Act/Law wise: Judgment of Supreme Court of Bangladesh (HCD)



Anti-Corruption Commission Act (V of 2004) (দুর্নীতি দমন কমিশন আইন)
Section/Order/ Article/Rule/ Regulation Head Note Parties Name Reference/Citation
Section 2(Umo)

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

Dr. Muhiuddin Khan Alamgir Vs. Bangladesh & others 2 SCOB [2015] HCD 36
Section 3(2)

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.

Obaidul Kader vs State 63 DLR 425
Sections 5 and 8

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.

Habibur Rahman Molla vs State 61 DLR 1
Sections 6(3) and 36

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

Advocate Mirza AI Mahmood, Advocate -Vs-Mr. Golam Rahman and others 2 ALR (HCD) 501
Section 17 and 19

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

Eastern Diplomatic Services Vs. ACC & ors. 10 SCOB [2018] HCD 198
Section 17

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

Eastern Diplomatic Services Vs. ACC & ors. 10 SCOB [2018] HCD 198
Section 17

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

.Begum Khaleda Zia Vs. Anti-Corruption Commission & ors 8 SCOB [2016] HCD 40
Section-19 (1) and (2)

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

Md. Atiqur Rahman & anr Vs. Bangladesh & ors 16 SCOB [2022] HCD 70
Sections 19 and 20

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

Md. Atiqur Rahman & anr Vs. Bangladesh & ors 16 SCOB [2022] HCD 70
Section 21, 26, 27

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

Justice Md. Joynul Abedin (Rtd.) Vs. State & anr 19 SCOB [2024] HCD 94
Section 28B

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

The State Vs. ACC and ors 17 SCOB [2023] HCD 40