Act/Law wise: Judgment of Supreme Court of Bangladesh

ALL A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z



Anti-Corruption Commission Act (V of 2004) (দুর্নীতি দমন কমিশন আইন)
Section/Order/Article/Rule/Regulation Head Note
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 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 vs State 63 DLR 425. ....View Full Judgment

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. ....View Full Judgment

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 ....View Full Judgment

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 Governrnent of Bangladesh 63 DLR (AD) 18. ....View Full Judgment

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. ....View Full Judgment

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. ....View Full Judgment

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.
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 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] ....View Full Judgment

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. ....View Full Judgment

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. ....View Full Judgment

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. ....View Full Judgment

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. ....View Full Judgment

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. ....View Full Judgment

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. ....View Full Judgment

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 ....View Full Judgment

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. ....View Full Judgment

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] ....View Full Judgment

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] ....View Full Judgment

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] ....View Full Judgment

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] ....View Full Judgment

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. ....View Full Judgment

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. ....View Full Judgment

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. ....View Full Judgment

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. ....View Full Judgment

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.
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, (Criminal), 2020 (1) [8 LM (AD) 354] ....View Full Judgment

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] ....View Full Judgment

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] ....View Full Judgment

Section 28

Durnity Daman Commission Ain, 2004
Section 28 read with
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] ....View Full Judgment

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. ....View Full Judgment

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. ....View Full Judgment

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. ....View Full Judgment

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. ....View Full Judgment

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. ....View Full Judgment

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. ....View Full Judgment

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. ....View Full Judgment

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. ....View Full Judgment

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 ....View Full Judgment

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. ....View Full Judgment

Section 32

Anti-Corruption Commission Act, 2004
Section 32 read with
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] ....View Full Judgment

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] ....View Full Judgment

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] ....View Full Judgment

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] ....View Full Judgment