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



Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947
Section/Order/Article/Rule/Regulation Head Note
Section 2

Trustee is a public servant–
The petitioner prayed for set aside the charge leveled against her on the ground that she purchased the property not as Prime Minister but as trustee of Shahid Ziaur Rahman trust, the Appellate Division helds that as per provision of Section 2 of the Prevention of the Corruption Act, 1947 trustee is also a public servant. .....Khaleda Zia =VS= The State & another, (Criminal), 2016-[1 LM (AD) 553] ....View Full Judgment

Section 5(2)

The Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947
Section 5(2) read with
The Emergency Powers Rules, 2007
Rule 19Ka read with
General Clauses Act, 1897
Possession of the leasing out the Railway’s property–
We are of the view that the High Court Division's judgment will not stand on the way if the Ministry of Railway after holding proper inquiry finds that the allotment and/or leasing out of the said property has been made by Nazmul Huda by misuse of power, it can cancel the lease and/or allotment of the property in favour of evsjv‡`k gvbevwaKvi ev¯Íevqb ms¯’v, and to take possession of the said property, if it has not been taken over in the mean time. .....Anti-Corruption Commission =VS= Nazmul Huda, (Civil), 2017 (2)– [3 LM (AD) 7] ....View Full Judgment

Section 5(l)(d) & (e)

Embezzlement of State money by a person who was the President of the country and using the same for his personal benefit or living or having properties disproportionate to his known source of income will definitely come within the ambit of moral turpitude. Hussain Mohammad Ershad vs Zahedul Islam Khan 54 DLR (AD) 1. ....View Full Judgment

Section 5(2)

illegal gratification—Trap case—Because of tough requirement of proof beyond reasonable doubt the laying of trap is the only method for detecting crimes like bribery which are committed in covert manner. Such a method is not prohibited. For laying a trap the investigating officer cannot be said to be thereby instigating commission of the offence. Principles of accomplice evidence cannot be extended to the evidence of trap witness, because the latter cannot be termed as accomplice. As to corroboration of trap witnesses no hard and fast rule can be given. There may be cases where the Court may accept evidence of trap witnesses. Shahabullah Vs. State 43 DLR (AD) 1. ....View Full Judgment

Section 5(2)

Allegation was that the appellant dishonestly misappropriated 10 bags of powder milk, which was meant for distribution among the poor students— Defence version was that he did not submit any application seeking allotment of relief powder milk nor did he take delivery of them —Question arose as to whether the legality of the conviction on the ground of contradictot7 and insufficient evidence which necessarily calls for the scrutiny: of the evidence is maintainable. Held—”We have given our anxious consideration to the facts of the case and discrepancy in evidence as to R bags or 10 bags and our conclusion is this conviction cannot be sustained”. Moslemuddin Talukder Vs. State 42 DLR (AD) 103. ....View Full Judgment

Section 5(1)

The accused-petitioner's conduct is certainly a criminal misconduct because receipt of money from Nurun Nahar and consequent making of a fresh recall order as a public servant have been proved and so the Court ought not to have acquitted him of that charge. Azizul Hoque (Md) vs State 51 DLR (AD) 216 ....View Full Judgment

Section 5(2)

The charge of substantive offence of cheating against the respondent having failed, the other respondents cannot be held guilty of the offence of abetment. State vs Md Iqbal Hossain and others 48 DLR (AD) 100. ....View Full Judgment

Section 5(2)

The High Court Division was totally wrong in holding that the accused petitioner cannot be tried under Act II of 1947 along with other Penal Code offences. Mahbubul Alam vs State 50 DLR (AD) 125. ....View Full Judgment

Section 5(1)

Criminal Misconduct- It has been prove that the accused petitioner obtained from Nurun Nahar begum Tk. 3,093/- towards satisfaction of the loan taken by her husband. The accused petitioner after accepting the amount prepared a false re-order and gave a photocopy of that order to Nurun Nahar - Held: The accused petitioner's conduct is certainly a criminal misconduct because receipt of money fn Nurun Nahar and consequent making of a false recall order as a public servant have been proved. Md. Azizul Hauqe Vs. The State 7 BLT (AD)-121. ....View Full Judgment

Section 5(1)

Criminal misconduct
The accused-petitioners conduct is certainly a criminal misconduct because receipt of fresh money from Nurun Nahar and consequent making of a fresh recall order as a public servant have been proved.
It has been proved that the accused-petitioner obtained from Nurun Nahar Begurn tk. 3,093/- towards satisfaction of the agricultural loan taken by her husband. The accused-petitioner did not deposit the said money in the proper head. In that view of the matter it cannot be said that the accused- petitioner’s role was that of a bonafide act performed without mens rea. Md. Azizul Hoque Vs The State, 19BLD (AD)2 ....View Full Judgment

Section 5(2)

The High Court Division acted wrongly in setting aside the conviction and sentence of the appellant under section 5(2) of Act II of 1947 when in fact the offence was committed by a public servant and criminal misconduct is indeed attracted in spite of a separate conviction and sentence under sections 409/109 of the Penal Code that by itself cannot be ground to set aside the conviction under section 5(2) of Act II of 1947 when the offence is committed by a public servant. Jalaluddin Ahmed alias Jalaluddin Ahmed vs State 3 BLC (AD) 216. ....View Full Judgment

Section 5(2)

Section 110 of Banking Companies Act, 1991 also provides that a Manager, Officer and other functionaries of the Banking Company are deemed to be public servants under section 21 of the Penal Code and hence the appellant and the respondent are public servants and the case has been rightly instituted in the Court of Special Judge against the respondent. More so, section 5 of Act II of 1947 speaks of the offences as mentioned in the schedule of the Act to be tried by Special Judges and in the schedule there are sections 403 and 477A of the Penal Code with which the accused has been charged for committing misconduct as a public servant. International Finance Investment and Commerce Bank Ltd vs Abdul Quayum and another 4 BLC (AD) 255. ....View Full Judgment

Section 5(2)

A public servant by definition in the Penal Code will prospectively be deemed to be a public servant under Act II of 1947 when he commits an offence as public servant after the amendment of the Penal Code. International Finance Investment and Commerce Bank Ltd vs Abdul Quayum and another 4 BLC (AD) 255. ....View Full Judgment

Section 5(2)

Sentence—It is a case of temporary defalcation which is a serious offence. The ends of justice will be met in the facts and circumstances of the case if the sentence of fine of each of the appellants is maintained and the substantive sentence is reduced to the period already undergone as prayed for. Sekander Ali Howlader and others vs State 4 BLC (AD) 116 ....View Full Judgment

Section 5(2)

Both the trial Court as well as the High Court Division believed the evidence of PWs 4-5 that despite repeated reminders and despite the resolution taken by the Upazila Parishad, the petitioner did not submit the completion report of the project even during the trial and, as such, the case of the petitioner has been ended on appreciation on evidence for which it merits no consideration. GM Nawsher Ali vs State 2 BLC (AD) 183 ....View Full Judgment

Section 5(2)

Punishment for criminal misconduct-When the charges under section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 read with section 109 of the Penal Code, 1860 are established section 9 of the Criminal Law (Amendment) Act, 1958 imposes a duty upon the trial judge whether he imposes a sentence of imprisonment or not, he shall impose a sentence of fine and pass an order confiscating the property of the accused connected with the offence. The apex court held that the confiscated property cannot be restored to the offender. M.A. Sattar and others Vs. The State 14 MLR (2009) (AD) 168. ....View Full Judgment

Section 5A

Investigation by Assistant Inspector of BAC does not render the proceedings illegal.
From the reading of section 5A of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 and section 3(2) of the Anti-Corruption Act, 1957 and paragraph 59 of Anti-Corruption Manual, it appears that investigation of offence under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 by the Assistant Inspector, BAC is not without jurisdiction. Government of Bangladesh represented by Solicitor, Ministry of Law, Justice and Parliamentary Affairs Vs. Md. Amjad Ali Mridha and others, 9 MLR (2004) (AD) 231. ....View Full Judgment

Section 5(l)(d) and 5(l)(e)

Conviction and sentence for criminal misconduct and for possession of pecuniary resources disproportionate to his known sources of income—
Constitution of Bangladesh— Article 103(3)— Special Leave to appeal when not granted but sentence is modified—
When the evidence in the chain of events are abundantly clear and consistent showing the abuse of official power by public servant the conviction and sentence are held to be justified and the leave petition is rejected with the modification of sentence and with observation that mere technicalities of non-elaboration of evidence which did not prejudice the convict-appellant will not serve any useful purpose if the leave is granted. Lt. General (Retd.) H.M. Ershad Vs. The State, 6 MLR (2001) (AD) 11. ....View Full Judgment

Section 5(2)

Criminal misconduct and punishment— Reduction of sentence—
The convict-appellant an office peon having been found to have been acted in connivance with others in creating false appointment letters and convicted and sentenced to suffer three years R.I. and pay fine and on compassionate view the sentence was reduced to the term already served with the remissions of fine, such an order does not suffer from any illegality calling for any Interference. Abdul Latif Miah (Md.) Vs. The State, 6 MLR (2001) (AD) 192. ....View Full Judgment

Section 5(2)

Criminal mis­conduct— conviction and sentence— when charge well proved— No interference is called for- Advocate's conduct is deprecated for misleading submission—
When conviction and sentence against the convict-appellant who were public servants at the time of commission of offence are well established by consistent evidence on record such conviction and sentence do not call for any interference. Advocate's conduct for misleading submission that the convict appellants were not public servants has been deprecated. Abdul Bari and another Vs. The State, 6 MLR (2001) (AD) 55. ....View Full Judgment

Section 5(2)

Criminal misconduct in relation to misappropriation under section 409 of the Penal Code-In a case of criminal misconduct read with misappropriation under section 409 of the Penal Code where the charge stands proved, the substantive sentence is remitted on depositing the amount of fine only on compassionate ground of health problem by the apex court. Mohibnl Islam Vs. The State, 6 MLR (2001) (AD) 79. ....View Full Judgment

Section 5(2)

Offence of criminal misconduct by abuse of official position—
In a case where the Minister and the Secretary acted merely on the recommendation of tender committee, they are not liable for any commission of offence, if any, committed by the members of the tender committee. When no offence is disclosed either in the FIR or in the charge sheet, the proceedings initiated thereon being abuse of the process of the court are held by the apex court to have been rightly quashed by the High Court Division. State Vs. Mohammad Nasim and others, 10 MLR (2005) (AD) 213. ....View Full Judgment

Section 5(2)

Detention of pass port—
When the convict-appellant has been allowed bail without any restriction on his movement his passport cannot be kept under detention. The State Vs. M. M. RahmatuJlah-1. MLR (1996) (AD) 448. ....View Full Judgment

Section 5(2)

Joint trial of schedule and non schedule offences— When permissible—
Joint trial of offence under section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act with the offences under the Penal Code is permissible in law when they are connected in same transaction. Mahbubul Alam Vs. The State— 3, MLR (1998) (AD) 120. ....View Full Judgment

Section 5(2)

Offence of criminal misconduct for taking illegal gratification— Trap case Admissibility of evidence of Trap witness—
Principles of evidence of an accomplice witness is different from the principles of acceptance of evidence of Trap witness as the trap witness is not an accomplice. Laying trap for detection of crime like bribery is not prohibited. There is no hard and fast ,rule as to corroboration of trap witness. In appropriate case evidence of trap witness can be accepted by court. Shahabullah Vs. The State - 43 DLR (AD) 1. ....View Full Judgment

Section 5(2)

The High Court Division acted wrongly in setting aside the conviction and sentence of the appellant under section 5(2) of Act II of 1947 when in fact the offence was committed by a public servant and criminal misconduct is indeed attracted in spite of a separate conviction and sentence under sections 409/109 of the Penal Code that by itself cannot be ground to set aside the conviction under section 5(2) of Act II of 1947 when the offence is committed by a public servant. Jalaluddin Ahmed alias Jalaluddin Ahmed vs State 3 BLC (AD) 216. ....View Full Judgment

Section 5(2)

Section 110 of Banking Companies Act, 1991 also provides that a Manager, Officer and other functionaries of the Banking Company are deemed to be public servants under section 21 of the Penal Code and hence the appellant and the respondent are public servants and the case has been rightly instituted in the Court of Special Judge against the respondent. Moreso, section 5 of Act II of 1947 speaks of the offences as mentioned in the schedule of the Act to be tried by Special Judges and in the schedule there are sections 403 and 477'A of the Penal Code with which the accused has been charged for committing misconduct as a public servant. International Finance Investment and Commerce Bank Ltd vs Abdul Quayum and another 4 BLC (AD) 255. ....View Full Judgment

Section 5(2)

A public servant by definition in the Penal Code will prospectively be deemed to be a public servant under Act II of 1947 when he commits an offence as public servant after the amendment of the Penal Code. International Finance Investment and Commerce Bank Ltd vs Abdul Quayum and another 4 BLC (AD) 255. ....View Full Judgment

Section 5(2)

Sentence—
It is a case of temporary defalcation which is a serious offence. The ends of justice will be met in the facts and circumstances of the case if the sentence of fine of each of the appellants is maintained and the substantive sentence is reduced to the period already undergone as prayed for. Sekander Ali Howlader and others vs State 4 BLC (AD) 116. ....View Full Judgment

Section 5(2)

Both the trial Court as well as the High Court Division believed the evidence of PWs 4-5 that despite repeated reminders and despite the resolution taken by the Upazila Parishad, the petitioner did not submit the completion report of the project even during the trial and, as such, the case of the petitioner has been ended on appreciation on evidence for which it merits no consideration. GM Nawsher Ali vs State 2 BLC (AD) 183. ....View Full Judgment

Section 5(2)

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