The Emergency Power Rules, 2007
Rule 15 Gha(5)
On submission of subsequent amend- ment to the wealth statement he was re- fused resulting in filing the Writ Petition. A.H. M. Mustafa Kamal vs. Government of the People's (Md. Abdul Matin J) (Civil) 46
Rules 15, 15Ka, 15Kha, 15Gha(5)
Iearned Special Judge, on examination of witnesses and other evidence on record, found the respondent no. 1 guilty of the charges of concealing various amounts and possessing those beyond his known source of income and on those findings, by his Judgment and Order dated 26.07.2007, convicted and sentenced him to suffer simple imprisonment for 3 years under Section 26(2) of the Act read with rule 5Gha(5) of the Emergency Powers Rules, 2007 and rigorous imprisonment for 10(ten) years under Section 27(1) of the Act and to pay a fine of Tk. 10,00,000/- (Taka ten lac), in default, to suffer 1(one) year imprisonment more and also forfeited his properties. The Anti-Corruption Com- mission vs. Dr. Muhiuddin Khan Alam- gir (A. B. M. Khairul Haque J) (Civil) 10 ADC 351
Rule 15(Gha)(2)-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 Commission 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 19 (Gha)
The petitioners have been charged under
offences including that of Emergency Power Rules 2007 and Rules 19(Gha)
prohibits enlargement or bail...(4) Anti Corruption commission vs Syed Tanveer
Ahmed and another (Civil) 5ADC 383
Delay of 29 days is condoned....(1) the
suit was filed seeking declaration of title in respect of the land in suit, recovery
of possession upon evicting the defendants from the land in suit and
demolishing the Structures in the land in suit and for further declaration that
the order dated April 22,1977 passed by defendant No.3 treating the property in
suit as vested property and thereupon leasing out the property in suit is
illegal and void.....(2) Government of the people's Republic of Bangladesh vs.
Md. Shahbuddin (Md. Ruhul Amin J) (Civil) 5ADC 385
From the evidence it is found that petitioners homestead is contiguous to the case land and his full brother is the attesting witness in the transfer deeds and the alleged transfer-was made by their full brother-in-law. Therefore, the petitioner cannot deny that he was not aware of their transfers. The story of his knowledge from P.W.2, Abdur Rahman has been created subsequently for the purpose of this case....(5) Md. Alauddin VS. Azizul Hussain and others (Mohammad Fazlul Karim J) (Civil) 5ADC 389
