Anti-Corruption Commission Rules, 2007
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 a case can only be commenced and carried out after conclusion of inquiry (অনুসন্ধান) and lodgment of an FIR against a person. Tofail Ahmed vs Chairman, Anti-Corruption Commission 62 DLR 33.
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 of 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 section 32, before institution of a case (মামলা দায়েরের ক্ষেত্রে) in the concerned Court. Anti-Corrup- tion Commission vs Dr Mohiuddin Khan Alamgir 62 DLR (AD) 290.
Rules 3 & 4 An officer of the Com- mission lodged a first information report on 6-3- 2007 with the Tejgaon Police Station and a case was started. This is not envisaged under rules 3 and 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 Commission 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-Corrup- tion Commissioner, who lay the trap and conduct the trap operation only. This provision of law being a special law like Anti-Corruption Commis- sion 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 Com-mission Rule, 2007. SM Sabbir Hasan vs State 63 DLR 368.
Rules 6 and 8 of the 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) 1
Rules 8 and 11-Procedure of inquiry by the Commission is very fair, transparent and accountable and this procedure is for the benefit of the person(s) against whom an inquiry is going on. In course of inquiry the concerned person(s) is getting chance of being heard before the inquiry officer to defend himself. Similarly, after filling of the case during investigation Rule 11 provides similar provision for defending an accused in an investigation process. Anti-Corruption Commission vs Md Ashraful Haque (Civil) 75 DLR (AD) 1
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 11 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.
Rules 8 & 11-In an inquiry against a person on an allegation of corruption, the commission or any other person on his behalf may ask the person to explain his position. Inquiry is generally taken place before the filing of the case. The very nature of the case did not permit and justify to notify the accused in black and white to explain his position before the lodging of the FIR. Mohoshin Miah (Md) vs State, 67 DLR 114
Rules 8 and 20-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
Rule 10-Anticipatory bails shall not survive post charge-sheet stage. Durnity Daman Commission vs Dr. Khandaker Mosharraf Hossain, 66 DLR (AD) 92
Rule 10- The provision of completion of the investigation within stipulated period is not mandatory in nature. Non submission of report by the investigating officer within 45 working days cannot be a good ground for quashing the proceedings. ACC vs AAM Habibur Rahman, 67 DLR (AD) 278
Rule 10-Time limit for the investigation of the case is simply directory in nature and not the mandatory provisions of law. A Kader Zilani (Md) vs State, 67 DLR 130
Rule 10- There is no reason to think that the alleged offender shall get opportunity to go escort free due to such irregularity in the investigation process. Begum Khaleda Zia vs State. 64 DLR 1
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-After filing of the case more than 2 (two) years have already been elapsed but the Commission has failed to complete its investigation though a time limit has been prescribed in the Rules, 2007 for completion of investigation. Salim (Md) vs State, 70 DLR 159
Rule 10(1)(2)- Rule 10 of the Rules. 2007, is nothing but a regulatory provision to make the Investigating Officer respon- sible in the matter of causing unusual delay. There is no consequence affecting conti- nuation of the case for non-compliance of the Rule. Begum Khaleda Zia vs State, 64 DLR 1
Rule 10(3)(4)- 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
Rule 10(4)-Even after expiry of the prescribed period of 60 days, the question of quashing the proceeding does not arise, Time factor is nothing but a procedural law and obviously, it is directory in nature. violation of which may make the concerned Investigating Officer liable for disciplinary action, if the authority deems fit and proper. Begum Khaleda Zia vs State, 64 DLR 1
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.
Rule 11-The Rule itself did not confer any right to the accused to explain his position before the Commission or Commissioner and it is the commission who will exercise this option considering the nature of the case. Mohoshin Miah (Md) vs State, 67 DLR 114
Rule 11-It is the option of the commission whether they will exercise it or not in the appropriate case. Mohoshin Miah (Md) vs State. 67 DLR 114
Rule 13(3)-The petition of complaint containing specific allegation against an employee of the Grameen Bank under section 408 of the Code should not be thrown away for legal defect giving opportunity to the offender to go scot-free. The Magistrate shall send the petition of complaint to the Commission in accordance with procedure laid down under Rules 13(3) of the Bidhimala to deal with in accordance with law. Shanik Chandra Barmon vs State, 66 DLR 114
Rule 15(2)- Sanction to the petition is available for prosecution. In such circumstances 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
Rule 15(3)- Rule 15 (3) of the Rules 2007 is not applicable in this particular case in view of the direction and obser- vation given by the Appellate Division neither the Commission nor the Special Judge have any scope to ignore, avoid and not to comply the decisions or observations made by the Appellate Division. If they do so, definitely it will be clear violation of the Constitution. Hafiz Ibrahim (Md) vs State, 68 DLR 121
Rule 15(7)-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 Commission was required to be taken Anti-Corruption Commission vs Bayazid, 65 DLR (AD) 97 Md
Rule 15(7)-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
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 15(4)-Form 3-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
Rule 15(3)(5)-At the time of taking cognizance of the offence the Bidhimala has no existence. But as the Bidhimala is a procedural law having retrospective effect will be applicable in the case. Kaisar-ur-zaman vs State, 64 DLR 15
Rule 15(7)- 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 Anti- Corruption Commission, 68 DLR 1
Rule 16-Since there appears no special defence case on behalf of the accused in respect of the trap case that the PW I who led the trap party had any connivance with Abdus Salam Khokon in order to make a trap, such a defect which might have been taken place for the very new enactment of the Rules and as I have said it earlier that after 11 days of the enactment of the Rules, the occurrence of this case has taken place, so the defect in obtaining the permission from the authority by PWI who led the trap party is curable under section 537 of the Code. Mohoshin Miah (Md) vs State, 67 DLR 114
Rule 16-Bidhimala came into force on 29th March, 2007 whereas the trap in connection of this case was made on 10th April, 2007, that is, after 11 days of the promulgation of the Bidhimala the occurrence of this case was taken place. The permission either in written or oral was mandatory for the field officer for laying down a trap and every law and Rule is enacted in a civilized society to obey it and to serve the best purpose of the people and not to violate it and if the law enforcing agency who have been entrusted with the duty to enforce the law and Rules of the country ignore the same, what is the necessity for the enactment of the law and the Rules. Mohoshin Miah (Md) vs State, 67 DLR 114
Rule 16(2)- Neither the seizure list witness PWs 4 and 5 nor the PWs 9, 10 and 11 who accompanied with PW I 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 that 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-There is no bar in catching red-handed any person by any law enforcing agency if the Commission has not been informed or assistance of Com missioner is not sought by any person for the scheduled offences committed by any government official, therefore, the law as its stand today is that if any offence to be trapped by any individual person or any law enforcing agency should not be necessarily a trap case under Rule 16 of the Bidhimala. Shamvunath Karmaker vs State, 67 DLR 320
Rule 16-Catching a person red handed when assistance is sought from any law enforcing agency or any persons for catching or apprehending a possible offender committing offence mentioned in the schedule of the Act, 2004 has not been barred by Rule 16 but when the assistance is sought from the Anti-Corruption Commission it is bound to prepare and to conduct a proceeding. Shamvunath Karma- ker vs State, 67 DLR 320
Rule 16-It the functions of the Court to examine the reliability of evidence collected by way of trap after recording the evidence. The trapping party had followed the relevant Rules at the time laying trap or not or in other words, prearranged raid/trap carries any evidentiary value or not for non-compliance of procedural formalities before laying traps should be considered by the Courts after recording evidence along with other evidence. The Court may or may not accept the evidence of decoy witness considering the facts, circumstances, the procedure to be followed for laying traps and that the officials laying traps were designated or not. There may be other reliable evidence in the hand of prosecution to connect with the offence. Anti- Corruption Commission vs Rezaul Kabir, 68 DLR (AD) 291
Rule 17-Even after a short expiry of the given time, if he tenders his wealth statement, the ACC should accept it, because it helps conclusion of the inquiry with a prima-facie finding of fact about his property. Delwar Hossain (Md) Delu vs Anti-Corruption Commission, 70 DLR 110
Rule 17-The power of ACC to extend the time for submission of wealth statement irrespective of the time frame prescribed in Rule 17, and that a wealth statement if tendered during continuance of inquiry should be accepted and considered. Delwar Hossain (Md) Delu vs Anti-Corruption Commission, 70 DLR 110
Rule 17- Even any notice recipient subsequent to submission of his wealth statement, if notices any bonafide mistake in the statement, he can also file a supplementary statement making correction to the mistake or explanation thereto and the ACC is to receive the supplementary statement or explanation and would consider whether the mistake is bonafide or that the explanation offered is reasonable and satisfactory. Delwar Hossain (Md) Delu vs Anti-Corruption Commission, 70 DLR 110
Rule 24- Rule 24 of the Bidhimala, 2007 has been amended. By that amendment the informant officer of the Commission is legally empowered to hold investigation into the case. ACC vs Md Tarique Rahman, 68 DLR 500
