Act/Law wise: Judgment of Supreme Court of Bangladesh (AD)
Anti-Corruption Commission Act (V of 2004) (দুর্নীতি দমন কমিশন আইন) | |||
---|---|---|---|
Section/Order/ Article/Rule/ Regulation | Head Note | Parties Name | Reference/Citation |
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 Government of Bangladesh 63 DLR (AD) 18. |
Tarique Rahman vs Government of Bangladesh | 63 DLR (AD) 18 |
Section 9 |
Constitution of Bangladesh, 1972
|
Adv. M.A. Aziz Khan =VS= Election Commission, Bangladesh | 16 LM (AD) 538 |
Section 17(Ta) and 19(Cha) |
Constitution of Bangladesh, 1972
|
Durnity Daman Commission, Dhaka =VS= G.B. Hossain | 11 LM (AD) 97 |
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. |
Tarique Rahman vs Government of Bangladesh | 63 DLR (AD) 18 |
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. |
Anti-Corruption Commission vs Dr Mohiuddin Khan Alamgir | 62 DLR (AD) 290 |
Section 19 |
Anti-Corruption Commission Act, 2004
|
Durnity Daman Commission =VS= Md. Ashraful Haque | 14 LM (AD) 499 |
Section 20 |
Continuation of the investigation of the case in question by the police after coming into force of the Ain, 2004 was illegal and without jurisdiction. ...Kaisor-uz-Zaman(Md.) =VS= Deputy Commissioner, Sylhet, (Criminal), 2021(1) [10 LM (AD) 483] ....View Full Judgment |
Kaisor-uz-Zaman(Md.) =VS= Deputy Commissioner, Sylhet | 10 LM (AD) 483 |
Section 20Ka(1) |
Durnity Daman Commission Ain (as amended by Act XVI of 2013)
|
Anti-Corruption Commission =VS= Md Shafiul Alam | 8 LM (AD) 620 |
Section 20Ka(1)(2) |
Directory provisions are not intended by the legislature to be disregarded yet the seriousness of non-compliance is not considered so great that liability automatically attaches for failure to comply–– Investigating Officer failed to investigate the respective cases within the stipulated time. ––In case of failure to complete investigation within 120 days and within the extended period of 60 days the Investigating Officer of the case is to be changed and there is no consequence in the law to the effect that in case of failure to complete investigation within the time stipulated in section 20Ka(1) and extended period in section 20Ka(2) of the Act the proceeding initiated is to be treated as bad in law. Although directory provisions are not intended by the legislature to be disregarded yet the seriousness of non-compliance is not considered so great that liability automatically attaches for failure to comply. The word "shall" is not always decisive. Since there is no consequence except the provision of changing the Investigating Officer, Appellate Division is of the view that there is no scope to quash the proceeding on the ground that as the Investigating Officer failed to complete investigation within time stipulated in 20Ka(1) and 20Ka(2) of the Act, the proceeding would render be void. .....Anti-Corruption Commission =VS= Md Monjurul Huq, (Criminal), 2023(1) [14 LM (AD) 318] ....View Full Judgment |
Anti-Corruption Commission =VS= Md Monjurul Huq | 14 LM (AD) 318 |
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. |
Anti-Corruption Commission vs Dr Mohiuddin Khan Alamgir | 62 DLR (AD) 290 |
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. |
Anti-Corruption Commission vs Dr Mohiuddin Khan Alamgir | 62 DLR (AD) 290 |
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. |
Anti-Corruption Commission vs Dr Mohiuddin Khan Alamgir | 62 DLR (AD) 290 |
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. |
Habibur Rahman Mollah vs State | 62 DLR (AD) 233 |
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. |
Habibur Rahman Mollah vs State | 62 DLR (AD) 233 |
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. |
Anti-Corruption Commission vs Dr Mohiuddin Khan Alamgir | 62 DLR (AD) 290 |
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) 46 |
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.
|
Anti-Corruption Commission, represented by its Chairman Vs. Dr. Mohiuddin Khan Alamgir and others | 15 MLR (AD) 406 |
Sections 26(1) and 27(1) |
No notice is required to be served by the Commission for prosecution of an offender in respect of an offence punishable under section 27(1) of the said Ain– The offences punishable under sections 26(1) and 27(1) 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(1) of the said Ain. The High Court Division on misconstruction of law quashed the proceedings. We find no cogent ground to depart from the same. In view of the above, we find infirmity of the judgment of the High Court Division. The impugned judgment of the High Court Division is set-aside. ...Anti-Corruption Commission =VS= Ruhul Quddus Talukder Dulu, (Criminal), 2021(1) [10 LM (AD) 495] ....View Full Judgment |
Anti-Corruption Commission =VS= Ruhul Quddus Talukder Dulu | 10 LM (AD) 495 |
Sections 26(1) and 27(1) |
দুর্নীতি দমন কমিশন আইন, ২০০৪
|
Anti-Corruption Commission =VS= Md. Lutfor Rahman | 10 LM (AD) 510 |
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.
|
Anti-Corruption Commission =VS= Dr. Muhiuddin Khan Alamgir | 8 LM (AD) 607 |
Sections 26 and 27(1) |
Anti-Corruption Commission Act, 2004
|
Mirza Abbas Uddin Ahmed =VS= The State | 13 LM (AD) 643 |
Section 26(1) |
Afresh notice issue–– Appellate Division does not find any substantial wrong in the issuance of notice by the ACC. The ACC may issue notice in writing, if require, any person being an individual to furnish, on the date specified in the notice, a statement of wealth. ––Since notice was issued on 12-1-2009 and challenging that notice the petitioner got Rule and an order of stay operation of the impugned notice and that, in the meantime, more than 10 years has elapsed and that in that notice there was direction to submit wealth statement of the petitioner within 7(seven) days from the date of issuance of the notice which has expired long ago, This Division is of the view that said notice lost its effectiveness. ––In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the ACC may issue notice afresh if it feels the need. .....Sigma Huda =VS= Ministry of Home Affairs, Bangladesh, (Civil), 2023(1) [14 LM (AD) 190] ....View Full Judgment |
Sigma Huda =VS= Ministry of Home Affairs, Bangladesh | 14 LM (AD) 190 |
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 |
Iqbal Hasan Mahmood Tuku =VS= Anti-Corruption Commission | 5 LM (AD) 226 |
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 |
Syeda Iqbal Mand Banu =VS= Anti-Corruption Commission | 4 LM (AD) 338 |
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 |
Anti-Corruption Commission =VS= Mosaddek Ali Falu(Md) | 3 LM (AD) 512 |
Section 26(2), 27(1) |
The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898
|
Dr. Zubaida Rahman, wife of Tarique Rahman =VS= The State | 12 LM (AD) 523 |
Sections 26(2) and 27(1) |
Durnity Daman Commission Ain, 2004
|
Habibur Rahman Mollah (Ex-MP) =VS= State | 12 LM (AD) 644 |
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. |
Anti-Corruption Commission vs Shamima Begum | 62 DLR (AD) 277 |
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. |
Anti-Corruption Commission vs Nargis Begum | 62 DLR (AD) 279 |
Section 27(1) |
Section 27(1) Conviction and sentence Bail in appeal on humanitarian
ground
|
Anti-Corruption Commission, represented by its Chairman, Dhaka Vs. Barrister Mir Mohammad Helal ZJddin and another | 15 MLR (AD) 216 |
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. |
Government of Bangladesh vs Sabera Aman | 62 DLR (AD) 246 |
Section 27(1) |
Anti-Corruption Commission Act, 2004
|
Mohammad Osman Gani =VS= The State | 8 LM (AD) 354 |
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 |
Iqbal Hasan Mahmood Tuku =VS= Anti-Corruption Commission | 5 LM (AD) 226 |
Section 27(1) |
The Anti-Corruption Commission Act, 2004
|
Anti-Corruption Commission =VS= Barrister Mir Mohammad Helal Uddin | 9 LM (AD) 681 |
Section 28 |
Durnity Daman Commission Ain, 2004
|
Anti Corruption Commission & others =VS= Abdul Azim & others | 1 LM (AD) 136 |
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. |
Anti-Corruption Commission vs Dr Mohiuddin Khan Alamgir | 62 DLR (AD) 290 |
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. |
Anti-Corruption Commission vs Dr Mohiuddin Khan Alamgir | 62 DLR (AD) 290 |
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. |
Anti-Corruption Commission vs Dr Mohiuddin Khan Alamgir | 62 DLR (AD) 290 |
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. |
Anti-Corruption Commission vs Dr Mohiuddin Khan Alamgir | 62 DLR (AD) 290 |
Section 32(2) |
Section 32(2) Does not apply to cases prior to the Act coming into
operation No res-judicata.
|
Mostafa Kamal and others Vs. Salahuddin Ahmad and others | 14 MLR (AD) 412 |
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. |
Chowdhury Mohidul Haque -Vs.-Anti-Corruption Commission | 5 ALR (AD) 71 |
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. |
Anti-Corruption Commission -Vs.-Mohammad Bayazid | 2 ALR (AD) 109 |
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. |
Anti-Corruption Commission -Vs.-Mohammad Bayazid | 2 ALR (AD) 109 |
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 |
Anti-Corruption Commission -Vs.-Mohammad Bayazid | 2 ALR (AD) 109 |
Section 32(2) |
Does not apply to cases prior to the Act coming into operation No
res-judicata.
|
Mostafa Kamal and others Vs. Salahuddin Ahmad and others | 14 MLR (AD) 412 |
Section 32 |
Anti-Corruption Commission Act, 2004
|
Mostafa Kamal =VS= Salahuddin Ahmad | 5 LM (AD) 431 |
Section 32 |
Prior sanction for filing charge sheet–
|
Begum Khaleda Zia =VS= State | 4 LM (AD) 359 |
Section 38 |
The General Clauses Act, 1897
|
Sayed Liaquat Hossain =VS= Barrister Md Rafiqul Islam Mia | 3 LM (AD) 440 |
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 |
Sayed Liaquat Hossain =VS= Barrister Md Rafiqul Islam Mia | 3 LM (AD) 440 |