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
|
Khaleda Zia =VS= The State & another |
1 LM (AD) 553 |
Section 5(2)
|
The Penal Code, 1860
Section 161 r/w
The Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947
Section 5(2)
The High Court Division without application of its judicial mind quashed
the proceedings– When there is conflict between the parent law and this
Rule, the law will prevail over the rules. Rules made under a statue must
be treated for all purposes of construction or obligations exactly as if
they were in the Act and are to be of same effect as if contained in the
Act. The copy of the sanction letter as quoted in the judgment clearly
shows that the Anti-Corruption Commission has accorded sanction for
submission of police report. Therefore, there is no illegality or
impropriety on the part of the learned Special Judge in taking cognizance
of the offences and also in framing charge against the respondent. The High
Court Division without application of its judicial mind quashed the
proceedings. Since charge had already been framed in the case against the
respondent as back as on 26th January, 2009 and about 4(four) years had
elapsed in the meantime, Appellate Division finds it not necessary to
examine the question by granting leave which would unnecessarily delay the
disposal of the case. The reason upon which the High Court Division quashed
the proceeding is apparently contrary to law. The impugned judgment of the
High Court Division is not tenable in law and accordingly, it is liable to
be interfered with. The judgment of the High Court Division is accordingly
set aside. This Division directs the learned Special Judge to proceed with
the case in accordance with law. .....Anti Corruption Commission =VS=
Mohammad Bayazid, (Criminal), 2022(1) [12 LM (AD) 621]
....View Full Judgment
|
Anti Corruption Commission =VS= Mohammad Bayazid |
12 LM (AD) 621 |
Section 5(2)
|
The Penal Code, 1860
Sections 420/409/109 r/w
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947
Section 5(2) r/w
Evidence Act, 1872
Section 115
The amount misappropriated may be small or large; it is the act of
misappropriation sentence is reduce to the period already undergone– The
amount misappropriated may be small or large; it is the act of
misappropriation that is relevant. The High Court brought a new
jurisprudence in the criminal justice system that since the respondent
deposited the entire amount, the case was barred by the principles of
estoppel.
However, since the instant case has been initiated in 1999 and the High
Court Division acquitted the respondent of the charge, Appellate Division
is of the view that it would not be proper to send the respondent No.1 in
jail after 22 years of the initiation of the instant proceeding,
particularly, when the bank had adjusted the entire amount withdrawn.
Considering the facts and circumstances, the judgment and order of the High
Court Division is set-aside. The judgment and order of conviction of the
respondent ordered by the trial Court is upheld. However, his sentence is
reduced to the period already undergone. The respondent No.1 is directed to
pay a fine of Taka 5,000, in default, he will suffer sentence of rigorous
imprisonment for a period of 15 days. .....Anti-Corruption Commission =VS=
Omar Faruk, (Criminal), 2022(1) [12 LM (AD) 517]
....View Full Judgment
|
Anti-Corruption Commission =VS= Omar Faruk |
12 LM (AD) 517 |
Section 5
|
The Contract Act, 1872
Section 23
The Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947
Section 5
Joint Venture Agreement–– Appellate Division hold that the High Court
Division has rightly declared the Joint Venture Agreement for the
Development and Production of Petroleum from the Marginal/Abandoned Chattak
and Feni Fields (JVA) dated 16.10.2003 between the writ respondent Nos.3
and 4 to be without lawful authority and of no legal effect and thus, void
ab initio and also legally declared the Gas Purchase and Sale Agreement for
the sale of gas from Feni Gas Field (“GPSA”) dated 27.12.2006 between
the writ respondents No.2, as Buyer, and a Joint Venture between the writ
respondent Nos.3 and 4, as Seller, to be without lawful authority and of no
legal effect and thus, void ab initio and attached the assets of writ
respondent Nos.4 and 5, including their shareholding interest in Tullow
Bangladesh Limited concerning Block-9. The civil petition is dismissed
without any order as to costs. .....Niko Resources (Bangladesh) Ltd. =VS=
Prof. M. Shamsul Alam, (Civil), 2023(2) [15 LM (AD) 108]
....View Full Judgment
|
Niko Resources (Bangladesh) Ltd. =VS= Prof. M. Shamsul Alam |
15 LM (AD) 108 |
Section 5(2)
|
The Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1958
Section 10(3) r/w
The Prevention of Corruption Act II 1947
Section 5(2) of Act II 1947 r/w
The Penal Code
Sections 409/109
Transfer the Case under Sec. 5(2) of the Act II 1947 read with Sec. 409/109
of the Penal Code– The petitioner is entitled to get an order of transfer
if she shows circumstances from which it can be inferred that there is
apprehension that she would not get justice from the Judge concerned and
that the same is reasonable in the circumstances alleged but a mere
allegation of apprehension is not enough; the Court will consider whether
the apprehension is reasonable, genuine and justifiable.
Taking into consideration the entire facts and circumstances of the case
and the materials on record, we are of the view that the petitioner has
failed to make out a case that she has reasonable apprehension of not
availing justice from the presiding Judge of the Special Court No. 5,
Dhaka. The petition is dismissed. ...Begum Khaleda Zia =VS= State, [6 LM
(AD) 91]
....View Full Judgment
|
Begum Khaleda Zia =VS= State |
6 LM (AD) 91 |
Section 5(2)
|
Penal Code
Sections 409/420/109
Money Laundering Protirodh Ain, 2012
Sections 4(2) and 4 (3)
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947
Section 5(2)
It is now well settled that a criminal case having criminal liability
cannot be avoided due to departmental proceeding against the accused.
...Sultana Fahmida Vs. The State & anr, (Criminal), 18 SCOB [2023] HCD 54
....View Full Judgment
|
Sultana Fahmida Vs. The State & anr |
18 SCOB [2023] HCD 54 |
Section 5(1), 5(2)
|
The Penal Code, 1860
Section 109 r/w
The Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947
Section 5(1), 5(2)
The High Court Division has come to a finding that it appeared from the
confession of co-accused that bribe was given to the then Sate Minister for
Energy and Mineral Resources, AKM Mosarraf Hossain, Selim Bhuiyan and Gias
uddin Al Mamun to ensure that the `JVA' is to be finalized and singed which
clearly comes within the ambit of definition of criminal misconduct given
in section 5(1) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947. The High Court
Division has held that in the instant case, the issue is determination of
criminal liability of the writ-petitioner in respect of the alleged offence
under sections 409/109 of the Penal Code read with section 5(2) of the
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947, that is, criminal breach of trust by
public servant and abetment of the offence that took place in the process
of executing the `JVA' . The High Court Division has noted that abetment
under section 109 of the Penal Code is such an offence which can be
inferred from the conduct of the accused and attending circumstances of the
case. .....Begum Khaleda Zia =VS= Anti-Corruption Commission, [3 LM (AD)
177]
....View Full Judgment
|
Begum Khaleda Zia =VS= Anti-Corruption Commission |
3 LM (AD) 177 |
Section 5(2)
|
CrPC
Section 439
Penal Code
Sections 409/420/109
Money Laundering Protirodh Ain, 2012
Sections 4(2) and 4 (3)
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947
Section 5(2)
Exercise of revisional jurisdiction of High Court Division to ensure
justice under Section 439 of CrPC:
On an application by a party or which otherwise comes to its knowledge,
High Court Division is legally competent to exercise its revisional
jurisdiction under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to examine
the facts and circumstances of the case and the judgment and the order if
there is any error which may not ensure justice to the litigant public in
not following the correct principles of law and fact in assessing the
material and evidence in proper perspective and in that case, High Court
Division may, in its discretion, exercise any of the powers conferred on a
court of appeal by Sections 423, 426, 427 and 428 or on a court by Section
338. ...Sultana Fahmida Vs. The State & anr, (Criminal), 18 SCOB [2023] HCD
54
....View Full Judgment
|
Sultana Fahmida Vs. The State & anr |
18 SCOB [2023] HCD 54 |
Section 5(2)
|
The Penal Code, 1860
Section 161 r/w
The Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947
Section 5(2) r/w
The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898
Section 561A r/w
Durnity Daman Commission Bidhimala, 2007
Rule 16
A proceeding cannot be quashed depending on alleged procedural error in the
method of collection of evidence to be adduced and used. The High Court
Division failed to distinguish the allegations of demands, acceptance and
attempts to accept gratifications and those with the procedure to collect
evidence to substantiate allegations of acceptance and attempts to accept
gratifications or demands, thereby, erroneously quashed the proceedings.
.....Anti Corruption Commission =VS= Md. Rezaul Kabir, [3 LM (AD) 509]
....View Full Judgment
|
Anti Corruption Commission =VS= Md. Rezaul Kabir |
3 LM (AD) 509 |
Section 5(2)
|
Penal Code
Sections 409/420/109
Money Laundering Protirodh Ain, 2012
Sections 4(2) and 4 (3)
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947
Section 5(2)
Failure of Prosecution to implicate responsible Persons within the Chain of
Occurrence:
Under the circumstances, it is worthwhile to mention that the prosecution
case cannot continue on a defective foundation of a case since the
necessary and responsible persons who are involved in the alleged offences
within the chain of occurrence are not implicated in this case making them
accused. ...Sultana Fahmida Vs. The State & anr, (Criminal), 18 SCOB [2023]
HCD 54
....View Full Judgment
|
Sultana Fahmida Vs. The State & anr |
18 SCOB [2023] HCD 54 |
Section 5(2)
|
The Penal Code, 1860
Sections 409/420467/468/471 r/w
The Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947
Section 5(2) r/w
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898
Sections 233 & 234
Section 233 clearly provides that every distinct offence there shall be
tried separately and if there is violation of the said provision, the trial
will be vitiated. The Appellate Division held that this section 234
provides that when a person accused of more offences than one for the same
kind of offence committed within a space of 12(twelve) months from the
first to the last of such offences, whether in respect of the same person
or not, he may be charged with and tried at one trial for any number of
them not exceeding three. In the FIR there is specific allegation of
misappropriation of money for a period of over 10(ten) years of ten
different incidents of similar nature. Therefore, the misappropriation was
made in respect of more offences of same kind beyond a space of twelve
months. There cannot be any trial for more than 3(three) offences of
similar nature against an accused person. Section 233 clearly provides that
every distinct offence there shall be tried separately and if there is
violation of the said provision, the trial will be vitiated. The language
used in this section is obligatory and not directory. The exception does
not cover the case of the petitioner and therefore, the trial is hit by
misjoinder of charges. .....Bashir Ahmed =VS= DC, Magura, [3 LM (AD) 541]
....View Full Judgment
|
Bashir Ahmed =VS= DC, Magura |
3 LM (AD) 541 |
Section 5(2)
|
The Penal Code, 1860
Sections 409/109 r/w
The Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947
Section 5(2) r/w
The Emergency Powers Rules, 2007
Rule 15
Re-calling the P.Ws for cross examination– In our view this observation
of the learned Judges of the High Court Division is uncalled for and not
contemplated by settled principles of criminal justice. Any individual
accused person is liable to answer the charges brought against him and the
prosecution is bound to prove the charges levelled against each individual
accused beyond reasonable doubt, and hence, no individual can be compelled
nor can it be suggested to any accused that he should adopt the
cross-examination made on behalf of another accused. Accordingly, the
following words-“Re-calling our earlier observation, however, we think
that justice will meet to its end if the accused-petitioner exercises
option, if thinks so, to adopt the cross-examination on behalf of the other
accused-petitioners, specially of Tareq Rahman…………” are hereby
expunged. However, for the reasons stated and in view of the discussion
above we do not find any illegality in rejecting the accused petitioner’s
application for re-calling the witnesses already examined and
cross-examined. .....Begum Khaleda Zia =VS= The State, [4 LM (AD) 353]
....View Full Judgment
|
Begum Khaleda Zia =VS= The State |
4 LM (AD) 353 |
Section 5(2)
|
The Penal Code, 1860
Section 409 r/w
The prevention of Corruption Act, 1947
Section 5 (2)
The provisions of Section 222(2) read with Section 234 (1) require that if
there are more than one offences committed over a period of more than 12
months then the offences may not be charged in one charge, whereas Section
6 (1B) provides that any number of offences punishable under the Criminal
Law Amendment Act irrespective of the period over which the offence was
committed, may be tried at one trial. Clearly, therefore, the provision in
the Criminal Law Amendment Act is not consistent with the provision of the
Code of Criminal Procedure.
Since Section 409 of the Penal Code read with Section 5(2) of Prevention of
Corruption Act come within the schedule of Criminal Law Amendment Act, the
offences are liable to be tried as per the provisions of the Criminal Law
Amendment Act, which being special law will prevail over the general law,
i.e. the Code of Criminal Procedure. ...The State =VS= Ibrahim Ali(Md.),
[10 LM (AD) 385]
....View Full Judgment
|
The State =VS= Ibrahim Ali(Md.) |
10 LM (AD) 385 |
Section 5(2)
|
The Penal Code, 1860
Section 409 r/w
The prevention of Corruption Act, 1947
Section 5 (2)
The accused has paid back all the money which he is alleged to have
defalcated. That again cannot be a ground for acquittal, if it is found
from evidence that he in fact committed the offence. Upon conviction, it is
the discretion of the Court to award punishment in accordance with law and
taking into consideration all the facts and circumstances of the case,
including any mitigating circumstances. To that extent the period of
sentence may be more or less depending on the facts of the case and the
circumstances of the accused. ...The State =VS= Ibrahim Ali(Md.), [10 LM
(AD) 385]
....View Full Judgment
|
The State =VS= Ibrahim Ali(Md.) |
10 LM (AD) 385 |
Section 5(2)
|
The Penal Code, 1860
Sections 409/408/467/468/471/109/420 r/w
The Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947
Section 5(2) ,
The Money Laundering Protirodh Ain, 2002
Section 13,
The Money Laundering Protirodh Ain, 2009
Section 4(2) and
The Money Laundering Protirodh Ain, 2012
Section 4(2)(3)
We are of the view that it cannot be said that there exists no prima facie
case against the respondent No.1. Without exhausting the trial stage, no
decision can be taken regarding the allegations brought against him in the
charge sheet under Sections 409/408/467/468/ 471/109/420 of the Penal Code
read with Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947, Section
13 of the Money Laundering Protirodh Ain, 2002, Section 4(2) of the Money
Laundering Protirodh Ain, 2009 and Section 4(2)(3) of the Money Laundering
Protirodh Ain, 2012. The petition is disposed of. The judgment of the High
Court Division is set aside. The order of the Mahanagar Senior Special
Judge so far as it relates to the present respondent No.1 is also set
aside. ...Durnity Daman Commission =VS= Ezbahul Bar Chowdhury, [10 LM (AD)
500]
....View Full Judgment
|
Durnity Daman Commission =VS= Ezbahul Bar Chowdhury |
10 LM (AD) 500 |
Sections 5(1)(e) and 5(2)
|
Anti-Corruption Commission Act, 2004
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
|
Anti-Corruption Commission =VS= Md. Lutfor Rahman |
10 LM (AD) 510 |
Section 5(2)
|
The Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947
Section 5(2) r/w
The Emergency Powers Rules, 2007
Rule 19Ka r/w
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 বাংলাদেশ
মানবাধিকার বাস্তবায়ন
সংস্থা, 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
|
Anti-Corruption Commission =VS= Nazmul Huda |
3 LM (AD) 7 |
Sections 5(1)(e) and 5(2)
|
Anti-Corruption Commission Act, 2004
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, [10 LM (AD) 510]
....View Full Judgment
|
Anti-Corruption Commission =VS= Md. Lutfor Rahman |
10 LM (AD) 510 |
Section 5(1)(c)(d)
|
The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898
Section 498 r/w
Prevention of Corruption Act (11 of 1947)
Section 5(1)(c)(d)
Ad interim bail– Interfering with the administration of justice by the
doctor’s false reports–
These reports the trial of a sensational murder case is being delayed and
thereby, they have been interfering with the administration of justice. By
sending him to Ibrahim Cardiac Hospital instead of sending him to BSMMU,
the doctors of the Central Jail. Hospital, who are public servants have
misused their power and position for which, exemplary actions should be
taken against them. .....State =VS= Mahtab Uddin Ahmed Chowdhury, [1 LM
(AD) 476]
....View Full Judgment
|
State =VS= Mahtab Uddin Ahmed Chowdhury |
1 LM (AD) 476 |
Section 5(2)
|
The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898
Section 561A r/w
The Penal Code
Sections 409/109 r/w
The Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947
Section 5(2)
On perusal of the statements made in the FIR and the charge sheet it
appears that there are some materials which may constitute offence
punishable under sections 409/109 of the Penal Code read with section 5(2)
of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 considering which the High Court
Division held that `there is clear and strong prima facie case of dishonest
misappropriation of public property or otherwise disposal of public
property in violation of law constituting offence punishable under sections
409/109 of the Penal Code read with section 5(2) of the Prevention of
Corruption Act, 1947'. .....Begum Khaleda Zia =VS= State, [4 LM (AD) 359]
....View Full Judgment
|
Begum Khaleda Zia =VS= State |
4 LM (AD) 359 |
Section 5(2)
|
The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898
Section 561A r/w
Prevention of Corruption Act[II of 1947]
Section 5(2)
Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case,
including the fact that the criminal proceedings against all the other
co-accused, including the borrowers who are alleged to have been given loan
by the bank, upon connivance of other bank officials and the appellant,
having been quashed the Appellate Division is of the view that further
proceedings against the appellant will be a futile exercise. Moreover, the
occurrence having taken place more than 25 years ago, proceeding against
the appellant is liable to result in time and expense leading to nought.
.....Md.Shafiuddin =VS= The State, [1 LM (AD) 527]
....View Full Judgment
|
Md.Shafiuddin =VS= The State |
1 LM (AD) 527 |
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.
|
Hussain Mohammad Ershad vs Zahedul Islam Khan |
54 DLR (AD) 1 |
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.
|
Shahabullah Vs. State |
43 DLR (AD) 1 |
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.
|
Moslemuddin Talukder Vs. State |
42 DLR (AD) 103 |
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
|
Azizul Hoque (Md) vs State |
51 DLR (AD) 216 |
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.
|
State vs Md Iqbal Hossain and others |
48 DLR (AD) 100 |
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.
|
Mahbubul Alam vs State |
50 DLR (AD) 125 |
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.
|
Md. Azizul Hauqe Vs. The State |
7 BLT (AD) 121 |
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
|
Md. Azizul Hoque Vs The State, |
19 BLD (AD) 2 |
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.
|
Jalaluddin Ahmed alias Jalaluddin Ahmed vs State |
3 BLC (AD) 216 |
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.
|
International Finance Investment and Commerce Bank Ltd vs Abdul Quayum and another |
4 BLC (AD) 255 |
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.
|
International Finance Investment and Commerce Bank Ltd vs Abdul Quayum and another |
4 BLC (AD) 255 |
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
|
Sekander Ali Howlader and others vs State |
4 BLC (AD) 116 |
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
|
GM Nawsher Ali vs State |
2 BLC (AD) 183 |
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.
|
M.A. Sattar and others Vs. The State |
14 MLR (AD) 168 |
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.
|
Government of Bangladesh represented by Solicitor, Ministry of Law, Justice and Parliamentary Affairs Vs. Md. Amjad Ali Mridha and others, |
9 MLR (AD) 231 |
Section 5(2)
|
Criminal Law (Amendment) Act, 1958
Section 6(5)
Penal Code, 1860
Section 401, 431/467
Prevention of Corruption Act, II of 1947
Section 5(2)
The trial has been held without sanction from the proper authority and as
such the trial held by the Special Judge is without jurisdiction––
“From the lower court record it does not appear that the learned Special
Judge took notice of such a patent fact and that any sanction letter was
ever produced before the learned Judge and that he ever wrote under section
6(5) of the Criminal Law (Amendment) Act to the proper authority for the
sanction. It is now well settled that sanction confers jurisdiction upon
the Special Judge for taking cognizance of an offence against a government
servant. Mere statement in the charge-sheet that some sort of sanction was
received without producing the sanction order before the court and putting
in the same to the evidence in order to show that the sanction order was
valid and proper is not enough. In my view the trial has been held without
sanction from the proper authority and as such the trial held by the
Special Judge is without jurisdiction and the impugned order of conviction
and sentence is illegal.” Appellate Division finds no reason to interfere
with the judgment and order passed by the High Court Division and
accordingly the appeal is dismissed. .....The State =VS= Md. Moslemuddin,
(Criminal), 2023(1) [14 LM (AD) 257]
....View Full Judgment
|
The State =VS= Md. Moslemuddin |
14 LM (AD) 257 |
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.
|
Lt. General (Retd.) H.M. Ershad Vs. The State, |
6 MLR (AD) 11 |
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.
|
Abdul Latif Miah (Md.) Vs. The State, |
6 MLR (AD) 192 |
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.
|
Abdul Bari and another Vs. The State, |
6 MLR (AD) 55 |
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. Mohibul Islam Vs.
The State, 6 MLR (2001) (AD) 79.
|
Mohibul Islam Vs. The State, |
6 MLR (AD) 79 |
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.
|
State Vs. Mohammad Nasim and others, |
10 MLR (AD) 213 |
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.
|
The State Vs. M. M. RahmatuJlah |
1 MLR (AD) 448 |
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.
|
Mahbubul Alam Vs. The State |
3 MLR (AD) 120 |
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.
|
Shahabullah Vs. The State |
43 DLR (AD) 1 |
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.
|
Jalaluddin Ahmed alias Jalaluddin Ahmed vs State |
3 BLC (AD) 216 |
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.
|
International Finance Investment and Commerce Bank Ltd vs Abdul Quayum and another |
4 BLC (AD) 255 |
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.
|
International Finance Investment and Commerce Bank Ltd vs Abdul Quayum and another |
4 BLC (AD) 255 |
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.
|
Sekander Ali Howlader and others vs State |
4 BLC (AD) 116 |
Section 5(2)
|
The Penal Code, 1860
Sections 420
The Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947
Section 5(2)
Bail–– High Court Division didn’t exercise its discretion
judiciously, rather perversely in releasing the convict on bail–– This
Division’s standard practice is that it won’t interfere with the
discretion exercised by the High Court Division. When discretion is
exercised judiciously, not perversely, the same generally is not interfered
with by the Apex Court, which is reluctant in interfering with the
discretionary power of the High Court Division.–– 46 DLR (AD) 143 where
it has been held that: "...Since the matter before us relates to bail only,
we need not consider the merit of the appeal. In appeals involving short
term of imprisonment the appellate Court should either dispose of the
appeals or consider the release of the accused on bail. We do not think
that in the instant case it was necessary for the learned Single Judge to
write a long judgment for the purpose of disposal of the bail petition. The
learned Single Judge should better dispose of the appeal very expeditiously
failing which he may consider the question of bail if raised
again...."–– In present case, our considered view as eloquent above is
that the High Court Division didn’t exercise its discretion judiciously,
rather perversely in releasing the respondent-convict on bail; hence,
interference is called for. .....Durnity Daman Commission =VS= Md. Kutub
Uddin Ahmmed, (Criminal), 2022(2) [13 LM (AD) 441]
....View Full Judgment
|
Durnity Daman Commission =VS= Md. Kutub Uddin Ahmmed |
13 LM (AD) 441 |
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.
|
GM Nawsher Ali vs State |
2 BLC (AD) 183 |
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
|
Anti-Corruption Commission =VS= Barrister Mir Mohammad Helal Uddin |
9 LM (AD) 681 |
Section 5
|
The Penal Code, 1860
Sections 468/471/409/120
The Prevention of Corruption Act
Section 5
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898
Section 561A
The petitioner did not misappropriate even a single piece of those CI
sheets, so, filing of the instant case was malafide, preposturous and had
been brought only to harass the appellant which is liable to be
quashed–– From the contents of the FIR and statements quoted above it
appears that 36 pieces of CI sheets were recovered from the Madrasha. Out
those CI sheets, 19 pieces were recovered removing those from the
constructed roof of the tin shed of Madrasha and rests were seized from
inside the Madrasha. Earlier those were sanctioned for Madrasha on the
basis of the application made by the authority of the Madrasha. That is, no
CI sheet was recovered from the custody and control of the appellant. Only
allegation is that the appellant, keeping those CI sheets in his custody
for few days, delivered those sheets to the Madrasha authority. ––That
is, admittedly, he did not misappropriate those CI sheets and those were
not recovered from his custody and control. That was a trivial matter that
has been given undue importance. Moreover, in the meantime 14 years has
elapsed. After 14 years, it will not be appreciatable for a ordinary
prudent and senseable man to allow the instant case to proceed with. Taking
into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, the FIR and
other prosecution papers taken in pursuance thereof, would be an abuse of
the process of Court. Thus, the appeal is allowed. The instant GR Case is
dropped. .....Abu Taher (Md) =VS= State, (Criminal), 2023(1) [14 LM (AD)
297]
....View Full Judgment
|
Abu Taher (Md) =VS= State |
14 LM (AD) 297 |
Section 5(2)
|
Penal Code, 1860
Section 161 read with
Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 And
Section 561A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898
And
Durnity Daman Commission Bidhimala, 2007
Rule 16:
A proceeding cannot be quashed depending on alleged procedural error in the
method of collection of evidence to be adduced and used. The High Court
Division failed to distinguish the allegations of demands, acceptance and
attempts to accept gratifications and those with the procedure to collect
evidence to substantiate allegations of acceptance and attempts to accept
gratifications or demands, thereby, erroneously quashed the proceedings.
…Anti Corruption Commission Vs. Md. Rezaul Kabir & ors, (Criminal), 8
SCOB [2016] AD 144
....View Full Judgment
|
Anti Corruption Commission Vs. Md. Rezaul Kabir & ors |
8 SCOB [2016] AD 144 |