. In the instant case, notice required under Section 26(1) of the ACC Act, 2004 was served upon the accused-petitioner. Dr. Khandaker Mosharraf Hosain Vs. State, 65 DLR (2013)-HCD-1.

S. 26(2) and 27(2): Concealment of property in the property statement and punishment for the same. Since prima-facie there are materials against the petitioner attracting the ingredients of both the offences, the petitioner is under a legal obligation to clear his position and to account for possession of properties disproportionate to his known source of income. The onus is on the petitioner to rebut at the trial the presumption of guilt under section 27(2) of the Anti-Corruption Commission Act, 2004. Dr. Khandaker Mosharraf Hossain Vs. The State, 2 ALR (2013)-HCD-88.

S. 26(2)(Ka)-Clear prima-facie case has been made out therein against the petitioner under the first part of Section 26(2)(Ka) of the Ain, 2004 making him liable for prosecution. Dr. Tapan Kumar Dey Vs. State, 65 DLR (2013)-AD-1.

S. 26(1)-Distinction between "24 hours notice" and "7 days notice":

The observations made in para-44 of the Dr. Mohouddin Khan Alamgir's have only persuasive value and may be applicable to proper cases after proof of such arbitrary action directing detenu to submit wealth statement from the jail custody which was impossible on the ground of short notice. Moudud Ahmed Vs. State, 1 Counsel (2013)-HCD-134.

S. 26 and 27-The offence under sec. 27 of the ACC Act, 2004 has no nexus with the section 26(1) and section 26(2) of the same Act. So, the offence under section 27 can also be constituted and tried independently. F.LR can be lodged under section 27 without issuing any notice. So, this part of the criminal proceeding under section 27(1) of the ACC Act 2004 stands maintainable can not be struck down on the ground of notice. Moudud Ahmed Vs. State, 1 Counsel (2013)-HCD-134

Sections 26 and 27

Sections 26 and 27 of the Anti-Corrup- tion Commission Act, 2004, Rule 15(Gha)(5) of the Emergency Power Rules) read with Section 109 of the Penal code alleging that the respondent and his wife concealed. Anti Corrup- tion Commission vs. Barrister Moham- mad Shahjahan Omar (Md. Abdul Matin J) (Criminal) 7 ADC 349

Sections 26(2) and 27(1)

Alleged found by disproportionate to his known source of income and thereby he alleged to have committed the offence publishable under Sections 26(2)/27(1) of the Anti-Corruption Ain, 2004 read with Section 15 Gha(5) of Emergency Powers Rules, 2007. Habibur Rahman Mollah vs. The State (Mohammad Fazlul Karim J) (Criminal) 8 ADC 62

Section 26-Provision of furnishing wealth statement within 72 hours has been mentioned in Rule 15Gha(2) of Emergency Powers Rule 2007, but in the Act itself there is no any provision to submit the wealth statement within 72 hours. Only in the Act it has been said that the Commis- sion can ask any person to submit wealth statement, if Commission itself is satisfied that any person has been possessing wealth beyond his known source of income. Joynal Abedin Hazari vs State, 64 DLR 58

Section 26-The power of Anti- Corruption Commission to issue fresh notice under section 26 of the Act is still open. But if the Commission desires to send any notice to any person it must be done without any inordinate delay. Joynal Abedin Hazari vs State, 64 DLR 58

Section 26-Section 26 of the Act, does not contemplate that a notice for submission of wealth-statement cannot be issued or served upon a person who was in detention. So, it cannot be said that notice served on a person who is in detention will automatically be invalid notice. Dr Khandaker Mosharraf Hossain vs State, 65 DLR 1

Section 26-There is no gainsaying the fact that notice under section 26(1) of the Act is necessary to be served upon the principal accused and the abettors to proceed against them under section 26(2) of the ACC Act, 2004. In the instant case, notice required under section 26(1) of the ACC Act, 2004 was served upon the accused-petitioner. Dr Khandaker Moshar raf Hossain vs State, 65 DLR 1

Section 26-The question of prior knowledge of the Commission before issuing notice under section 26 is not required to be reflected in the FIR or the police report. The law enjoins the Commission to exercise its discretion and in exercising its discretion, the offender does not have any say. It may collect information on the basis of notice issued under section 26 or it may form its opinion from other sources. Iqbal Hasan Mahmood alias Iqbal Hasan Mahmood Tuku vs Anti- Corruption Commission, 70 DLR (AD) 109

Sections 26 and 27-Section 26 and section 27 of the Act are independent from each other and there is no nexus between these two sections. Section 27 being an independent section provides that if there are sufficient reasons to think that a person has acquired or amassed property illegally which is beyond his known source of income then he may be sentenced to suffer imprisonment for a term not more than 10 years and not less than 3 years and to pay fine and the property in question is liable to be confiscated. Before issuance of any notice under section 26 of the Act upon a person the Commission must have knowledge that the said person has acquired property beyond known source of income. Moudud Ahmed vs State, 68 DLR (AD) 118

Sections 26 and 27-Offences punishable under sections 26 and 27 of the Ain, 2004 are distinct offences and that no notice is required by the Commission for prosecution of an offender in respect of an offence punishable under section 27 of the Ain. ACC vs Mofazzal Hossain Chow- dhury Maya, 67 DLR (AD) 230

Sections 26 and 27-Offences punish able under sections 26 and 27 are independent offences and the filing of a case punishable under section 27 is not dependent upon issuance of notice under section 26 of the Ain. Iqbal Hasan Mahmood alias Iqbal Hasan Mahmood Tuku vs Anti-Corruption Commission, 70 DLR (AD) 109

Sections 26 and 27-In any case the ACC must continue with the inquiry to find out whether the notice recipient is actually holding any property disproportionate to his known/legal sources of income and if it is so found, the ACC would further prose- cute him under sections 26(2) and 27 of the Ain. Delwar Hossain (Md) Delu vs Anti- Corruption Commission, 70 DLR 110

Section 26(1)-Any observation on a point of law given by any judge of the Appellate Division does carry serious weight and should not outrightly be ignored by the High Court Division without cogent or legal reason. Mahmudur Rahman vs State, 65 DLR 437

Section 26(1)-Since the Appellate Division stayed operation of the ad-interim order passed by the High Court Division, there is no reason as to why the notice issued under section 26(1) should not revive. Mahmudur Rahman vs State. 65 DLR 437

Section 26(1) Police report clearly shows that no notice was served upon the petitioner, inasmuch as, she was away from the country. The High Court Division has committed fundamental error in not interfering with the matter. As the point, is subtle one as to service of notice under section 26(1) for submission of wealth statement we are not inclinedto drag the matter by granting leave and dispose of the petition summarily since both the parties are present before us. Syeda Iqbal Mand Banu vs Anti-Corruption Commission. represented by ts Chairman, 70 DLR (AD) 66

Sections 26(1) and 27(1)-Section 27 is independent of the notice served under section 26(1) of the Act and the proceedings under section 27(1) have no nexus with the notice served by the ACC under section 26(1) of the Act demanding statement of assets and liabilities of the accused. Moudud Ahmed va State, 68 DLR (AD) 118

Section 26(2)(Ka) Cleat prima-facie case has been made out therein against the petitioner under the first part of section 26(2)(Ka) of the Ain, 2004 making him liable for prosecution. Dr. Tapan Kumar Dey vs State, 65 DLR (AD) 1

Section 26(2)(Ka)-14 BLC is not applicable in the case as there is no order of stay relating to proceedings by the Hon'ble Appellate Division. Moreover, this Division directed the court below to conclude trial of the case as expeditiously as possible. There is no legal bar in conti nuation of the proceeding against this petitioner rather it is obligatory upon the trial court to implement the judgment and order according to the provisions of Article 111 of the Constitution. Mahmudur Rahman vs State, 66 DLR 609

Sections 26(2) and 33-Anticipatory Bail/ Pre-arrest Bail It is an extra- ordinary remedy and an exception to the general rule of bail which can be granted only in extra-ordinary and exceptional circumstances upon a proper and intelli- gent exercise of discretion. The High Court Division cannot exercise its discretion whimsically at its suit will. The High Court Division has not properly exercised its discretion in granting the accused-respondent on anticipatory bail. ACC vs Jesmin Islam, 67 DLR (AD) 1

S. 32-Anti-Corruption Commission has already accorded the sanction to proceed with the case as requircd under section 32 of the Act. Further sanction of the Government or any sanction of the Government is not required to proceed with the case. (Per Md Faruque) Giasuddin-al-Mamun Vs. State (Cri), 65 DLR (2013)-HCD-41

Anti-Corruption Commission Act [V of 2004]

Sections 26 and 27-No writ petition is maintainable for quashment of 3 criminal proceeding and secondly, a fugitive from justice cannot get any relief from court.

It is now settled that the offences under sections 26 and 27 of the Ain are distinct and that for initiation of a proceeding under section 27, no notice is required to be served.

The Appellate Division opined that the High Court Division quashed the proceedings pursuant to a writ petition on the reasoning that no notice was served upon her under section 26 or 27 of the Dunity Daman Commission Ain. There is allegation that in connivance with her husband, late Md. Nasir Uddin Ahmed (Pintu), she has acquired property disproportionate to the known-sources of income. It is now settled that the offences under sections 26 and 27 of the Ain are distinct and that for initiation of a proceeding under section 27, no notice is required to be served. More so, the respondent was a fugitive from justice at the time of making the petition and she challenged the proceedings by filing a writ petition. The writ petition itself is misconceived one in presence of alternative remedy available under the law. The High Court Division has totally ignored that aspect of the matter. The judgment of the High Court Division is set aside. The trial of the case be proceeded against in accordance with law. Anti-Corruption Commission -Vs. Tasmima Hossain and others (Civil) 22 ALR (AD) 16

Section 27- An officer of the Commission or a police officer cannot have a final say in respect of an occurrence which is punishable under section 27 of the Ain or any other provision of the said Ain. The officer may find case against an offender after investigation that the allegation prima-facie discloses an offence under section 27. The final decision in respect of the allegation is of the Court i.e. the special Judge and his decision is also subject to the decision of the appellate court which can affirm, modify, set aside the judgment or send the matter on remand for fresh trial. It has all the powers of the trial court....... Iqbal Hasan Mahmood Tuku -VS- Anti-Corruption Commission, [5 LM (AD) 226)

Section 27- From the testimonies it is luminous that the evidence of prosecution are so incompatible, improper and unreasonable which are not only reprehensible, rather, full of dissonance and totally blameworthy. The prosecution case, therefore, cannot be believable.

Carefully gone through the judgment of the trial Court and the judgment of the High Court Division. On perusal of the judgment of the High Court Division, we find that the High Court Division has elaborately discussed the evidences and considered the facts and circumstances of the case, recorded the acquittal in accordance with law. This petition is dismissed....Anti- Corruption Commission -VS- Md. Lutfor Rahman, [10 LM (AD) 510]

The Section 27(1) defence questioned the legality of the sentence of the convict petitioner on the ground that the initiation of proceeding against him is illegal and as such all subsequent proceedings are also illegal.

The defence took another plea that the authority did not assess the market value of furniture, seized from his house, properly and rather the assessment has been made on the basis of the market rate prevailing after 14 years. It appears that the assessment of such furniture has been made by the engineer of Public Works Department (PWD) who is the authorised and appropriate person to assess the market value of that furniture.

The defence took another plea that during the pendency of Rule Nisi issued in Writ Petition No. 1190 of 2008, proceeding of the criminal case is illegal, but the defence failed to produce any stay order obtained in that Rule Nisi in proceeding of such case.

As a result the submission of the learned advocate for the defence also does not find any legal basis.

Findings and decision arrived at by the High Court Division being based on proper appreciation of fact and law the same do not call for any interference by this Division. This criminal petition for leave to appeal is dismissed.... Mohammad Osman Gani -VS- The State, [8 LM (AD) 354]

Section 27(1) Bail- The judgment in both the appeals are set aside but the appellate court, in case of short sentence not exceeding 3 years, when the appeal could not be disposed of within 90 working days for no fault of the appellant and/or in the case of serious illness endangering life to be certified by duly constituted Medical Board, may consider the matter of granting bail in an appropriate case in an appeal. Anti-Corruption Commission =VS= Barrister Mir Mohammad Helal Uddin. [9 LM (AD) 681]

Section 27

Section 109 of the Penal Code is included in paragraph ‘Gha’ of the schedule to the ACC Act, 2004 for abetment to any offence under the schedule is committed by any sort of involvement or complicity. Such offence could never be intended or could be a substantive offence. The High Court Division held that no such offence of abetment could be conceived of in respect of an offence under section 26(2) or 27(1) of the ACC Act, 2004. Accordingly, lodging of FIR, taking cognizance, initiation of criminal proceedings against the writ-petitioners are unwarranted, unauthorized and without jurisdiction. Anti-Corruption Commission vs Shamima Begum 62 DLR (AD) 277.

Section 27

In the absence of any statement of assets; there was no scope to submit any explanation for acquisition of assets there was no scope for him to submit any explanation for acquisition of the assets. No citizen could be arraigned for such a severe offence in the absence of service of any notice or order for explaining the source of income. Offence of abetment under section 109 equally could not be conceived of with regard to such an offence. Anti-Corruption Commission vs Nargis Begum 62 DLR (AD) 279.

Section 27(1)

Section 27(1) Conviction and sentence Bail in appeal on humanitarian ground

In the instant case the convict- appellant was convicted and sentenced to 3 (three) years simple imprisonment. In appeal the High Court Division allowed him the bail on humanitarian consideration which the apex court found justified and held the High Court Division committed no illegality. Anti-Corruption Commission, represented by its Chairman, Dhaka Vs. Barrister Mir Mohammad Helal ZJddin and another 15 MLR (2010) (AD) 216.

Section 27(1)

Bail in a pending appeal— The matter of granting bail by the High Court Division, during the period of emergency, in a pending appeal filed by the convict who has been convicted and sentenced under the provision of Anti-Corruption Commission Act, 2004 in case of short sentence not exceeding 3 years, when the appeal could not be disposed of within 90 working days for no fault of the appellant and/or in the case of serious illness endangering life to be certified by duly constituted Medical Board, may consider the matter of granting bail in an appropriate case in an appeal. Government of Bangladesh vs Sabera Aman 62 DLR (AD) 246.

Anti-Corruption Commission Act, 2004

Section 27(1) read with

The Penal Code

Section 109

The defence questioned the legality of the sentence of the convict petitioner on the ground that the initiation of proceeding against him is illegal and as such all subsequent proceedings are also illegal.

Findings and decision arrived at by the High Court Division being based on proper appreciation of fact and law the same do not call for any interference by this Division. This criminal petition for leave to appeal is dismissed. …Mohammad Osman Gani =VS= The State, (Criminal), 2020 (1) [8 LM (AD) 354]

Section 27

An officer of the Commission or a police officer cannot have a final say in respect of an occurrence which is punishable under section 27 of the Ain or any other provision of the said Ain. The officer may find case against an offender after investigation that the allegation prima-facie discloses an offence under section 27. The final decision in respect of the allegation is of the Court i.e. the special Judge and his decision is also subject to the decision of the appellate court which can affirm, modify, set aside the judgment or send the matter on remand for fresh trial. It has all the powers of the trial court. .....Iqbal Hasan Mahmood Tuku =VS= Anti-Corruption Commission, (Criminal), 2018 (2) [5 LM (AD) 226]

Section 27(1)

The Anti-Corruption Commission Act, 2004

Section 27(1) read with

The Penal Code, 1860

Section 109, 161 read with

The Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 Section 5(2)

Bail– The judgment in both the appeals are set aside but the appellate court, in case of short sentence not exceeding 3 years, when the appeal could not be disposed of within 90 working days for no fault of the appellant and/or in the case of serious illness endangering life to be certified by duly constituted Medical Board, may consider the matter of granting bail in an appropriate case in an appeal. ...Anti-Corruption Commission =VS= Barrister Mir Mohammad Helal Uddin, (Criminal), 2020 [9 LM (AD) 681]

Section 27-Section 27 is an independent provision and for initiation of a proceeding against any person under the provision, no notice is required to be served. If the prosecution can establish that any person has acquired or amassed wealth which is beyond his known source of income, he may be prosecuted and con victed under section 27(1). Anti-Corruption Commission vs Iqbal Hasan Mahmood, 66 DLR (AD) 185

Section 27-The findings made in the impugned judgment and also in the case of Mohiuddin Khan Alamgir (15 BLC 107. Para 971 shall be deemed to have been modified in respect of the assessment made by the PWD officials in that the assessment of valuation of any property made by PWD officials shall have evidentiary value when no such assessment is made and accepted as correct by another independent depart- ment of the Government authorized in that behalf. State vs Faisal Morshed Khan, 66 DLR (AD) 236

Section 27-There may be a situation when there is no assessment of valuation by any competent authority of the Govern- ment exercising power in that behalf and in such a case, the Anti-Corruption Commis- sion has no other option but to take the assistance of the PWD officials in making assessment of the valuation of any property. Therefore, it cannot be said that the assessment of valuation made by the PWD officials does not have any eviden- tiary value in all situations. State vs Faisal Morshed Khan, 66 DLR (AD) 236

Section 27-If any person commits any cognizable offence in presence of a private person, he may detain the offender and handover him to the police or report the police that he has detained an offender while committing a crime. A police officer or a private person has been given power to arrest a person for commission of a cogni zable offence on the spot. Iqbal Hasan Mahmood alias Iqbal Hasan Mahmood Tuku vs Anti-Corruption Commission, 70 DLR (AD) 109

Section 27-An officer of the Commission or a police officer cannot have a final say in respect of an occurrence which is punishable under section 27 of the Ain or any other provision of the said Ain. The officer may find case against an offender after investigation that the allegation prima-facie discloses an offence under section 27. The final decision in respect of the allegation is of the Court i.e. the special Judge and his decision is also subject to the decision of the appellate court which can affirm, modify, set aside the judgment or send the matter on remand for fresh trial. Iqbal Hasan Mahmood alias Iqbal Hasan Mahmood Tuku vs Anti- Corruption Commission, 70 DLR (AD) 109

Section 27(1)- There is scope for the accused-petitioner to explain about the matter and rectify the mistake in calculating assets, even if any, at the time of trial as required under section 27(1) of the Act. Prosecution must also be given opportunity to prove the allegation by adducing evidence. The disputed facts are not supposed to be resolved without taking aid of the evidence to be adduced by the parties before the trial court. Mohidul Islam (Ripon) (Md) vs State, 66 DLR 108

Section 27(2)- Since there are prima- facie allegations against the accused- petitioner attracting ingredients of both the offences and he is under legal obligation to clear his position and account for in respect of possession of properties allegedly disproportionate to his known sources of income to the satisfaction of the Court at the time of trial having onus to rebut presumption of guilt under section 27(2) of the Act there is nothing to be prejudiced if the trial of the case is allowed to continue. Dr Khandaker Mosharraf Hossain vs State, 65 DLR 1

Section 27-Section 109 of the Penal Code is included in paragraph 'Gha' of the schedule to the ACC Act, 2004 for abetment to any offence under the schedule is committed by any sort of involvement or complicity. Such offence could never be intended or could be a substantive offence. The High Court Division held that no such offence of abetment could be conceived of in respect of an offence under section 26(2) or 27(1) of the ACC Act, 2004. Accordingly, lodging of FIR, taking cognizance, initiation of criminal proceedings against the writ-petitioners are unwarranted, unauthorized and without juris- diction. Anti-Corruption Commission vs Shamima Begum 62 DLR (AD) 277.

Section 27-In the absence of any statement of assets; there was no scope to submit any explanation for acquisition of assets there was no scope for him to submit any explanation for acquisition of the assets. No citizen could be arraigned for such a severe offence in the absence of service of any notice or order for explaining the source of income. Offence of abetment under section 109 equally could not be conceived of with regard to such an offence. Anti-Corruption Commission vs Nargis Begum 62 DLR (AD) 279.

Section 27(1)-Bail in a pending appeal- The matter of granting bail by the High Court Division, during the period of emergency, in a pending appeal filed by the convict who has been convicted and sentenced under the provision of Anti-Corruption Commission Act, 2004 in case of short sentence not exceeding 3 years, when the appeal could not be disposed of within 90 working days for no fault of the appellant and/or in the case of serious illness endangering life to be certified by duly constituted Medical Board, may consider the matter of granting bail in an appropriate case in an appeal. Government of Bangladesh vs Sabera Aman 62 DLR (AD) 246.

Section 27(2)-It transpires from the FIR and charge-sheet that there is independent allegation against the accused-petitioner Mrs. Rowshena Jahan that she was owning and possessing some properties which are alleged to be disproportionate to her known source of income. It is necessary to spell out as to how she acquired those properties. Therefore, the accused- petitioner is liable to rebut presumption in the Court during the trial as contemplated under section 27(2) of the Anti-Corruption Commission Act, 2004. Rowshena Jahan vs State 63 DLR 90.

Section 27(2)-Schedule of offences under section 17(a) of the Anti-Corruption Commission Act, 2004 shows that an offence of abetment under section 109 of the Penal Code can lawfully be applied in respect of schedule offences under the Anti-Corruption Commission Act, 2004 in appro-priate cases. Rowshena Jahan vs State 63 DLR 90.

Section 28(2)- Respondent Nos. 5 and 6 committed the offence under section 409 of the Penal Code in their personal capacity and not in their official capacity as a police officer and, as such, the sanction in the present case was not at all necessary under section 6(5) of the Criminal Law Amendment Act. Salauddin Ahmed vs Principal Secretary, Office of the Hon'ble Prime Minister 57 DLR 730.

Section 28-The provision of the Anti- Corruption Commission Act shall prevail over any other law. Anti-Corruption Com mission vs Md Shahidul Islam @ Mufti Shahidul Islam, 68 DLR (AD) 242

Section 28-These provisions are self explanatory and in this regard no further explanation is necessary. The Sessions Judge in a Sessions Division is ex-officio Senior Special Judge and therefore, he has all the powers of a Special Judge within the meaning of the Criminal Law Amendment Act and the Durnity Daman Commission Ain.

The Appellate Division held that the offences punishable under the Money Laundering Protirod Ain are schedule offences of the Durnity Daman Commission Ain and section 28 of the Ain of 2004 clearly provides that the offences punishable under the said Ain shall exclusively be triable by the Special Judge which includes the Senior Special Judge. Therefore, the High Court Division was totally unmindful in arriving at such conclusion. The decisions referred by the High Court Division in Nurul Huda V. Bahar Uddin, 41 DLR(HCD)395 and Zaved Khan V. ACC, 63 DLR(HCD)221 are also to the same extent based on misconception of law.......Anti Corruption Commission & others =VS=Abdul Azim & others, [1 LM (AD) 136]

The Anti Corruption Commission

Act, 2004, Section 28 (j)

There is no material on the record to show that in the backdrop of the filing of the FIR alleging alleged cognizable offence against the writ petitioner any process from the court has been issued either directing the writ petitioner to appear before the court or directing the law enforcing agency to take the writ petitioner into its custody and to pro- duce him before the Court. No material has also been brought on record from the side of the appellants to show that after lodging of the FIR alleging com mission of alleged cognizable offence by the writ petitioner police looked for him but did not find him as to avoid apprehension by the law enforcing agency the writ petitioner has left his residence ordinarily stays or in other words left. the address as given in the FIR and there up hiding. There is no such situation in the instant appeals. Anti-Corruption Commission vs. Mahmud Hossain (Md. Ruhul Amin CJ) (Civil) 6 ADC 91

Section 28

Durnity Daman Commission Ain, 2004

Section 28 r/w

Criminal Law Amendment Act–1958

Section 3(2)

These provisions are self explanatory and in this regard no further explanation is necessary. The Sessions Judge in a Sessions Division is ex-officio Senior Special Judge and therefore, he has all the powers of a Special Judge within the meaning of the Criminal Law Amendment Act and the Durnity Daman Commission Ain.

The Appellate Division held that the offences punishable under the Money Laundering Protirod Ain are schedule offences of the Durnity Daman Commission Ain and section 28 of the Ain of 2004 clearly provides that the offences punishable under the said Ain shall exclusively be triable by the Special Judge which includes the Senior Special Judge. Therefore, the High Court Division was totally unmindful in arriving at such conclusion. The decisions referred by the High Court Division in Nurul Huda V. Bahar Uddin, 41 DLR(HCD)395 and Zaved Khan V. ACC, 63 DLR(HCD)221 are also to the same extent based on misconception of law. .....Anti Corruption Commission & others =VS= Abdul Azim & others, (Civil), 2016-[1 LM (AD) 136]

Section 28B

S. 32-Sanction letter issued by the commission in compliance with the statutory provision of law cannot be termed as mechanical and contrary to law. Dr. Khandaker Mosharraf Hosain Vs. State, 65 DLR (2013)-HCD-.

S. 32-Section 32 of the Act prescribes for the sanction of the Commission which is a mandatory requirement of law for taking cognizance of offences punishable under the Act and the investigating officer is required to accord prior sanction or the Commission after completion of the investigation and submit the same together with the copy of the sanction letter given by the Commission. Anti-Corruption Vs. Md. Bayazid (Criminal), 65 DLR (2013)-AD-9

S. 32, 38-Now, we are coming to the question of awarding sanction under section 32 of the Act. The learned Advocate for the petitioners submits that since charge sheet was submitted on 27.07.2004 it was the incumbent duty of the Investigating Officer to seek sanction from the Commission as the Act came into force on 09.05.2004. But we are unable to consider this submission at all as we have stated earlier that the Act came into force on 09.05.2004 but the Act came into operation from S0.12.2004 when the Commission was established, so how the Investigation Officer will seek sanction from the Commission on 27.07.2004 when there was no existence of any Commission. If any priority and prominence is given to the provisions of sub-section (3) overlooking the provisions of sub-section (2) of section 38, there must be some mishap. The case in our hands started under the provisions of Anti-Corruption Act, 1957 and Government sanction was accorded on 30.11.2004 under the said law and charge sheet was submitted on 27.07.2004 before constitution of the Commission under the said Act on 30.11.2004. Thus we find no illegality in conducting the investigation in the case by the Officer of the Bureau...(1) Aurun Kumar Lahiri Vs. Government of Bangladesh, 3 TLR (2013)-Page 492.

S. 32 Sub-section 32(1) and 32(2).

Sanction for prosecution from the Anti-Corruption Commission is necessary for taking cognizance of an offence under the Act. The investigation officer is required under the law to obtain prior sanction of the Commission before submission of the charge-sheet after completing investigation and the charge-sheet must accompany charges under the amended provision of law, his prior sanction is necessary for filing a case. Anti-Corruption Commission Vs. Mohammad Bayazid, 2 ALR (2013)AD-109.

Sub-section 32(1)-Before amendment of section 32(1) of the Anti-Corruption Commission (Amendment Ordinance, 2007) prior sanction from the Anti-Corruption Commission was a pre-condition for filing a case under this Act. Anti-Corruption Commission Vs. Mohammad Bayazid, 2 ALR (2013) AD-109

Sub-section 32(2)-In remains unaffected by the Amendment of 2007. Under the amended provision the words for filing case have been deleted. Sanction or prosecution is now necessary only tor the purpose of taking cognizance of the offence. Prior sanction for filing a case under the Anti-Corruption Act as required before the Amendment is not now necessary. Anli-Corruption Commission Vs. Mohammad Bayazid,2 ALR (2013)-AD-109.

S. 32-No prior sanction of the commission is necessary under section 32 tor the purpose of lodging FIR. Abdul Wahab (Md) Vs. State 18 BLC (2013)-HCD-382.

Section 32-Only one sanction is required for initiation of a criminal case before filing the charge sheet. Said sanction is evident from the record. Begum Khaleda Zia vs State, 64 DLR 1

Section 32-Section 32 of the Ain provides that without prior sanction of the Commission no Court shall take cognizance of an offence under the Ain. The present case is not of an offence under the Ain, but of an offence under section 409 of the Penal Code, which is specified in serial (ga) of the schedule of the Ain, whereas the offences under the Ain are specified in serial (Ka). There is clear difference between the offences under the Ain and the offences under other laws special in the schedule of the Ain. The instant case not being of an offence under the Ain, but under another law specified in the schedule of the Ain, section 32 of the 1 Ain has no application here. Kaisar-uz- zaman vs State, 64 DLR 15

Section 32-Section 32 of the Act prescribes for the sanction of the Commission which is a mandatory requirement of law for taking cognizance of offences punishable under the Act and the investigating officer is required to accord prior sanction of the Commission after completion of the investigation and submit the same together with the copy of the sanction letter given by the Commission. ACC vs Md Bayazid, 65 DLR (AD) 97

Section 32-The Rules framed under a power conferred by a section of an Act should be read as part of that section and not as an additional section to that Act. Anti-Corruption Commission vs Md Bayazid, 65 DLR (AD) 97

Section 32-Sanction has been given in the prescribed 'Form-3' under Rule 15(7) of the Rules, sanction under section 32 of the ACC Act, is to be given in Form No. 3 under Rule 15(7) of the Rules, 2007 which has been prescribed by the legislature. 'Form-3' is a part of the statute and accordingly, when a specified form is prescribed in the statute for a particular purpose, the sanctioning authority has no scope to assign any reason of its satisfaction beyond the format given in the form. Begum Khaleda Zia vs ACC. 68 DLR 1

Section 32-Law on point of sanction has been settled by the Appellate Division in series of cases to the effect that under the amended section 32 of the ACC Act, 2004 one sanction is required before submitting the charge sheet and it will be given in 'Form-3' of the schedule to the ACC Rules, 2007. It need not be a speaking one. Sanction given in th case does not suffer from any legal infirmity and has been given in accordance with law. Begum Khaleda Zia vs Anti-Corruption Commission, 68 DLR 1

Section 32-One sanction is required to proceed with the case at the time of filing of the police report. Begum Khaleda Zia vs Anti-Corruption Commission, 68 DLR 1

Section 32-Since charge-sheet has been submitted with a sanction accorded from the Commission, no further sanction would be required in taking cognizance. Their depositions will be deemed to have not been recorded, and it will not be treated as a part of record. Giasuddin-al Mamun (Md) va State, 68 DLR 67

Section 32-Sanction to the petition is available for prosecution. In such circum-stances we have no hesitation to reject the contention raised by learned Advocate. In fact, the sanction as required by law is available in the record. Begum Khaleda Zia vs State, 68 DLR 277

Section 32-Sanction letter issued by the commission in compliance with the statutory provision of law cannot be termed as mechanical and contrary to law. Dr Khandaker Mosharraf Hossain vs State, 65 DLR 1

Section 32-Anti-Corruption Commi- ssion has already accorded the sanction to proceed with the case as required under section 32 of the Act. Further sanction of the government or any sanction of the government is not required to proceed with the case. (PER MD FARUQUE J) Giasuddin-al- Mamun vs State, 65 DLR 41

Section 32-Form-3'-'Form-3' is the part of the statute and accordingly when a specified form has been prescribed in the statute for particular purpose to accord sanction for prosecution the sanctioning authority has no scope to assign any reason for its satisfaction beyond the format given in the form. Golam Nabi vs Anti- Corruption Commission, 65 DLR 181

Section 32-FIR named accused Yousuf Ali Mridha has some involvement in the offence alleged along with the other accused but not sending up the said FIR named accused by investigation officer is not acceptable by this court, therefore, a departmental proceeding should be brought against the investigation officer by the Durnity Daman Commission and the Special Court must consider the matter. The proceeding of the case shall continue against said Yousuf Ali Mridha. The learned Metropolitan Senior Special Judge, is hereby directed to continue the proceeding of the case and trial thereof by including Yousuf Ali Mridha as an accuse. Abdul Wadud Bhuiyan (Md) vs State, 67 DLR 435

Section 32-The sanction for filing charge sheet has been granted on the basis of which the investigating officer submitted the charge sheet and the Court took cognizance of the offence against the petitioner and, as such, the submission of the counsel that 'there is no prior sanction in this case' has no basis. Begum Khaleda Zia vs State, 70 DLR (AD) 99

Section 32(1)(2)-Form-3-Under the amended provision the words 'for filing case' have been deleted and sanction is necessary only for the purpose of taking cognizance of the offence. The prior sanction as was required for filing a case under the Act is not necessary. Sub-section (2) of section 32 has not been amended which requires the investigating officer to accord prior sanction of the Commission before submitting police report. In accordance with sub-section (2) of section 32 prior sanction for submission of the charge-sheet was duly taken. The question is whether sanction for filing the case as noticed by the High Court Division is necessary or not. In Form-3 appended to the Anti-Corruption Rules in the subject matter as well as the contents to be included in the order of sanction letter, it was mentioned sanction for filing case/ submission of charge-sheet' was necessary. Form-3 appended to the Rules, 2007 was printed in accordance with unamended provision of sub-section (1) of section 32 under which provision for filing a case under the Act prior sanction of the Com- mission was required to be taken. Anti- Corruption Commission vs Md Bayazid, 65 DLR (AD) 97

Section 32(2)-Form-3-It was mentioned in Form-3 that it was drawn up in exercise of powers under section was drawn up in exercise of powers under section 32 of the Act, there was nothing to infer that it was in accordance with the amended provision. Anti-Corruption Com- mission vs Md Bayazid, 65 DLR (AD) 97

Section 32(2)-Form-3-Under the amended provision no prior sanction of the Commission for filing a case is necessary in accordance with Form-3. Anti-Corrup- tion Commission vs Md Bayazid, 65 DLR (AD) 97

Section 32Ka- Insertion of section 32Ka of the Act, 2013 has interfered with the independence of the function of the Commission and have frustrated the object of the Anti-Corruption Commission Act, 2004. Human Rights and Peace for Bangladesh vs Hon'ble Speaker, Bangla- desh Jatiyo Sangsad, 67 DLR 191

Section 32Ka- Fundamental Rights- Our Constitution does not allow anybody to get special privilege for restraining to file corruption case again him/her. The embargo of prior permission and/or sanction from Government to lodge corruption case against judges, magistrates and government employees has created an inconsistency with the fundamental right guaranteed in Part III of the Constitution. Human Rights and Peace for Bangladesh vs Hon'ble Speaker, Bangladesh Jatiyo Sangsad. 67 DLR 191

Section 32Ka-Every person accused of committing the same offence is to be dealt with in the same manner in accordance with law. The status or position of preferential person does not qualify from exemption from equal treatment under Article 27 of the Constitution. The decision making power does not isolate corrupt persons into two classes as they are common crime doers and have to be tracked down by the same process of inquiry and investigation. The corrupt persons, whether privileged or general people, are birds of the same feather and must be confronted with the process of investigation and inquiry equally, based on the position or status in the society, no distinction can be made. Human Rights and Peace for Bangladesh vs Hon'ble Speaker, Bangladesh Jatiyo Sangsad, 67 DLR 191

Section 32Ka-Section 32Ka of Amendment Act, 2013 permits preference to be given to judges, magistrates and government employees in corruption cases. In absence of any indication in the Act as to how and on what objective basis an individual shall be the beneficiary of such a preferential treatment to the detriment and exclusion of a large numbers of people. This provision sanctioning arbitrary selection is flouting of Articles 27, 28, 29(1) and 2 and 31 of the Constitution. In the absence of such objective standards, especially invalidate the introduction by amendment of the impression of privileged treatment and cause to be unconstitutional given that it endorses discrimination on ground of unjust classification. Human Rights and Peace for Bangladesh vs Hon'ble Speaker, Bangladesh Jatiyo Sangsad, 67 DLR 191

Section 32Ka-Section 32Ka is silent as regards the filing of corruption cases against the Ministers and Head of the Government. If a Minister and/or Head of the Government gets involved in a corruption case along with a Government employee, what will be the consequence for filing and/or initiating corruption case for the alleged offences. Section 32Ka does not require permission and/or sanction to initiate corruption case against a Minister and/or Head of the Government, but in the same circumstance for initiating corruption case sanction shall be required for judges, magistrates and the government emplo- yees. In the result, Minister(s) and/or Head of the Government(s) may face the consequence of alleged corruption case in a similar situation, but judges, magistrates and the government employees will accu- mulate himself from the proceeding of corruption case under the pretext of section 32Ka of the Amendment Act, 2013. The action is discriminatory as it amounted to discrimination on the ground of discrimi nation against the vast number of people of the country. Human Rights and Peace for Bangladesh vs Hon'ble Speaker, Bangla- desh Jatiyo Sangsad, 67 DLR 191

Section 32-There is no scope to challenge the efficacy of the sanction which has been accorded in Form No. 3 under rule 15(7) of the ACC Rules, 2007 prescribed by the legislature. The recital of the sanction order clearly shows that sanctioning authority satisfied, was on scrutinizing the record, produced in respect of the allegation brought against the accused-petitioner to accord sanction for prosecution. Habibur Rahman Molla vs State 61 DLR 1.

Section 32-The sanction in question has not been accorded as per prescribed Form-3, mandatorily required by rule 15(7), and that apparently the same has been given mechanically. Hence the questioned sanction is not a sanction in the eye of law. Bayazid vs State 61 DLR 772.

Section 32-No sanction is required to file a complaint (অভিযোগ) and the unamended as well as the amended section 32 requires only one sanction from the Commission. Anti-Corruption Commission vs Dr Mohiuddin Khan Alamgir 62 DLR (AD) 290.

Section 32-Sanction from the Commis- sion will be required when the charge-sheet is filed under sub-section (2) and on receipt of the charge-sheet along with a copy of the letter of sanction the Court takes cognizance of the offence for trial, either under the original section 32 or the amended section 32. As a matter of fact, only one sanction will be required under section 32, unamended or amended. Anti-Corruption Com- mission vs Dr Mohiuddin Khan Alamgir 62 DLR (AD) 290.

Section 32-After completion of the investigation, the Investigating Officer, under sub- section (2) of section 32, on obtaining the sanction from the Commission, would submit the police report before the Court along with a copy of the letter of sanction. The Court, under sub-section (1), would take cognizance, only when there is such sanction from the Commission. Both the sub-section (1) and sub-section (2) of the section 32 envisages only one sanction, not two. Sub- section (1) does not spell out or even envisage filing of any fresh sanction when the sanction to prosecute has already been filed along with the charge-sheet of the Investigating Officer. It only envisages that without such sanction from the Commission (কমিশনের অনুমোদন ব্যতিরেকে) as spelt out in sub-section (2), no Court shall take cognizance of the offence (কোন আদালত এই আইনের অধীন কোন অপরাধ বিচারার্থ আমলে গ্রহণ করিবে না) under sub-section (1) of section 32. Anti-Corruption Commission vs Dr Mohiuddin Khan Alamgir 62 DLR (AD) 290.

Section 32-Since the decision of apex Court clearly spelt out the provision of section 32 of the Anti-Corruption Commission Act in this context holding no sanction is required before filing a case under the Act and also on the point that a case cannot be quashed unless cognizance has been taken by the Court having jurisdiction we are of the view that both the points apply adversely in the instant writ petitions. Azam-e- Sadat vs Bangladesh 62 DLR 455.

Section 32-Confusion arises with the use of the words-"মামলা দায়েরের ক্ষেত্রে" as used in the provision. Obviously it does not mean lodgment of first information report. Subsequent expression in the next line has made it clear that such sanction is only necessary at the time of filing case to the Court and not to the police station. The words "মামলা দায়েরের ক্ষেত্রে"does not mean initiation. of a criminal case by lodging first information report which is an absurd proposition. Habibur Rahman Mondal vs State 63 DLR 23.

Section 32-Sanction given before submis- sion of charge-sheet which is absolutely a mecha- nical sanction and contrary to law, and, as such, the very initiation of the proceeding itself is barred by law. Sheikh Hasina vs State 63 DLR 40.

Section 32-In the four corners of this case there is not an iota of allegation that the petitioner received any gratification from anybody in connection with the awarding of the work to the concerned company or there is no ingredients of Section 5(1) of the aforesaid act being punishable under Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947. The concerned Officer of the Anti-Corruption Commission most hurriedly and at the behest of the then Government lodged this FIR without any sanction from the Anti- Corruption Commission violating the mandatory provisions of Section 32 of the Anti-Corruption Commission Act, 2004, Sheikh Hasina vs State 63 DLR 162.

Section 32-A malice has worked behind the screen and the Anti-Corruption Commission as well as the learned Special Judge acted mechanically for jeoparding the political and personal carrier of the petitioner by connecting her in this case and the proceeding of the case having been initiated in such a manner which cannot be accepted as bonafide and valid proceeding. Since the fact as well as the law cut whole root of the case, the proceeding should be quashed at least in respect of the petitioner. Sheikh Hasina vs State 63 DLR 162.

Section 32-A valid sanction being a con- dition precedent to a valid prosecution, The impugned proceeding has been launched without a valid sanction and the same, based on such a sanction amounts to an abuse of the process of the Court. Obaidul Kader (Md) vs State 63 DLR 425.

Section 32(1)(2)-No sanction is required for lodging any FIR in contemplation with section 32(1)(2) of the Anti-Corruption Act 2004 un- amended or amended. This view reached in its finality in a very recent decision of the Appellate Division in the case of Anti-Corruption Commis- sion vs Dr Mohiuddin Khan Alamgir reported in 62 DLR (AD) 290. Azam-e-Sadat vs Bangladesh 62 DLR 455.

Section 32(1)(2)-The requirement of sub- section (1) of section 32 was complied with when the charge-sheet was filed along with a copy of the sanction from the Commission. As such, there was no illegality in taking cognizance by the learned Judge of the Metropolitan Senior Special Judge. Anti-Corruption Commission vs Dr Mohiuddin Khan Alamgir 62 DLR (AD) 290.

33-Necessary Party: As per the provisions of Section 33 of the Ain, it is the Commission which shall have a permanent prosecution unit consisting of necessary number of prosecutors for prosecuting the cases investigated by it and triable by the Special Judge. So, the Commission was a necessary party to be impleaded in the application filed before the High Court Division under Section 561A of the Code. And admittedly, it is the Commission which lodged the FIR and the charge-sheet was submitted in the case by its officer after investigation, but the Commission was not made a party in the miscellaneous case before the High Court Division. The Commission had no chance to say its version on the letter allegedly issued by it. Dr. Tupan Kumar Dey Vs. State, 65 DLR (2013)-AD-1.

Section 33-Public Prosecutor Functions-The function of the Public Prosecution is to produce witnesses on behalf of the prosecution and to examine them in accordance with law and to get the relevant documents proved by the witnesses in support of the prosecution case and to place the argument before the Court with reference to the evidence on record and the law. Public Prosecutor cannot have and must not have any role to dispense justice by a Court and therefore, even if the case of the accused is accepted that the Public Prosecutor rebuked him and made comment while PWI was examined cannot be the grounds for creation of apprehension in the mind of the accused. Anti-Corruption Commission vs AKM Shamim Hasan, 64 DLR (AD) 82

Section 33-Anti-Corruption Com- mission-Necessary Party-As per the provisions of section 33 of the Ain, it is the Commission which shall have a permanent prosecution unit consisting of necessary number of prosecutors for prosecuting the cases investigated by it and triable by the Special Judge. So, the Commission was a necessary party to be impleaded in the application filed before the High Court Division under section 561A of the Code. And admittedly, it is the Commission which lodged the FIR and the charge-sheet was submitted in the case by its officer after investigation, but the Commission was not made a party in the miscellaneous case before the High Court Division. The Commission had no chance to say its version on the letter allegedly issued by it. Dr. Tapan Kumar Dey vs State, 65 DLR (AD) 1

Section 33(3)(4)-VAT Act has categorized from whom, when and how evaded VAT is to be collected. By no means the impugned memos are in keeping with law since the ACC cannot assume the functions of VAT authority. Only the VAT authorities within the framework of VAT Act can do so. Mahmudul Islam vs Anti- Corruption Commission, 67 DLR 361

Section 33(5)- Since copies of appli- cation has been served upon the State as well as the Anti-Corruption Commission and we have already heard the learned Attorney-General and the learned Advocate for the Commission, issuance of Rule for the purpose of hearing the opposite parties is no more required. Giasuddin-al Mamun (Md) vs State, 68 DLR 67

S. 35(2)=The service condition of the officers and employees of the defunct Durcau who have been retained by the Commission shall be fixed by the government (সরকার কর্তৃক নির্ধারিত চাকুরির অন্যান্য শর্তাধীনে চাকুরীতে নিয়োজিত থাকিবেন) in consultation with the Commission. Jatan Kumar Roy Vs. Anti-Corruption (Spl. Original), 65 DLR (2013)-HCD-355

Section 35(2)-The Commission upon scrutiny of the service record of those officers and employees in compliance of the provision as fixed by the Rules (বিধিমালা) shall retain them in the Commission. Jatan Kumar Roy vs Anti-Corruption Commis- sion, 65 DLR 355

Section 35(2)- At the relevant lime since there was no Rules (KmKioJuJ) in existence as to "যাচাই বাছাই" for scrutinizing the service record of the officers and employees of the defunct Bureau as such, retaining those officers in the Commission in violation of section 35(2) was without jurisdiction. Jatan Kumar Roy vs Anti- Corruption Commission, 65 DLR 355

Section 35(2)-Some officers who were junior to the petitioner have already been promoted to the post of Deputy Director. Moreso in he impugned gradation list the same officers have been included who were not eligible to be promoted to the post of Deputy Director, as per the the Rules, 2008 published in gazette. Jaton Kumar Roy vs Anti-Corruption Commis sion, 65 DLR 355

Section 35(2)-The service condition of the officers and employees of the defunct Bureau who have been retained by the Commission shall be fixed by the government (সরকার কর্তৃক নির্ধারিত চাকুরীর অন্যান্য শর্তাধীনে চাকুরীতে নিয়োজিত থাকিবেন) in consulta- tion with the Commission. Jatan Kumar Roy vs Anti-Corruption Commis-sion, 65 DLR 355

Section 35(2)- The intention of the legislature to incorporate section 35(2) is to enable the Commission to keep the most eligible officers of the defunct Bureau by adopting its own procedure of 'যাচাই বাচাই' to be prescribed by the Rules with a view to assist elimination of corruption in different levels of the country. The procedure of scrutiny 'যাচাই বাচাই' is to be adopted by the Commission subject to approval of the President of the Republic. Sheikh Amin Uddin, vs Anti-Corruption Commission, 65 DLR 418

Sections 35(2) and 38(3)- The Ain is a special law and this Ain will prevail over any other law. It will be inappropriate if the language used in Ain is used in narrower meaning and this provision for scrutiny is for the purpose of retaining the employees and officers of the Bureau in the Commission permanently. This appoint- ment of the investigation officer without scrutiny will not affect the police reports in view of the savings clause. The functions of the Commission shall continue in the same manner as has been undertaken by the Bureau in view of sub-section (3) of section 38 of the Ain read with sub-sections (2) and (3) of section 3 of the Anti- Corruption Act, 1957. Durniti Daman Commission vs Sheikh Amin Uddin, 69 DLR (AD) 373

Section 36-Power of the Government to remove difficulties-In case of any difficulty arising out of vagueness as to the powers and responsibilities of the Commis sion, the Government may issue clarifi- cations or explanations in the form of guidelines to be adhered to by the Commission. The Cabinet Division was absolutely within its powers to issue such clarifications or explanations touching upon the powers and responsibilities of the Commission. Sheikh Nasir Uddin vs Anti- Corruption Commission, 65 DLR 399

Section 38(3)- There is no scope to hold the view that the police reports submitted by the officers of the defunct Bureau in the cases can be said to be illegal or without jurisdiction since the investigation officer has not been retained by the Commission after scrutiny. Secondly, the Ain clearly provides that the investigation into any allegation pending under the repealed Act shall be performed by the Commission under the Ain. Durniti Daman Commission vs Sheikh Amin Uddin, 69 DLR (AD) 373

Section 38

The General Clauses Act, 1897

Section 6 r/w

Durnity Daman Commission Ain, 2004

Section 38

The action taken under the repealed Act shall continue as if it has not been repealed¬– By reason of abolition of Bureau of Anti-Corruption, no offender can claim any right of non-prosecution under the new Ain. More so, in view of section 6 of the General Clauses Act, proceedings of the case shall be continued from the stage the old law was repealed unless different intention appears in the repealing enactment. There is nothing in the new enactment restricting the continuation of the pending proceedings, rather it saved those proceedings. We have, already settled the point in controversy in an unreported case in Civil Petition No. 1321 of 2013' disposed of along with CP Nos.235-237 of 2016. This court held that 'even if the Commission is not constituted under the Ain, the actions taken under the repealed Act shall continue as if it has not been repealed. There cannot be any doubt to infer that the activities of the defunct Bureau will be suspended by reason of the abolition of the Bureau, rather all activities will continue ' .....Sayed Liaquat Hossain =VS= Barrister Md Rafiqul Islam Mia, (Civil), 2017 (2)– [3 LM (AD) 440]

Sections 38(2)-There cannot be any doubt to infer that the activities of the defunct Bureau will be suspended by reason of the abolition of the Bureau, rather all activities will continue until the Commission is fully established. Durniti Daman Commission vs Sheikh Amin Uddin, 69 DLR (AD) 373

Section 38(2)

Sub-section (2) saved all actions undertaken by the Bureau of Anti-Corruption in exercise of powers under the Anti-Corruption Act. Though the Ain of 2004 came into force of 9th April, 2004, the Commission was constituted on 21st November, 2004. The sanction letter was accorded on 25th October, 2004, before the constitution of the Commission. Therefore, the sanction can be taken as has been accorded in accordance with sub-section (2) of section 38. More so, after the constitution of the Commission, the latter has accorded sanction of the charge sheet by letter under memo dated 21st November, 2004. Even if it is assumed that the previous sanction was not made in accordance with law, by reason of the according sanction of the charge-sheet by the Commission, there is no legal bar in prosecuting with the respondent in accordance with the Ain, 2004. .....Sayed Liaquat Hossain =VS= Barrister Md Rafiqul Islam Mia, (Civil), 2017 (2)– [3 LM (AD) 440]

Anti-Corruption Commission Act (V of 2004)

Section 38(2)(3)-The Anti-Corruption Act, 1957 and the Anti-Corruption (Tribunal) Ordinance, 1960 were repealed by the Anti- Corruption Commission Act, 2004, but in spite of such repeal order inquiry, investigation into any allegation, application for sanction to file cases pending before the tribunal established by the Ordinance immediately before such repealing of such Act were given a new life under the saving clause of the Act of 2004 for disposal of the same under the Act of 2004. Hafiz Ibrahim (Md) vs State represented by the Deputy Commissioner (Criminal), 73 DLR (AD) 77

Anti-Corruption Matter

The Anti- Corruption Commission Act is applicable in respect of public servant as well as "any other person". Anti Corruption Commission VS Md. Shahidul Islam & others, [1 LM (AD) 356]

Rule 3(5)

As per Rule 3(5) of the Anti-Corruption Commission Rules, 2007, the ACC shall not directly go for conducting inquiry in respect of complaints which have not been found to be prima-facie correct and true by the Scrutiny Committee, but in the present case the impugned notices have been issued upon the petitioners neither without holding any initial scrutiny, nor examining the context of the complaint thoroughly which causes the un-necessary consumption of the valuable time of the court as well as harassing the citizens without any reason. …Md. Atiqur Rahman & anr Vs. Bangladesh & ors, (Civil), 16 SCOB [2022] HCD 70

Rules 3 & 4

Words ‘মামলা দায়ের’ means institution of a case by submission of a charge-sheet by an officer of the Commission, before the concerned Court and certainly not an first information report as envisaged under section 154 the Code of Criminal Procedure or a complaint (অভিযোগ) as envisaged under Rule 3 and 4 of the Rules.

The irresistible conclusion is that no sanction will be required to file a complaint (অভিযোগ) either with the Commission or with the police. But sanction from the Commission shall be required both under the unamended and the amended 32, before institution of a case “মামলা দায়েরের ক্ষেত্রে” in the concerned Court. Anti-Corruption Commission vs Dr Mohiuddin Khan Alamgir 62 DLR (AD) 290.

Rules 3 & 4

An officer of the Commission lodged a first information report on 6-3-2007 with the Tejgaon Police Station and a case started. This is not envisaged under rules 3and 4 of the Rules. Those Rules provide only for filing of the complaint involving the offences mentioned in the schedule to the Act. However, those provisions are merely directory and deviation from provisions in lodging an first information report instead of a complaint, would not vitiate the proceedings. Anti-Corruption vs Dr Mohiuddin Khan Alamgir 62 DLR (AD) 290.

Rules 3 & 4

Commissioners resigned from the Commission on 7-2-2007 and it was reconstituted on 24-2-2007, as such, although the Commission existed as an Institution on 18-2-2007, when the notice was issued, but there was no Commission within the meaning of section 3 read with section 5 of the Act on that date. Anti-Corruption Commission vs Dr Mohiuddin Khan Alamgir 62 DLR (AD) 290.

Rules 4 and 16

Rule 16 of the Anti- Corruption Commission Rules, 2007 is applicable only in the case of any officer of the Anti-Corruption Commissioner, who lay the trap and conduct the trap operation only. This provision of law being a special law like Anti-Corruption Commission Rule, 2007 or Section 20 or 17 of the Anti- Corruption Commission Act, 2004 did not oust the jurisdiction of other law enforcing agencies. Occurrence took place on 23-1-2011 and FIR was lodged on 24-1-2011 and on the same day it was transmitted to the Anti-Corruption Commission for investigation following the procedure of Rule 4 of the Anti-Corruption Commission Rule, 2007. SM Sabbir Hasan vs State 63 DLR 368.

Rules, 7 and 10- As no consequence or penal provision in case of failure to conclude enquiry, investigation and trial has been given, the time limit is not mandatory, but directory and due to, failure to conclude investigation or trial within the time specified the proceeding of the case is not liable to be quashed. Jalal Uddin Ahmed Vs. State, 18 BLC (2013)-HCD-530.

Rules 7(1)(2) & 17(1)

A well-established legal principle is that a person upon whom power is delegated cannot delegate the same to another person. In the instant case the legal provision in Rule 17(1) is such that the Commission itself could delegate the power to issue a notice for submission of wealth statement to anyone of its officers not below the rank of Deputy Director (DD). Akbar Khan vs ACC 62 DLR 20.

Rule 8 and 11 and 20

Anti-Corruption Commission Act, 2004

Section 19

Anti-Corruption Commission Rules, 2007

Rule 8 and 11 and 20

Rule 10

The Court below has seen the CD and became sure about the transaction. The matter is still under investigation and if the mighty accused is granted bail the investigation of the case will be hampered as he holds very powerful position in the Anti-Corruption Commission. SM Sabbir Hasan vs State 63 DLR 368.

Rule 10-Question of freezing of the assets suffice it to say that it is the job of the Investigating Agency which can be done by taking necessary orders to that effect from the Court concerned as and when required. All the cases are still under investigation. Needless to say, the steps to be taken for tracing and freezing of the assets at the investigation stage of the case, rest with the Investigating Agency High Court Division has nothing to do therewith in a proceeding under section 561A of the Code The component of the Rule issuing order about the confiscation of the assets is fully and wholly unnecessary. Nazim Ahmed Vs. State, 18 BLC (2013)-HCD-511

Rule 10-Rule 10 requiring submission of police report within a specified period of 60 days is a directory in nature. Abdul Wahab (Md) Vs. State 18 BLC (2013)-FICD-382.

Rule 10

In respect of submission of charge-sheet and its requirement for sanction the learned Counsel submits that sub-rule (1) of Rule 15 to 18 of the Anti-Corruption rules speaks about the sanction and filing of the case and charge- sheet thereto. The sanction as given by one of the Commissioner of the Commission to submit charge-sheet purported to have been signed by one of the Commissioner of the Commission is not at all valid sanction, as he did not apply his mind to the requirement of the law and the materials available on record. Even, he did not go through the 161 and 164 statements of the witnesses at all. Having been done so he ought to have refused to accord sanction. In short, it may be called that the alleged sanction is a mechanical sanction and it did not fulfill the requirement of the law rather it is contrary to decisions of the Apex Courts and, as such, taking of cognizance on such charge-sheet is illegal, malafide which amounts to a malice in law. Sheikh Hasina vs State 63 DLR 162.

দুর্নীতি দমন কমিশন (কর্মচারী) চাকুরী বিধিমালা, ২০০৮

Rules 10(2) and 11(Gha)-Except rule 10(2) and 11(gha) of the Rules, no where within the four corners of the Rules, 2008 it has prescribed that the officers and employees of the defunct Burcau who have been retained under section 35(2) by the Commission will be kept under observation for (one) year from the date the order has been passed, nor the Commission has been able to show the legal basis for imposition of such condition. Jatan Kumar Roy Vs. Anti-Corruption Commission (Spl. Original),65 DLR (2013)-HCD-355.

Rule 10(2) and 11(Gha)-The Commission has included the name of those persons in the impugned gradation list who do not possess the requirement as prescribed in the Rules, 2008. Preparing the impugned gradation list for promotion to the post of Deputy Director is tainted with malafide as such, alternative forum even if there be available, will not be a bar invoking forum under Article 102 of the Constitution. Intan Kumar Roy Vs. Anti-Corruption Commission (Spl Original), 65 DLR (2013)-HCD-355.

Rule 10-Section 561A of the Code cannot be utilised to quash an investigation work of the police. Sadek Hossain (Md.) Vs. State, 18 BLC (2013)-AD-278.

Rule 10–The investigation conducted by the 10 was incomplete and further investigation should be directed for securing the ends of justice. The quashment of the proceeding is not called for, since there are allegations of creation of false documents. Mojibur Rahman (Md.) Vs. State (Criminal), 18 BLC (2013)-HCD-36.

Rule 10-Non-mentioning of name of the petitioner in the 161 statements cannot exclude him from all possibilities of implication as an abettor of the offence because he is a beneficiary of the illegal transaction which was allegedly done in connivance with other accused named in the FIR and the charge sheet. Ali Haider Chowdhury Vs. State (Criminal), 65 DLR (2013)-HCD-116.

Rule 10-Time limit for completing investigations it is only directory and not mandatory. Criminal misconduct Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act (II of 1947) On the plain reading of the allegations brought against the petitioner, who was admittedly a public servant at the time of the alleged misappropriation of public trust fund, the Court found that there are sufficient ingredients of Criminal misconduct punishable u/s 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 Offence under sections 409/109 of the Penal Code also comes up for determination by the Court. In such a case there is no scope for quashing the impugned proceeding. Time limit for completing investigation within a period of 60 days is only directory and not mandatory and the failure of the investigation officer will not affect continuation of the investigation of the case in any way. Begum Khaleda Zia Vs. The State, 2 ALR (2013)-HCD-148.

Rule 10-Compliance is not mandatory but directory in nature Since rule 10 does not incorporate any consequence for non-compliance of the same with regard to conclusion of investigation within the prescribed period of time, it cannot be treated as mandatory, rather it is directory. However while accepting the police report, if filed beyond the prescribed period of time, the Court is to look into this aspect in order to be satisfied that there was no international laches on the part of the Investigating Officer in concluding the investigation within time as has been prescribed by the legislature..(Para 12). Mozaffor Hossen Vs. Government (Writ), I CLR (2013)-HCD-326.

Rule 10(3)(4)-Whenever police report is failed beyond the stipulated period the Commission should be vigilant whether there was compliance of the provisions as provided under sub-rule (3) and (4) in particular and that the Court while accepting the police report so filed beyond the prescribed period may look into this aspect in order to be satisfied that the Investigating Officer was not indolent in concluding the investigation beyond the stipulated period of time. Mozaffor Hossen Vs. Bangladesh (Spl Original), 18 BLC (2013)-HCD-659.

Rule 10–Since rule 10 of the Rules, 2007 does not incorporate any consequence as such, for non-compliance of the same with regard to conclusion of investigation within the prescribed period of time cannot be treated as mandatory, rather it is directory. Mozaffor Hossen Vs. Bangladesh (Spl Original), 18 BLC (2013)-HCD-659.

Rule 11

The act of the Commission in according the sanction, without affording the accused any hearing under Rule 11 of the ACC Rules, 2007, amounts to colorable exercise of power by the ACC and its failure to remain স্বাধীন ও নিরপেক্ষ which is the touch stone to judge the validity of its acts and deeds. Obaidul Kader vs State 63 DLR 425.

S. 13(3) of the Rules

It empowers the Durnity Daman Commission alone to take up any case for investigation that falls under the schedule. No person is entitled to directly file any case before any Court when the alleged offence comes within the Schedule of the Rules, 2007. In view of the specific provision of section 13(3) of the Rules, 2007, the learned Magistrate had no legal authority to start the impugned criminal proceeding on the basis of a complaint directly filed before it and to take cognizance under section 408 of the Penal Code after the commencement of the aforesaid Rules. The learned Magistrate instead of taking cognizance of the offence ought to have sent the petition of complaint to the Durity Daman Commission as provided under section 13(3) of the Rules, 2007. Shanik Chandra Barnmon Vs. The State, 2 ALR (2013)-HCD-434

Rule 15-Sanction letter issued by the commission in compliance with the statutory provision of law cannot be termed as mechanical and contrary to law. Dr. Khandaker Mosharraf Hosain Vs. State, 65 DLR (2013)-FHCD-1.

Rule 15

A valid sanction being a condition precedent to a valid prosecution, The impugned proceeding has been launched without a valid sanction and the same, based on such a sanction amounts to an abuse of the process of the Court. Obaidul Kader vs State 63 DLR 425.

Rules 15 & 16

The sanction in question has not been accorded as per prescribed Form-3, mandatorily required by rule 15(7), and that apparently the same has been given mechanically. Hence the questioned sanction is not a sanction in the eye of law. Bayazid vs State 61 DLR 772.

Rule 15(7)—Form 3

”Form 3” is the part of the statute and accordingly when a specified Form has been prescribed in the statute for particular purpose the sanctioning authority has no scope to assign any reason of its satisfaction beyond the said format given in the form. Habibur Rahman Molla vs State 61 DLR 1.

Rule 15(7)—Form 3

There is no scope to challenge the efficacy of the sanction which has been accorded in Form No. 3 under rule 15(7) of the ACC Rules, 2007 prescribed by the legislature. The recital of the sanction order clearly shows that sanctioning authority was satisfied, on scrutinizing the record, produced in respect of the allegation brought against the accused-petitioner to accord sanction for prosecution. Habibur Rahman Molla vs State 61 DLR 1.

Rule 16(2)

Neither the seizure list witness PWs 4 and 5 nor the PWs 9, 10 and 11 who accompanied with PW 1 did support the prosecution case in respect of recovery of marks notes from the possession of the appellants. Rather the defence case was that due to fail in the Dispute Case No. 129 of 2003 on 2-7-2003 out of the grudge PW 8 Abul Kalam Azad who proved himself as a ‘Mamlabaz’ subsequently created a false case against the accused-appellants with the help of PW 1 who without taking any effective permission as per Rule 16(2) of the Anti-Corruption Commission Rule brought the case is more probable. Jahangir Alam vs State 63 DLR 294.

Rule 16

To lay and conduct trap to catch hold of an accused red handed and the requirement of the officer so conducting trap to be empowered by the Anti-Corruption Commission.

To empower an officer by the commissioner in charge of, investigation lay trap and conduct the proceedings required under rule 16 of the Anti-corruption Commission Rules, 2007 is mandatory requirement of law. In absence of such empowerment or authorisation the learned judges held proceedings’ illegal and abuse of the court and as such quashed the same. R Kabir (Md.) Vs. State and another 14 MLR (2009) (HC) 482.

Rule 16(1)-CrPC, 1898; Section 561A-Admittedly the mandatory provisions laid down in rule 16(1) of the Anti-Corruption Rules, 2007 have not been complied with in initiating this 'trap case' as has been narrated in the FIR; as such where the very initiation of criminal case is under challenge we find no impediment to entertain this type of application filed under section 561A of the Code of Criminal Procedure to invoke the inherent jurisdiction not only in order to prevent abuse of the process of the Court but also to secure the ends of justice...(11) M.A. Munim Vs. The State, 3 TLR (2013)-Page 466.

Rule 17-Rule 17 of the Bidhimala, has clearly empowered a Deputy Director of the Commission to issue an order under section 26 of the Anti-Corruption Commission Act, 2004. Abdul Walhab (Md) Vs. State 18 BLC (2013)-HCD-382.

Rule 17(5)(6)-Sub-rules 5 and 6 of Rule 17 relate to section 26 of the Act, and Rule 17 only deals with the offence mentioned in section 26 of the Act. Rule 17 does not deal with the offence contemplated by Section 27 of the Act. There is no nexus in between Section 26 and 27 of the Act. Section 27 of the Act

contemplates for starting a proceeding against the accused petitioner under Section 27(1) of the Act independently. The offence under Section 27 of the ACC Act can also be constituted and tried independently. If a proceeding is inititiated against the accused-petitioner only under Section 27 of the Act, That proceeding is very much maintainable and sustainable in the eye of law. Dr. Khandaker Mosharraf Hossain Vs. State, 65 DLR (2013)-HCD-1.

Rules-Framed under section 34 of The Anti-Corruption Commission Act, 2004. Rules, 2007 deal with the process of inquiry, investigation, filing complaint on obtaining sanctions of the Commission etc while Rule, 2008 deal with the terms and conditions of service of the employees of the Commission. None of these two Rules incorporates provisions specifying the procedure for --------------- of the records of its employees for retaining then in the service of the Commission. The Commission is yet to frame its own Rules in terms of sections 34 and 35(2) of Anti-Corruption Act, 2004. Syed Liaquat Hossain Vs. The State( Spl.Original), 2 ALR (2013)-HCD-59.

The Penal Code, 1860

Section 161 r/w

The Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947

Section 5(2) r/w

The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898

Section 561A r/w

Durnity Daman Commission Bidhimala, 2007

Rule 20

Anti-Corruption Commission Act, 2004

Sections 19 and 20 and

Rule 20 of the Anti-Corruption Commission Rules, 2007 read with

Section 160 of the Code of Criminal Procedure:

Public servant

The Anti-Corruption Commission Act is applicable in respect of public servant as well as “any other person”. .....Anti Corruption Commission =VS= Md. Shahidul Islam & others, (Civil), 2016-[1 LM (AD) 356]

It appears that whenever any Act...

Money Laundering Prevention Act, 2002

Section 13 read with

section 4(2)/7 of the Money Laundering Prevention Act, 2009 and

Anti-Corruption Commission Ain 2002:

It appears that whenever any Act was amended or repealed by any Ordinance the Legislature continued giving effect of the previous law as if the previous law has not been repealed. Thus, the offence committed by the accused petitioner between 19.12.2005 to 16.01.2008 being within the period of continuation of the aforesaid law which were amended/repealed subsequently by different Ordinances/Acts, it cannot be said that the ACC did not have any authority to initiate, investigate, lodge FIR and continue to proceed with the case under the amended law it is to be deemed to have been committed under the law which has got a new life by the saving clause. …Md. Hafiz Ibrahim Vs. State & another, (Criminal), 15 SCOB [2021] AD 89

Rule 3(5)

Rules 3 & 4

Rules 4 and 16

Rules 7(1)(2) & 17(1)

Rule 8 and 11 and 20

Anti-Corruption Commission Act, 2004

Section 19

Anti-Corruption Commission Rules, 2007

Rule 8 and 11 and 20

Rule 10

Sections 18 & 26

Section-19 (1) and (2)

Anti-Corruption Commission Act, 2004

Section-19 (1) and (2)

Section 63A of the Registration Act, 1908

Stamp Act, 1899

Evasion of registration fees and other duties for registering a deed of sale does not come within the schedule offences of the Anti-Corruption Commission Act, 2004:

Sections 19 and 20

Anti-Corruption Commission Act, 2004

Sections 19 and 20 and

Rule 20 of the Anti-Corruption Commission Rules, 2007 read with

Section 160 of the Code of Criminal Procedure:

Section 19

Anti-Corruption Commission Act, 2004

Section 19

Anti-Corruption Commission Rules, 2007

Rule 8 and 11 and 20

Section 20

Section 20Ka(1)

Durnity Daman Commission Ain (as amended by Act XVI of 2013)

Section 20Ka(1) read with

The Code of Criminal Procedure

Section 561A

In view of the aforesaid provision of law, the High Court Division committed an error of law in quashing the proceeding holding that since the mandatory provision had not been complied with, the proceeding was liable to be quashed. The conclusion arrived at by the High Court Division is erroneous.

The petition is disposed of. The judgment and order of the High Court Division is set aside. The Divisional Special Judge, Chittagong is directed to proceed with the case in accordance with law. …Anti-Corruption Commission =VS= Md Shafiul Alam, (Criminal), 2020 (1) [8 LM (AD) 620]

Section 20Ka(1)(2)

Section 26

Sections 26 & 27

Section 26(2)

Sections 26(2) and 33

Section 26 and 32

Section 26 and 32 Authority of the Commission to issue notice requiring a person to submit statement of his assets and liabilities. Requirement of sanction for the prosecution to be accompanied with the charge-sheet.

Sections 26(1) and 27(1)

দুর্নীতি দমন কমিশন আইন, ২০০৪

Section 27 r/w

The Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947

Sections 5(1)(e) and 5(2)

The Penal Code

Section 109

Section 26

Sections 26 and 27(1)

Anti-Corruption Commission Act, 2004

Sections 26 and 27(1)

The Income Tax Ordinance, 1984

Sections 165 and 166

The Code of Criminal Procedure

Sections 235(2)/236/403

Section 26(1)

Section 26

Section 26(1)

Sections 26 & 27

Sections 26(2), 27(1)

The petitioner stated that as he was staying abroad for the treatment, he had authorized his relative Mr. H.B.M. Shoave Rahman by a letter of authority dated 7th August, 2008, to file a writ petition and as such "the petitioner craves leave of the Hon'ble court to allow the said H.B.M. Shoave Rahman to swear affidavit of this writ petition with the photocopy of the letter of authorization. Anti-corruption Commission vs. Dr. H.B.M. Iqbal Alamgir (S.K. Sinha J) (Civil) 7 ADC 228

Section 26(2), 27(1)

The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898

Section 561A

The Anti-Corruption Commission Act, 2004

Section 26(2), 27(1) r/w

The Penal Code, 1860

Section 109

The Emergency Power Rules, 2007

Section 15(D)(5)

Sections 26(2) and 27(1)

Durnity Daman Commission Ain, 2004

Sections 26(2) and 27(1) r/w

The Emergency Powers Rules, 2007

Rule 15Gha (5)

Section 27

Section 27(1)

Section 27(1) Conviction and sentence Bail in appeal on humanitarian ground

Section 27(1)

Anti-Corruption Commission Act, 2004

Section 27(1) read with

The Penal Code

Section 109

Findings and decision arrived at by the High Court Division being based on proper appreciation of fact and law the same do not call for any interference by this Division. This criminal petition for leave to appeal is dismissed. …Mohammad Osman Gani =VS= The State, (Criminal), 2020 (1) [8 LM (AD) 354]

Section 27

Section 27(1)

The Anti-Corruption Commission Act, 2004

Section 27(1) read with

The Penal Code, 1860

Section 109, 161 read with

The Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 Section 5(2)

Section 28

Durnity Daman Commission Ain, 2004

Section 28 r/w

Criminal Law Amendment Act–1958

Section 3(2)

The Appellate Division held that the offences punishable under the Money Laundering Protirod Ain are schedule offences of the Durnity Daman Commission Ain and section 28 of the Ain of 2004 clearly provides that the offences punishable under the said Ain shall exclusively be triable by the Special Judge which includes the Senior Special Judge. Therefore, the High Court Division was totally unmindful in arriving at such conclusion. The decisions referred by the High Court Division in Nurul Huda V. Bahar Uddin, 41 DLR(HCD)395 and Zaved Khan V. ACC, 63 DLR(HCD)221 are also to the same extent based on misconception of law. .....Anti Corruption Commission & others =VS= Abdul Azim & others, (Civil), 2016-[1 LM (AD) 136]

Section 28B

Section 32

No sanction is required to file a complaint (অভিযোগ) and the unamended as well the amended section 32 requires only one sanction from the Commission. Anti-Corruption Commission vs Dr Mohiuddin Khan Alamgir 62 DLR (AD) 290.

Section 32

Sanction from the Commission will be required when the charge-sheet is filed under sub section (2) and on receipt of the charge-sheet along with a copy of the letter of sanction the Court takes cognizance of the offence for trial, either under the original section 32 or the amended section 32. As a matter of fact, only one sanction will be required under section 32, unamended or amended. Anti-Corruption Commission vs Dr Mohiuddin Khan Alamgir 62 DLR (AD) 290.

Section 32

Moreover, there is no principle of resju- dicata in criminal jurisdiction accept that of section 403 of the Code of Crim- inal Procedure which provides that per- sons once convicted or acquitted are not to be tried for the same offence. In this case therefore since there was no trial on conviction the question of double jeop- ardy does not arise. The Principal Sec- retary, Office of the Hon'ble Prime Minister vs. Salahuddin Ahmad (Md. Abdul Matin J) (Civil) 7 ADC 143

Section 32

After completion of the investigation, the Investigating Officer, under subsection (2) of section 32, on obtaining the sanction from the Commission, would submit the police report before the Court along with a copy of the letter of sanction. The Court, under sub-section (1), would take cognizance, only when there is such sanction from the Commission. Both the sub-section (1) and sub-section (2) of the section 32 envisages only one sanction, not two. Subsection (1) does not spell out or even envisage filing of any fresh sanction when the sanction to prosecute has already been filed along with the charge-sheet of the Investigating Officer, It only envisages that without such sanction from the Commission (কমিশনের অনুমোদন ব্যতিরেকে) as spelt out in sub-section (2), no Court shall take cognizance of the offence (কোন আদালত এই আইনের অধীন কোন অপরাধ বিচারার্থ আমলে গ্রহন করিবে না) under sub-section (1) of section 32. Anti-Corruption Commission vs Dr Mohiuddin Khan Alamgir 62 DLR (AD) 290.

Section 32(1)(2)

The requirement of subsection (1) of section 32 was complied with when the charge-sheet was filed along with a copy of the sanction from the Commission. As such, there was no illegality in taking cognizance by the learned Judge of the Metropolitan Senior Special Judge. Anti-Corruption Commission vs Dr Mohiuddin Khan Alamgir 62 DLR (AD) 290.

Section 32(2)

Section 32(2) Does not apply to cases prior to the Act coming into operation No res-judicata.

There is no res-judicata in the Criminal jurisdiction except the bar provided under section 403 Cr.p.c. When steps under section; 6(5) of the Criminal Law Amendment Act,1958 were duly taken, there was no legal requirement to obtain sanction any more. Section 32 of the Anti-Corruption Commission Act,2004 has no manner of application to the cases prior to the Acts coming into force. Mostafa Kamal and others Vs. Salahuddin Ahmad and others 14 MLR (2009) (AD) 412.

Section 32 (1)

Further Investigating -The Appellate Division held that the High Court Division observed that under section 173 (3 B) of the Code the Investigating Officer does not require any permission from the court concerned for further investigation and hence after completion of further investigation filing of supplementary charge sheet does not suffer from any illegality. The High Court Division has treated the subsequent investigation as a further investigation and the report as a supplementary charge sheet, which is not illegal Chowdhury Mohidul Haque -Vs.-Anti-Corruption Commission 5 ALR (AD)2015(1) 71.

Section 32, 32(1) and 32(2).

Sanction for prosecution from the Anti -Corruption Commission is necessary for taking cognizance of an offence under the Act. The investigation officer is required under the law to obtain prior sanction of the Commission before submission of the charge-sheet after completing investigation and the charge-sheet must accompany charges under the amended provision of law, his prior sanction is necessary for filing a case.Anti-Corruption Commission -Vs.-Mohammad Bayazid 2 ALR (2013)(AD) 109.

Section 32(1)

Before amendment of section 32(1) of the Anti-Corruption Commission (Amendment Ordinance, 2007) prior sanction from the Anti-Corruption Commission was a pre-condition for filing a case under this Act. Anti-Corruption Commission -Vs.-Mohammad Bayazid 2 ALR (2013) (AD) 109.

Section 32(2)

Sub-section 32(2) In reamins unaffected by the Amendment of 2007.Under the amended provision the words' for filing case' have been deleted. Sanction for prosecution is Now necessary only for the purpose of taking cognizance or the offence. Prior sanction for filing a case under the Anti-Corruption Act as required before the Amendment is not now necessary . Anti-Corruption Commission -Vs.-Mohammad Bayazid 2 ALR (2013)(AD) 109

Section 32(2)

Does not apply to cases prior to the Act coming into operation No res-judicata.

Section 32

Anti-Corruption Commission Act, 2004

Section 32 r/w

The Criminal Amendment Act, 1958

Section 6(5)

Sanction requirement to file Anti-corruption Case–

Section 32 of the Anti-Corruption Commission Act, 2004 while giving the direction. Since in the instant case cognizance was taken long back before the coming into being of Anti Corruption Commission Act, 2004, Section 32 of the Act shall have no application in the instant case. Since by Section 28(2) requirement of sanction under Section 6(5) of Criminal Amendment Act, 1958 was done away the case can proceed now without any sanction in accordance with law and therefore Section 32(2) of Anti Corruption Commission Act, 2004 has no manner of application in the instant case. .....Mostafa Kamal =VS= Salahuddin Ahmad, (Civil), 2018 (2) [5 LM (AD) 431]

Section 32

Prior sanction for filing charge sheet–

The sanction for filing charge sheet has been granted on the basis of which the investigating officer submitted the charge sheet and the Court took cognizance of the offence against the petitioner and, as such, the submission of the counsel that 'there is no prior sanction in this case' has no basis. .....Begum Khaleda Zia =VS= State, (Criminal), 2018 (1) [4 LM (AD) 359]

Section 32

Section 32(1)(2)

Section 32(2)

Section 32(2) Does not apply to cases prior to the Act coming into operation No res-judicata.

Section 32 (1)

Section 32, 32(1) and 32(2).

Sanction for prosecution from the Anti -Corruption Commission is necessary for taking cognizance of an offence under the Act. The investigation officer is required under the law to obtain prior sanction of the Commission before submission of the charge-sheet after completing investigation and the charge-sheet must accompany charges under the amended provision of law, his prior sanction is necessary for filing a case.Anti-Corruption Commission -Vs.-Mohammad Bayazid 2 ALR (2013)(AD) 109.

Section 32(1)

Section 32(2)

Does not apply to cases prior to the Act coming into operation No res-judicata.

Section 32

Anti-Corruption Commission Act, 2004

Section 32 r/w

The Criminal Amendment Act, 1958

Section 6(5)

Sanction requirement to file Anti-corruption Case–

Section 32

Prior sanction for filing charge sheet–

Section 32- Sanction requirement to file Anti-corruption Case- Section 32 of the Anti-Corruption Commission Act, 2004 while giving the direction. Since in the instant case cognizance was taken long back before the coming into being of Anti Corruption Commission Act, 2004, Section 32 of the Act shall have no application in the instant case. Since by Section 28(2) requirement of sanction under Section 6(5) of Criminal Amendment Act, 1958 was done away the case can proceed now without any sanction in accordance with law and therefore Section 32(2) of Anti Corruption Commission Act, 2004 has no manner of application in the instant case. .....Mostafa Kamal =VS= Salahuddin Ahmad, [5 LM (AD) 431]

Section 32- Prior sanction for filing charge sheet- The sanction for filing charge sheet has been granted on the basis of which the investigating officer submitted the charge sheet and the Court took cognizance of the offence against the petitioner and, as such, the submission of the counsel that there is no prior sanction in this case has no basis......Begum Khaleda Zia -VS- State, [4 LM (AD) 359]

Anti-Corruption Commission Act (V of 2004)

Section 38

The General Clauses Act, 1897

Section 6 r/w

Durnity Daman Commission Ain, 2004

Section 38

Section 38(2)

Rule 2

Inquiry and Investigation— ‘Inquiry’ and investigation’ are not one and the same. They are distinct terms. They are distinguishable from each other. Investigation (তদন্ত) of can only be commenced and carried out conclusion of inquiry (অনুসন্ধান) and lodgment of an FIR against a person. Tofail Ahmed vs Chairman, Anti-Corruption Commission 62 DLR 33.

Rule 3(5)

Rules 3 & 4

Rules 4 and 16

Rules 7(1)(2) & 17(1)

Rule 8 and 11 and 20

Anti-Corruption Commission Act, 2004

Section 19

Anti-Corruption Commission Rules, 2007

Rule 8 and 11 and 20

Rules 8 and 15

ACC did never wanted to know it by affording the petitioner an opportunity of being heard or by calling for a written statement from him, which it had power to under Rule 8 and II of the ACC Rules, 2007. Such discretion is neither unfettered, nor it has been vested in the ACC to arm it with redundant power or to exercise its discretion with caprice, but be guided by the provisions of section 3(2) of the Act. Obaidul Kader (Md) vs State 63 DLR 425.

Rule 10

Rule 15

Rules 15 & 16

Rule 15(7)—Form 3

Rule 16

Penal Code, 1860

Section 161 read with

Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 And

Section 561A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 And

Durnity Daman Commission Bidhimala, 2007

Rule 16:

A proceeding cannot be quashed depending on alleged procedural error in the method of collection of evidence to be adduced and used. The High Court Division failed to distinguish the allegations of demands, acceptance and attempts to accept gratifications and those with the procedure to collect evidence to substantiate allegations of acceptance and attempts to accept gratifications or demands, thereby, erroneously quashed the proceedings. …Anti Corruption Commission Vs. Md. Rezaul Kabir & ors, (Criminal), 8 SCOB [2016] AD 144

Rule 16

To lay and conduct trap to catch hold of an accused red handed and the requirement of the officer so conducting trap to be empowered by the Anti-Corruption Commission.

Rule 16

The Penal Code, 1860

Section 161 r/w

The Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947

Section 5(2) r/w

The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898

Section 561A r/w

Durnity Daman Commission Bidhimala, 2007

Rule 16

A proceeding cannot be quashed depending on alleged procedural error in the method of collection of evidence to be adduced and used. The High Court Division failed to distinguish the allegations of demands, acceptance and attempts to accept gratifications and those with the procedure to collect evidence to substantiate allegations of acceptance and attempts to accept gratifications or demands, thereby, erroneously quashed the proceedings. .....Anti Corruption Commission =VS= Md. Rezaul Kabir, [3 LM (AD) 509]

Rule 20

Anti-Corruption Commission Act, 2004

Sections 19 and 20 and

Rule 20 of the Anti-Corruption Commission Rules, 2007 read with

Section 160 of the Code of Criminal Procedure:

Money Laundering Prevention Act, 2002

Section 13 read with

section 4(2)/7 of the Money Laundering Prevention Act, 2009 and

Anti-Corruption Commission Ain 2002:

Imposition of cost personally upon the learned Advocate for the Anti-Corruption Commission of TK.25,000.00 (Taka twenty five thousand) with ad- verse remarks against him in the body of the judgment. Anti-Corruption Com- mission vs. Md. Abul Kalam Shamsud- din (Mohammad Fazlul Karim J) (Civil) 7 ADC 171

Case Reference

সার্চ ইন্টারফেসে আপনাকে স্বাগতম

Anti-Corruption Commission Act, 2004 | Case Reference

Anti-Corruption Commission Act (V of 2004)

Post a Comment

Join the conversation

যাবজ্জীবন কারাদণ্ড বলতে কত বছরের সাজাকে বোঝায় | Life Imprisonment | CrPC | Case Reference

বাটোয়ারা মামলায় বাদীর স্বত্বের ঘোষণার জন্য প্রার্থনা করা কি বাধ্যতামূলক | Partition Suit | Case Reference

Jurisdiction | Case Reference

De Facto Guardian | Case Reference