Anti-Corruption
Commission Rules, 2007
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.
Anti-Corruption Commission Act, 2004
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]
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
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]
