Section 2(Umo) of the Act contemplates that “দুর্নীতি” means the offences mentioned in the schedule of the Act. It is an indisputable fact that the alleged offences were not scheduled offences of the Act at the relevant point of time. So the question of enquiry into the alleged offences by the respondent no. 3 is out of the question. What we are driving at boils down to this: the respondent no. 3 was not empowered to enquire into the alleged offences, but none the less, he enquired thereinto. Furthermore, it is an admitted fact that the enquiry report submitted by the respondent no. 3 was treated as an ejahar by the concerned Police Station which gave rise to the instant case. In this regard, Mr. Md. Khurshid Alam Khan has candidly conceded that the treatment of the enquiry report as an ejahar is not sustainable in law. This being the panorama, we feel constrained to hold that the very initiation of the case is ‘de hors’ the law. ...Dr. Muhiuddin Khan Alamgir Vs. Bangladesh & others, (Civil), 2 SCOB [2015] HCD 36 ....View Full Judgment

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.

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.

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

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.

Constitution of Bangladesh, 1972
Article 48(4), 52, 53, 56, 66, 119(1)(a), 133, 134 & 152
Presidential Election Act, 1991
Section 7
Anti-Corruption Commission Act, 2004
Section 9
General Clauses Act, 1897
Section 3(50)
The office of the President of the Republic is not an office in the service of the Republic in respect of the Government of Bangladesh–– The question arises as to whether the office of the President of the People’s Republic of Bangladesh is an office of Profit in the Service of the Republic or not. ––Sole Presidential Candidate Mr. Md. Shahabuddin does not hold any office of profit in the service of the Republic as per the definition provided in Article 152 of the Constitution. Therefore, he is qualified for election to be a member of the Parliament.
In the case of President of the People’s Republic of Bangladesh, Government of Bangladesh cannot appoint President. Removal procedure of the President is also very stringent since he can be removed by impeachment by two thirds majority of the total members of Parliament (Article 52 and 53 of the Constitution). Government cannot remove president at its will since Government may be formed by simple majority of the members of Parliament [article 56 of the Constitution]. So from the point of view of control over the President by the Government, the office of the President can in no way be termed as office of profit in the Service of the Republic in respect of the Government. This position was also recognized in the case Abu Bakkar Siddique Vs. Justice Shahabuddin Ahmed and Others reported in 49 DLR (HCD) page 1. In this case it has been categorically held that the office of the President of the Republic is not an office in the service of the Republic in respect of the Government of Bangladesh. ––This petition is dismissed with a cost of taka 1,00,000/- (one lac). The leave petitioner is directed to deposit cost in the relevant head of the Republic exchequer within 2(two) weeks from the date of receipt of the order. .....Adv. M.A. Aziz Khan =VS= Election Commission, Bangladesh, (Civil), 2024(1) [16 LM (AD) 538] ....View Full Judgment

Constitution of Bangladesh, 1972
Article 36 r/w
Anti-Corruption Commission Act, 2004
Section 17(Ta) and 19(Cha)
The provision provided in Article 36 safeguard the right to go abroad against executive interference which is not supported by ‘inacted law’– It is observed:-
1. The fundamental right guaranteed under Article 36 of the Constitution is non-absolute right. The right to leave one’s country has therefore never been considered an absolute right. The right may be restricted in certain circumstances.
2. Article 36 of the Constitution permits imposition of restrictions. However, such restrictions must be by way of the law enacted and must be reasonably needed in the public interest.
3. Without backing of law imposition of restriction on the freedom of movement by an executive order will be unconstitutional.
4. The legislative view of what constitute reasonable restriction shall not be conclusive and final and that it shall be subjected to supervision by the Court.
5 . A restriction in order to be referred to as reasonable shall not be arbitrary and shall not be beyond what is required in the interest of the public. The restriction imposed shall have a direct or proximate nexus with the object sought to be achieved by the law.
6. Freedoms if absolute would always be detrimental to smooth functioning of the society. Reasonableness demands proper balancing.
7. The right to leave the country and to possess a passport may be restricted, most notably if the person’s presence is required due to their having been charged with a criminal offence. However, merely because a person is involved in a criminal case, he is not denude of his fundamental rights.
8. Restriction may be imposed on travel in order to prevent exit from the country by persons who leave quickly to avoid due process of law. However, this would be subject to confirmation by the appropriate Court within a period of 3 working days.
With the observations, all the petitions are disposed of. ...Durnity Daman Commission, Dhaka =VS= G.B. Hossain, (Civil), 2021(2) [11 LM (AD) 97] ....View Full Judgment

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.

At the stage of inquiry, which is nothing but a fact finding process, there is no scope to arrive at a definite conclusion that the alleged allegation/offence will not fall within the preview of relevant Money Laundering Protirodh Ain, which is in the schedule of the Act of 2004. ...Eastern Diplomatic Services Vs. ACC & ors., (Civil), 10 SCOB [2018] HCD 198 ....View Full Judgment

Moreover, to prevent corruption the commission has got wide and unfettered power. Section 17 (U) of the Act of 2004 contemplated that Commission has the power to do any such act to prevent corruption. The said provision is as under. ...Eastern Diplomatic Services Vs. ACC & ors., (Civil), 10 SCOB [2018] HCD 198 ....View Full Judgment

The Constitution has not given any immunity to the prime Minister or Cabinet in respect of any criminal offence. There is neither any constitutional nor any statutory or legal bar on A.C.C to conduct any enquiry in respect of allegation of Commission of offences mentioned to the schedule of the A.C.C Act, 2004 and schedule to the Criminal Law Amendment Act-1958. Therefore, we are of the view that not only on the basis of any complaint but A.C.C itself is legally empowered under section 17 of the A.C.C. Act- 2004 to conduct any inquiry or investigation. ...Begum Khaleda Zia Vs. Anti-Corruption Commission & ors, (Civil), 8 SCOB [2016] HCD 40 ....View Full Judgment

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 Act, 2004
Section-19 (1) and (2)
Section 63A of the Registration Act, 1908
Stamp Act, 1899
Evasion of registration fees and other duties for registering a deed of sale does not come within the schedule offences of the Anti-Corruption Commission Act, 2004:
With reference to the legal decision taken in the case of Sonali Jute Mills Ltd Vs. ACC reported in 22 BLC (AD) 147, the submission of the learned Advocate for the ACC is that sub-section(1) and (2) of section-19 have given wide jurisdiction to the Commission to inquire into and investigate any allegations whatsoever as covered in its schedule and in doing so, the ACC may direct any authority, public or private to produce relevant documents. But the allegation under the instant inquiry which is admittedly initiated on the allegation as stated in the application dated 11.12.2018 (Annexure-N) filed by the Respondent No.05 with regard to taking possession of RAJUK plot unlawfully creating forged documents and evasion of registration fees and other duties for registering a deed of sale does not come within the schedule offences of the Anti-Corruption Commission Act, 2004 rather it may come under the purview of Section 63A of the Registration Act, 1908 and under the provision of Stamp Act, 1899 and thus the said case law is not applicable to the case of the petitioners. It appears from the annexures of the writ petition that the subsequent sale between the petitioners and the Respondent No.4 was also held by a Court of law pursuant to a decree of specific performance of contract and thus there is no scope of taking possession of RAJUK plot unlawfully creating forged documents and evasion of registration fees and stamp fees at all. …Md. Atiqur Rahman & anr Vs. Bangladesh & ors, (Civil), 16 SCOB [2022] HCD 70 ....View Full Judgment

Anti-Corruption Commission Act, 2004
Sections 19 and 20 and
Rule 20 of the Anti-Corruption Commission Rules, 2007 read with
Section 160 of the Code of Criminal Procedure:
It appears from the record that the ACC in the name of exercising discretionary power issued the impugned notices hurriedly during pendency of Writ Petition 1087 of 2019 directing the petitioners to appear before the ACC to make statements with respect to taking possession of RAJUK plot unlawfully creating forged documents and evasion of registration fees and other taxes at the time of purchase of the land in question, which is tantamount to interference in the administration of justice that cannot escape characterization of a mala fide act having something in the mind of the Respondent No.3 and that is why we have no hesitation to say that the impugned notices have been issued abusing of the discretion and thus the same are liable to be interfered with by this Court. …Md. Atiqur Rahman & anr Vs. Bangladesh & ors, (Civil), 16 SCOB [2022] HCD 70 ....View Full Judgment

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] ....View Full Judgment

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

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

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

The journalists of “The Daily Janakantha” as part of their duty and responsibility, published the news reports with a view to bringing this matter to the notice of the people and authorities by which it cannot be said that it has created an apprehension of arrest by the Durnity Daman Commission under Section 21 of the Anti-Corruption Commission Act, 2004. .....Justice Md. Joynul Abedin (Rtd.) Vs. State & anr, (Criminal), 19 SCOB [2024] HCD 94 ....View Full Judgment

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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

দুর্নীতি দমন কমিশন আইন, ২০০৪
Section 27 r/w
The Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947
Sections 5(1)(e) and 5(2)
The Penal Code
Section 109
From the testimonies it is luminous that the evidence of prosecution are so incompatible, improper and unreasonable which are not only reprehensible, rather, full of dissonance and totally blameworthy. The prosecution case, therefore, cannot be believable.
Carefully gone through the judgment of the trial Court and the judgment of the High Court Division. On perusal of the judgment of the High Court Division, we find that the High Court Division has elaborately discussed the evidences and considered the facts and circumstances of the case, recorded the acquittal in accordance with law. This petition is dismissed. ...Anti-Corruption Commission =VS= Md. Lutfor Rahman, (Criminal), 2021(1) [10 LM (AD) 510] ....View Full Judgment

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

Anti-Corruption Commission Act, 2004
Sections 26 and 27(1)
The Income Tax Ordinance, 1984
Sections 165 and 166
The Code of Criminal Procedure
Sections 235(2)/236/403
The Anti-Corruption Commission of offence where the wealth of a person is found not in proportionate to his known sources of income. The intention of the legislature behind the enactment of ACC Act, 2004 is prevent corruption–– It has been held that the Income Tax Ordinance is purely a law relating to prevention of tax evasion and realization of income tax, which is completely distinct offence unlike the present one which relates to corruption. ––It is evident that the offences under Sections 26 and 27(1) of the ACC Act, 2004 and Sections 165 and 166 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1984 are completely separate and distinct and one is not dependant on others. Therefore, the present case under Sections 26 and 27(1) of the ACC Act, 2004 shall proceed independently. Although the petitioner was earlier acquitted in a case under Sections 165 and 166 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1984 it will not put any embargo on the trial of the present case. .....Mirza Abbas Uddin Ahmed =VS= The State, (Criminal), 2022(2) [13 LM (AD) 643] ....View Full Judgment

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

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

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

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

The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898
Section 561A
The Anti-Corruption Commission Act, 2004
Section 26(2), 27(1) r/w
The Penal Code, 1860
Section 109
The Emergency Power Rules, 2007
Section 15(D)(5)
Appellate Division is of the view that the petitioner was a fugitive in the eye of law when she filed the application under section 561A of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Direction of the High Court Division in the concluding portion of the impugned judgment and order that: “However, since at the time of issuing the Rule this Court dispensed with the appearance of the petitioner, she should be allowed to appear before the concerned Court without any hindrance. The petitioner is directed to appear before the concerned Court within 08(eight) weeks from the date of taking cognizance of the offence, if any so that she can defend herself in accordance with law.” -is outside the purview of law and hence struck off. Thus the impugned judgment and order is modified with the above observation. Accordingly, the criminal petition for leave to appeal is dismissed. .....Dr. Zubaida Rahman, wife of Tarique Rahman =VS= The State, (Criminal), 2022(1) [12 LM (AD) 523] ....View Full Judgment

Durnity Daman Commission Ain, 2004
Sections 26(2) and 27(1) r/w
The Emergency Powers Rules, 2007
Rule 15Gha (5)
It is established that the accused has disproportionate to his known source of income or that he has committed an offence by concealment of and/or suppression of wealth as per provisions of Durnity Daman Commission Ain. The Court is required to look into the allegations made in the first information report that whether the same discloses any offence or not. If the allegations do not disclose an offence the High Court Division is perfectly justified in invoking its inherent power on the reasoning that the continuation of the proceeding is a sheet-abuse of the process of the Court. The learned Judges of the High Court Division, in the premises, are perfectly justified in refusing to exercise their inherent power in the facts and circumstances of the case. The appeal is dismissed. .....Habibur Rahman Mollah (Ex-MP) =VS= State, (Criminal), 2022(1) [12 LM (AD) 644] ....View Full Judgment

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.

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.

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.

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.

Anti-Corruption Commission Act, 2004
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

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

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

Durnity Daman Commission Ain, 2004
Section 28 r/w
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 28B of the Anti-Corruption Commission Act, 2004 provides that no information given by any person about any offence under this Act and specified in its Schedule be admitted as an evidence in any civil or criminal court, or no witness shall be allowed or compelled to disclose name, address and identity of the informant, or cannot be allowed to present or disclose any information which discloses or may disclose the identity of the informant. Therefore, the required disclosure of the papers and documents by Respondent No. 02, at the prayer of ACC, may be violative of the above provision of the Anti-Corruption Commission Act, 2004 in view of the above statement of law and analogical reasoning as well. ...The State Vs. ACC and ors, (Civil), 17 SCOB [2023] HCD 40 ....View Full Judgment

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

Anti-Corruption Commission Act, 2004
Section 32 r/w
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

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

The General Clauses Act, 1897
Section 6 r/w
Durnity Daman Commission Ain, 2004
Section 38
The action taken under the repealed Act shall continue as if it has not been repealed¬– By reason of abolition of Bureau of Anti-Corruption, no offender can claim any right of non-prosecution under the new Ain. More so, in view of section 6 of the General Clauses Act, proceedings of the case shall be continued from the stage the old law was repealed unless different intention appears in the repealing enactment. There is nothing in the new enactment restricting the continuation of the pending proceedings, rather it saved those proceedings. We have, already settled the point in controversy in an unreported case in Civil Petition No. 1321 of 2013' disposed of along with CP Nos.235-237 of 2016. This court held that 'even if the Commission is not constituted under the Ain, the actions taken under the repealed Act shall continue as if it has not been repealed. There cannot be any doubt to infer that the activities of the defunct Bureau will be suspended by reason of the abolition of the Bureau, rather all activities will continue ' .....Sayed Liaquat Hossain =VS= Barrister Md Rafiqul Islam Mia, (Civil), 2017 (2)– [3 LM (AD) 440] ....View Full Judgment

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