From the discussions as above we cannot but hold that Rule 11 of the Emergency Powers Rules, 2007 as a whole is not only applicable in respect of offences mentioned in Rules 3 to 8 of the Rules but also in respect of the offences under the laws mentioned in Rule 14 and 15 of the Rules in as much as, the Rules are to be read and construed as a whole and not in isolation. ACC vs Barrister Nazmul Huda 60 DLR (AD) 57.

The language of Rule 11(3) admits of no ambiguity and therefore, there is hardly any scope for interpretation. The intention of the law makers is manifested in the express words used in sub-rule 3 leaving no scope to doubt that such power of granting bail by the appellate Court has been taken away by express provisions. ACC vs Barrister Nazmul Huda 60 DLR (AD) 57.

The expression “এই বিধিমালার অধীন” refers to the Emergency Powers Rules as a whole. It cannot mean and refer to Rule 10 only; otherwise the expression would have been “উক্ত বিধির অধীন” i.e. under the aforesaid Rule. ACC vs Barrister Nazmul Huda 60 DLR (AD) 57.

The High Court Division has correctly followed the observations made by this Division in Criminal Appeal No. 6 of 2008 in granting bail to the respondent No.1. The appeal could not be disposed of within ninety days and the respondent has already served out a substantial portion of sentence. Anti-Corruption Commission vs Sigma Huda 62 DLR (AD) 227.

The language of Rule 11(3) admits of no ambiguity and therefore, there is hardly any scope for interpretation. The intention of the law makers is manifested in the express words used in sub-rule 3 leaving no scope to doubt that such power of granting bail by the appellate Court has been taken away by express provisions. ACC vs Barrister Nazmui Huda 60 DLR(AD)57.

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 andlor 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.

Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1958
Section 10
Emergency Power Rules, 2007
Section 11(2)
The Penal Code, 1860
Sections 161/109
Granting ad-interim bail–– It appears that the High Court Division has correctly followed the observations made by this Division in Criminal Appeal No.6 of 2008 in grant¬ing bail to the respondent No.1. ––It further appears that the appeal could not be disposed of within ninety days and the respondent has already served out a substantial portion of sentence. Appellate Division does not find that the judgment and order of the High Court Division suffers from any infirmity. Accordingly the petition is dismissed. .....Anti-Corruption Commission =VS= Sigma Huda, (Criminal), 2023(1) [14 LM (AD) 497] ....View Full Judgment

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, (Criminal), 2018 (1) [4 LM (AD) 353] ....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

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, [3 LM (AD) 7] ....View Full Judgment

Whether Rule 19(Gha) Prohibits enlargement on bail
Writ petitioners have been charged under offences including that of Emergency Powers Rules, 2007 and Rule l9(Gha) prohibits enlargement or bail —The grounds upon which the bail was granted do not inspire our confidence in view of the above provision of section 19(Gha) of the Emergency Power Rules, 2007. Accordingly we are not inc. to emerge the accused to enlarge the accused on bail. Anti Corruption Commission Vs. Syed Tanveer Ahmed & Anr 16 BLT (AD)220

The allegation that the Rules are beyond the authority of the EPO has no substance and approval with retrospective effect is permitted to be given in respect of cases initiated between 12.01.2007 to 23.03.2007 the instant case was filed on 13.06.2007 and in respect of offences mentioned in Rules 14 and 15, the Rule 19 ঞ of the EPR provided as regard the cases which are of public importance and since the present case was lodged on 13.06.2007 it can be tried under EPR. Govt. of Bangladesh & Anr Vs. Sheikh Hasina & Anr. 16 BLT (AD)233.

Section 498 provides for jurisdiction of the High Court Division and the Sessions Judge in granting bail under section 498 and application under section 498 cannot be entertained by any other Court, other than the High Court Division and the Sessions Judge and therefore, when the law makers mentioned section 498 they knew they were ousting the jurisdiction of the High Court Division and the Sessions Judge in entertaining applications under section 498 and therefore, the ouster has been deliberately done with manifest intention and by express words. Non-mention of the names of the Courts is irrelevant for the purpose. State vs Moyezuddin Sikder 60 DLR (AD) 82.

Time limit under the provisions are held directory and not mandatory.
As there is no consequence provided, in the event of the failure to conclude trial within the time specified the apex court held the provisions of 339C of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, section 6A of the Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1958 and rule l9Ka of the Emergency Power Rules, 2007 as directory and not mandatory. However the apex court further advised to take disciplinary action against the judge concerned for his willful negligence in not complying with the provisions of the law in appropriate cases. A.H.M. Must afa Kamal @ Lotus Kamal Vs. Government of Bangladesh, represented by the Secretary, Ministry of Law, Justice and Parliamentary Affairs 14 MLR (2009) (AD) 45.

Ousts the jurisdiction of all court including the Supreme Court to grant bail. When not specifically challenged the High Court Division cannot embark upon deciding the constitutionality of the Rule 19(gha) of the Emergency Powers Rules, 2007 while deciding the matter of granting bail. The Appellate Division held the jurisdiction of the courts including the Supreme Court has been ousted by Rule 19(gha) and as such set aside the impugned order passed by the High Court Division. The State Vs. Moyezuddin Sikder and others 13 MLR (2008) (AD) 208.

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

Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1947
Section 23 r/w
Emergency Power Rules, 2007
Rule 194 T (1) and 19 T (5)
The Appellate Division observed that for contravention of any of the provisions of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1947 proceedings are to be initiated on presentation of complainant by a person duly authorized either by the Government or by the Bangladesh Bank. The F.I.R. on the basis of which the case was started and the court took cognizance of the case was filed by a police officer who was not at all authorized either by the Government or by the Bangladesh Bank to lodge that F.I.R. and in the circumstances the whole proceeding was illegal, hence it is dismissed. .....The State =VS= Ahmed Akbar, [1 LM (AD) 548] ....View Full Judgment