Anti Corruption Commission in Bangladesh and its powers 2024

Anti Corruption Commission in Bangladesh and its powers in 2024

Are you looking for information on Anti Corruption Commission in Bangladesh and its powers in Bangladesh and anti bribery laws in Bangladesh ? This TRW Expert Guide (part 1) from the best lawyers in Bangladesh provides you with everything you need Delve into the recent developments in bribery and corruption laws and regulations in Bangladesh with comprehensive insights from TRW law firm and from Barrister Tahmidur Rahman himself.

Exercise of powers by the Anti Corruption Commission: Subject to the provisions of this Act, the Commission may, for the purposes of performing its functions, delegate any of its powers to any Commissioner or any officer of the Commission who shall exercise such powers accordingly.

Case Law

Section 18-Sanction for prosecution accorded by one member of the Commission duly authorized by the Commission is enough to prosecute the accused of the schedule offence. Golam Nabi vs Anti- Corruption Commission, 65 DLR 181.

Sections 18 and 26-Section 26 envisages that before issuance of the notice, the Commissioners) 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.

Section 18(1)-The views expressed in the 62 DLR (AD) 290 and 297 paragraphs 42 and 43 of this Division do not convey the correct principle of law. Because the preamble of the Act, 2004 envisages that for constitution of an independent Commission, for prevention of

Anti-Corruption Commission Act, 2004 Section 18

Corruption and offences relating to corruption and for enquiry into, and investigation of corruption and certain other offences and matters connected thereto the Act is enacted. Sub-section (1) of section 18 provides that subject to the provisions of this Act the Commission may, in the discharge of its duty, empower any Commissioner or Officer of the Commission to do an act on its behalf and the Commissioner or Officer would be able to exercise the power. Moudud Ahmed vs State, 68 DLR (AD) 118.

Sections 18(2)-The observations of this Division are not relevant in the case, because the respondent did not raise any objection as to the issuance of notice/order under section 26 (1) of the Act while he was in custody. Rather he complied with the same by submitting the statement of assets and liabilities within the stipulated time. Moreover, he was allowed to submit long after the stipulated date a supplementary statement of assets and liabilities which was marked as an exhibit during the course of trial.

This issue was not raised, deliberated upon and decided before the trial court and the High Court Division in as much as no such issue was raised and deliberated upon before the Appellate Division and that this observation being an obiter dictum cannot operate as a binding precedent, which is not a law declared by the Appellate Division pursuant to Article 111 of the Constitution and, as such, it is not binding on the High Court Division and all other courts and tribunals as a legal precedent. Moudud Ahmed vs State, 68 DLR (AD) 118.

Section 18(2)-The observations of this Division are not tenable in law because sub-section (2) of section 18 of the Act in unequivocal terms made it abundantly clear that the Commission can accord ex- post facto approval pursuant to the amending Ordinance. Moudud Ahmed vs State, 68 DLR (AD) 118.

Sections 18(2)-The view expressed by this Division regarding the effect of section 18(2) of the Act, granting ex-post facto approval of any act done or power exercised by an Officer of the Commission during the period when the Commission was not properly constituted as per section 5 of the Act does not reflect the correct principle of law. Moudud Ahmed v.s State, 68 DI.R (AD) 118.

Section 18(2)-Sub-section (2) of section 18 of the Act enables the Commission to accord ex-post facto approval to any act done or power exercised by the Officer of the Commission which is very much inconformity with the purposes, objectives and functions of the Commission but not the approval of the satisfaction of the Secretary. Moudud Ahmed vs State, 68 DLR (AD) 118.

Section 18(2)-In view of the section 18 (2) of the Act notice issued by the Secretary of the Commission was given ex-post facto approval on satisfaction of the new Commission through the resolution in as validated by the ex-post facto amending Ordinance, it cannot be said that the notice under section 26(1) of the Act was defective. Moudud Ahmed vs State, 68 DLR (AD) 118.

Section 18(2)-Since the amendment was effected within the validity period of the Ordinance and action was taken under the amended section 18 within the validity period and that the period for which ex-post facto approval accorded was a very short period that is from 7th February to 24th February 2007 when the Commission was not properly constituted, it is immaterial to argue that the Ordinance being a temporary law the provision of the General Clauses Act, 1887 is not applicable in the case. Moudud Ahmed vs State, 68 DLR (AD)

Section 18(2)-In disposing the leave petition, if the opinion formed by this Division on the effect of the ex-post facto amending Ordinance is treated to be correct, then it would amount to declaring the law ultra vires or repeal of the law, section 18(2), without examining the vires of the law by a competent court. declaring a law ultra vires or striking down a law or treating a law to be repealed or nullity without having assailed the vires of the law would tantamount to legislation by the court which is unknown to our jurisprudence. Moudud Ahmed vs State, 68 DLR (AD) 118.

Sections 18, 17 and 33-Ain of 2004 has given exclusive power to the Commission to conduct it’s cases including appeals in exercise of powers under section 5(2) of the Code read with section 17, 18 and 33 of the Ain, 2004. Commission is a necessary party in appeals to be filed by the convicts and that the Commission through its prosecution unit has exclusive power to defend the judgments passed by a Special Judges in appeals pending in the High Court Division by accused- persons, Anti-Corruption Commission vs Monjur Morshed Khan, 64 DLR (AD) 124.

Sections 18, 17 and 33- The High Court Division failed to notice that provision for instructing the public prosecutor by a private lawyer contained in section 493 is not applicable to cases instituted under the Ain of 2004 in view of the fact that the Ain of 2004 is a special law providing provisions for investigation, inquiry, filing of cases and conducting them. Anti-Corruption Commission vs Monjur Morshed Khan, 64 DLR (AD) 124.

Sections 18, 17, 19, 20, 28 and 33-The Commission under the Ain of 2004 has been given exclusive power to conduct cases instituted under the Ain. Anti-Corruption Commission vs Monjur Morshed Khan, 64 DLR (AD) 124. Sections 18, 17, 15 and 32-There is provision in the ACC Act for the Commission to delegate its power to the officers of the Commission and the delegation accordingly has been made in favour of Md Habibur Rahman, who is a Commissioner (Investigation). In view of the above, there is no merit in these Rules, which are accordingly, discharged. Abdus Sadek vs Anti-Corruption Commission, 15 BLC 464.

Section 18(2)-If any person acts beyond his authority, to the prejudice of any person, such acts cannot be ratified of validated by post facto legislation and, as such, his action remains void.

Hasan Mahmood and Iqbal Hasan Mahmood Tuku vs State, 63 DLR 660.Section 18(2) and 26; The observations of this Division in paragraph 44 of the judgment in respect of service of notice under section 26 read with section 18(2) of the ACC Act upon the respondent No. I when he was in custody was not an issue in the case before the court. The very observation was not at all necessary for the decision of the case and does not relate to the material facts in issue.

Sections 18(2), 26, 27 and 32-Section 32 as then was in force required that the Commission shall accord sanction for filing case. There is no sanction under section 32 of the Act to file FIR. Therefore, the filing of the case is not in accordance with law. Section 32 of the said Act as amended further requires that no Court shall take cognizance of the case unless there is sanction from said Commission. We enquired from Mr Khan Saifur Rahman about the sanction required under section 32(1) of the said Act. Mr Khan showed us sanction under section 32(2) for filing charge sheet. The approval required for taking cognizance of the case is a different sanction than the sanction accorded for filing the charge sheet. The importance of sanction under section 32(1) of the said Act as amended is paramount. Any proceeding without such sanction is vitiated in law. Even if such proceeding is culminated to conviction without required sanction, such conviction cannot stand. The notice issued under section 26 of the said Act being void ab initio, the subsequent proceedings are also illegal and without lawful authority and cannot be cured. The entire proceeding is illegal and therefore the conviction cannot be sustained. Dr Mohiuddin Khan Alamgir vs Anti-Corruption Commission, 15 BLC 107.

Special powers of the Commission in respect of inquiry or investigation.—

(1) The Commission shall have

the following powers in respect of inquiry and investigation, namely :-

(a) to issue “[notice to witnesses) and ensure

attendance thereof and to examine witnesses

(b) to detect and produce any document; (c) to take evidence 3***); (d) to call for public records or copy thereof from any court or office;

(e) to issue “[notice) for examination of witnesses and documents; and

(f) to do anything prescribed for carrying out the

purposes of this Act.

(2) The Commission may require any person to furnish any information regarding a matter of inquiry or investigation and the person so required shall be bound to

furnish such information kept under his custody.

(3) If any person causes resistance to an officer legally

empowered by the Commission or a Commissioner in exercise of his powers under sub-section (1), or deliberately

disobeys any direction given under that sub-section, it shall

1. The words “notice to witnesses” were substituted for the words “summon the witness” by section 7(a)(i) of the Anti-Corruption

Commission (Amendment) Act, 2013 (Act No. 60 of 2013).

2. The words “on oath” were omitted by section 7(a)(ii) of the Anti- Corruption Commission (Amendment) Act, 2013 (Act No. 60 of 2013).

3. The words “on oath” were omitted by section 7(b) of the Anti- Corruption Commission (Amendment) Act, 2013 (Act No. 60 of 2013).

4. The word “notice” was substituted for the word “summon” by section 7(c) of the Anti-Corruption Commission (Amendment) Act, 2013 (Act

be a punishable offence and for such offence he shall be punished with imprisonment for a term not exceeding 3 (three) years, or with fine, or with both.

Case Law

Section 19-During the course of “enquiry” by the Commission section 94 of the Code and sections 5 and 6 of the Banker’s Book Evidence Act have no manner of application. Sonali Jute Mills Lid vs Anti-Corruption Commission, 18 BLC 723.

Section 19-The power as envisaged under section 19 of the Act can be exercised both at the inquiry as well as investigation stage. Sonali Jute Mills Lid vs Anti-Corruption Commission, 18 BLC 723.

Section 19-On the allegation of corruption on any subject matter as well as on the allegation of commission of schedule offences the Commissioner or the officers of the Commission entrusted with the power to enquire is empowered under section 19 of the Ain, 2004 read with rules 8 and 20 of the Rules, 2007 to direct the person, against whom a complaint is made, to appear before the Commission to give explanation either orally or in writing, with a view to find out the correctness of the allegation. Issuance of the order directing the petitioner and 4 (four) others to appear before the Commission to record their statements does not suffer from any illegality requiring interference by this court. Shahidullah Miah (Md) vs Government of Bangladesh, 66 DLR 444.

Section 19-Notices upon the accused or any person may be served if the Commission thinks necessary to hear any person connected with the allegations. And the notices upon the witnesses may be served under section 19 of the Act, 2004 read with Rule 20 of the Rules, 2007. Amir Khosru Mahmud Chowdhury vs Anti-Corruption Commission, 24 BLC 238 .

Section 19— The purpose of section so far relating to issuance of notice are twofold-one is to issue notice upon the witness/third parties for interrogation. examination and production of documents if required and the other is to issue notice upon “any person” under sub-section 2 of section 19 of the Act, which includes an accused against whom an FIR has been lodged disclosing his involvement and a person against whom allegations of the schedule offences of the Act, have been primarily brought. Amir Khosru Mahmud Chowdhury vs Anti- Corruption Commission, 24 BLC 238.

Section 19: IF allegations so brought are false vague

If upon hearing the accused or any person against whom allegations have been brought, the Commission becomes satisfied that the allegations so brought are false vague, frivolous and preposterous, the said accused or any person so framed may be not sent up/discharged from the proceeding of enquiry or investigation. Amir Khosru Mahmud Chowdhury vs Anti-Corruption Commission, 24 BLC 238.

Sections 19 and 20-Prosecution is always at liberty to cause further investigation to be made if it is required for ends of justice. The initial investigating officer, without collecting evidence required by law, simply recommended for discharge on the basis of the statements of the accused persons, recorded under section 161 of the Code. Commission had no other alternative but to pass an order for further investigation asking him to unearth facts behind the deal involving huge public money. Anti-Corruption Commission, being a prosecuting agency rightly passed an order of further investigation in a case involving huge public money as has been sub-section (3B) of section 173 of the Code empowered by sections 19 and 20 (4124-2008 1 Begum Khaleda Zia vs State, 68 DLR 277.)

Sections 19 and 20-No where within the four corners of the notice the respective petitioner has been indentified ” hence, he has been called upon by the Commission to appears witnesses in connection with As such, it is a notice under section 19(1) of the Ain and a mere quoting of section 20 of the Ain, will not go to vitiate the effect of the notice. AKM Khurshid Hossain vs Anti-Corruption Commission, 66 DLR 645.

Sections 19 and 20-Sections 19 and 20 of the Act amply empowers the Commission to make further investigation into a case. The previous Investigating Officer without collecting evidence as required by law recommended for discharge of the accused-persons on the basis of statements of the witnesses under section 161 of the Code.

It is the settled principal of law that the prosecution is always at liberty to take out further investigation into a case. The Commission being a prosecutor has every right to pass an order for further investigation in

a case as per the provision of sections 19 and 20 of the Act. As per section 173(3B) of the Code there can be further investigation even after submission of charge-sheet. Nazrul Islam vs State, 21 BLC 446.

Sections 19, 20 and 32-Power can be exercised by an officer of the Commission in course of an inquiry or investigation of a case against an accused person but in presence of specific provisions for inquiry in Chapter Ill of the Bidhimala of 2007 before holding investigation in respect of an offence against a person, an officer of the Commission or the investigation officer must be satisfied on the basis of such inquiry that credible evidence or materials have been collected against such accused person about his complicity in respect of the offence under inquiry or investigation to warrant his arrest. Durnity Daman Commission vs Abdullah-al-Mamun, 21 BLC (AD) 162.

Sections 19, 17 and 20-Power of Commission-Unless and until the then Bureau, now the Commission, is satisfied that there is prima-facie materials against a public servant, who has allegedly committed an offence under the Ain, the Commission normally does not disturb such public servant in the manner the police officer can arrest an ordinary offender on the basis of information regarding the commission of cognizable offence. Under the Ain of 2004, the horizon has been expanded and besides a public servant, the Commission has power to hold inquiry in respect of schedule offences against any person who has allegedly committed any offences. Anti-Corruption Commission, Dhaka vs Abdul Azim, 69 DLR (AD) 208.Sections 19, 17, 20 and 21-Anti-Corruption Commission Act is applicable in respect of public servant as well as “any other person”.

The Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 and Anti-Corruption Commission Act and Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1958 are the enactments which are meant for the benefit of the public. The main aim of those Acts are eradiction of the corruption which is permeating every nook and corner of the country. Corruption by public servants has now reached a monstrous demension in Bangladesh. Its tentacles have been grappling even the institutions established for the protection of the State. Those must be intercepted and impeded the orderly functions of the public officer, through strong legislative, executive as well as judicial exercises the corrupt public servants could even paralyze the functioning of such institutions and thereby hinder the democratic polity. Hence, the laws should be so interpreted which would serve the object of the Acts. Anti-Corruption Commission vs Md Shahidul Islam @ Mufti Shahidul Islam, 68 DLR (AD) 242.

Sections 19, 17, 33, 20, 28 and 18-The Commission under the Ain of 2004 has been given exclusive power to conduct cases instituted under the Ain. Anti-Corruption Commission vs Monjur Morshed Khan, 64 DLR (AD) 124.

Section 19(1)(2)— Under sub-section (1) and (2) of section 19 the Commission has wide jurisdiction to inquire or investigate any allegation whatsoever as covered in its schedule and in so doing may direct the authority concern to produce the relevant documents, be it, public or private. In compliance of the direction the person concern shall be bound to supply the same. Sonali Jute Mills Ltd vs Anti- Corruption Commission, 18 BLC 723.

Section 19(1)(2)-Sub-sections (1) and (2) of section 19 have given wide jurisdiction to the Commission to enquire into and investigate any allegations whatsoever as covered in its schedule and in doing so may direct any authority, public or private to produce relevant documents. The person concerned shall be bound to comply with the said direction. The power contained in section 19 of the Ain can exercised both at inquiry as well as investigation stage. Sonali Jute Mills Limited vs Anti-Corruption Commission, represented by its Chairman.

Power of inquiry or investigation by the ACC:

(1) Notwith- standing anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, the offences under this Act and specified in its Schedule shall be [inquired into or investigated] only by the Commission.

i . The words “power of inquiry or investigation” were substituted for the words “power of investigation” by section 3(a) of the Anti-Corruption Commission (Amendment) Act, 2016 (Act No. 25 of 2016).

ii. The words “inquired into or investigated” were substituted for the word “investigation” by section 3(b) of the Anti-Corruption Commission (Amendment) Act, 2016 (Act No. 25 of 2016).

(2) The Commission may, by notification in the official Gazette, empower any of its subordinate officer to ‘[inquire into or investigate] the offences mentioned in sub-section (1).

(3) An officer empowered under sub-section (2) shall have the power of an officer-in-charge of a police station in respect of “(inquiry or investigation] of an offence.

(4) Notwithstanding the provisions of sub-sections (2) and (3), the Commissioners shall also have the power to “[inquire into or investigate] the offences under this Act.

Case Law for Power of Inquiry by Dudok:

Section 20-Since violation of rule 4 by not sending the FIR to the Commission for investigation has been mandated as directory by the Appellate Division and since alleged commission of offence under section 408 of the Code, being a schedule offence has to be investigated by the Commission in view of section 20 of the Act as such, issuance of the order by the Investigating Officer of the Commission to appear before it to assist the investigation, is mandated as lawful. Saidul Haque Shamim (Md) vs Anti-Corruption Commission, 19 BLC 201.

Section 20-The officer of the Commission has power to arrest an offender if he finds credible evidence for commission of a cognizable offence and arrange for recording his statement if he is willing to make a confession. There should not be any confusion in this regard.

1. The words “inquire into or investigate” were substituted for the word “investigation” by section 3(c) of the Anti-Corruption Commission (Arnendment) Act, 2016 (Act No. 25 of 2016).

2. “inquiry or investigation” were substituted for the word Durnity Daman Commission vs Abdullah-al-Mamun, 21 BLC (AD; 162.

Section 20-Anti-Corruption Commission is an independent body created under a statue and the Commission having taken decision by a gazette notification appointed PW 32 Harunur Rashid, an officer of the Commission mentioning his position as Assistant Director, for investigation of the case. At this stage of the case there is no scope to raise any question about the competency of the PW 32 as the investigating officer in any manner in the proceeding of the case. Begum Khaleda Zia vs State, 21 BLC 497.

Section 20- The Durnity Commission Commission is at liberty to hold further investigation into the case and submit report and for that purpose no formal order is needed from the Court. Durnity Daman Commission vs Monjur Morshed Khan, 69 DLR 380.

Section 20-The Court cannot play into the hands of the investigating officer who designedly made a perfunctory investigation and misled the Commission and Court should act objectively in a correct perspective. Durnity Daman Commission vs Monjur Morshed Khan, 69 DLR 380.

Section 20-Filing of naraji and the application for further investigation after acceptance of the report under section 173 of the Code are misconceived attempt. Moreover, Commission cannot file a naraji petition against a report of investigation which was done or conducted by itself. Durnity Daman Commission vs Monjur Morshed Khan, 69 DLR 380.

Section 20-On a close examination of sections 19, 20 and 22 of the Ain, it is apparent that vide section 19(1) read with rule 20 the Commission is empowered to interrogate a person as a “witness” in connection with an inquiry or investigation. Per contra, in view of section 20 read with section 22 the Commission is authorized to call upon an accused, if deems necessary, in connection with an inquiry or investigation and provide him adequate opportunity of hering 첫거라고 것에서 없지”. (Para 35). AKM Khurshid Hossain vs Anti Corruption Commission, 66 DLR 645.

Section 20— A proceeding cannot also be quashed mainly because State, 21 BLC 140. there is irregularity, if any, in the investigation. Ziauddin Ahmed vs

Sections 20 and 32-The report was prepared in a perfunctory manner. The Special Judge accepted the report mechanically without applying its judicial mind. He was not precluded to send the case for further investigation despite the sanction of the Commission. Durnity Daman Commission vs Monjur Morshed Khan, 69 DLR 380.

Sections 20, 19 and 32-Power can be exercised by an officer of the Commission in course of an inquiry or investigation of a case against an accused person but in presence of specific provisions for inquiry in Chapter III of the Bidhimala of 2007 before holding investigation in respect of an offence against a person, an officer of the Commission or the investigation officer must be satisfied on the basis of such inquiry that credible evidence or materials have been collected against such accused person about his complicity in respect of the offence under inquiry or investigation to warrant his arrest. Durnity Daman Commission vs Abdullah-al-Mamun, 21 BLC (AD) 162.

Section 20(1)-The moment the Ain, 2004 came into force, the police had lost its jurisdiction to continue with the investigation of the case and was legally obliged to stop the investigation of the case and send the same to the Commission to complete the investigation by it and submit the report accordingly. Kaisor-uz-Zaman (Md vs State, represented by the Deputy Commissioner, Sylhet, 19 BLC (AD) 101.

Sections 20(1)-Sub-section (2) of section 3 of the Act of 1957 authorized the government to empower the officers of Bureau to enquire into and investigate into cases in respect of offences specified in the schedule ‘which the police officers’ had in connection with the investigation of such offences. This power of the government has been invested to the Commission under sub-section (1) of section 20 of the Ain. In exercise of that power the Commission has issued the notification. It says that notwithstanding anything contained in the Code, the Commission can empower any officer for investigation of any offence under the Ain by gazette notification. Durniti Daman Commission vs Sheikh Amin Uddin, 69 DLR (AD) 373.

Sections 20, 19 and 17-Power of Commission-Unless and until the then Bureau, now the Commission, is satisfied that there is prima-facie materials against a public servant, who has allegedly committed an offence under the Ain, the Commission normally does not disturb such public servant in the manner the police officer can arrest an ordinary offender on the basis of information regarding the commission of cognizable offence. Under the Ain of 2004, the horizon has been expanded and besides a public servant, the Commission has power to hold inquiry in respect of schedule offences against any person who has allegedly committed any offences. Anti-Corruption Commission, Dhaka vs Abdul Azim, 69 DLR (AD) 208.

Sections 20, 19, 17 and 21-Anti-Corruption Commission Act is applicable in respect of public servant as well as “any other person”. The Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 and Anti-Corruption Commission Act and Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1958 are the enactments which are meant for the benefit of the public. The main aim of those Acts are eradiction of the corruption which is permeating every nook and corner of the country. Corruption by public servants has now reached a monstrous demension in Bangladesh. Its tentacles have been grappling even the institutions established for the protection of the State. Those must be intercepted and impeded the orderly functions of the public officer, through strong legislative, executive as well as judicial exercises the corrupt public servants could even paralyze the functioning of such institutions and thereby hinder the democratic polity. Hence, the laws should be so interpreted which would serve the object of the Acts. Anti-Corruption Commission vs Md Shahidul Islam @ Mufti Shahidul Islam, 68 DLR (AD) 242.

Sections 20(1) and 32— There was no scope to hold that sanction of the Government was mandatory to make inquiry of the offence of the case as per provision of section 188 of the Code. Section 188 of the Code was not applicable to this particular case and rather it was inconsistent with the provision of sections 20(1) and 32 of the Ain, 2004 and sections 4(4) and 6(1) of the Act, 1958. Mafruza Sultana vs in this Act and the Schedule within 120 (one hundred and Officer shall complete the investigation of offences specified anything contained in any other law, the Investigating 220A. Duration of investigation.—(1) Notwithstanding under section 20. twenty) working days from the date of being empowered Commission (Amendment) Act, 2013(Act No. 60 of 2013). 2. Section 20A was inserted by section 8 of the Anti-Corruption

50 Anti-Corruption Commission Act, 2004 (S. 20A

(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1), if the investigation cannot be completed within the specified period on any reasonable grounds, the Investigating Officer may apply for extension of time to the Commission and in such case, the Commission may extend the period of time not exceeding 60 (sixty) working days.

(3) If the Investigating Officer fails to complete the investigation within the specified period mentioned in sub- section (1) or, as the case may be, in subsection (2)—

(a) a new officer shall be assigned as per section 20 to complete that investigation within a period of 90 (ninety) working days; and

(b) the relevant officer shall be subjected to departmental proceeding on an accusation of

inefficiency in accordance with laws or rules- regulations applicable to the Commission, police or the relevant organization, as the case may be.]

Case Law

Section 20Ka-Provisions have been incorporated only to whip up the investigating officers in discharging their duties and that it cannot affect the proceeding or its merit. Md Hossain vs State represented by the Deputy Commissioner, 23 BLC 256.

Section 20Ka-As per section 20(Ka) Act, the stipulated time-frame for submitting investigating report within 180 days has not elapsed. Stipulated period for submitting investigating report has not elapsed as Vet and in that view of the matter, it cannot be said that the investigating report cannot be submitted uh in the stipulated time. Rashedul Huq Chishti vs State, 24 BLC 48.

Power of arrest of Anti Corruption Commission:

Notwithstanding anything contained in any other provision of this Act, if an officer of the Commission authorized in this behalf has reasonable grounds to believe that a person has acquired or is in possession, in his own name or in the name of any other person, any movable or immovable property disproportionate to his declared sources of income, such officer may, with approval of the court, arrest such person.

Case Law

Section 21-Since these offences punishable under the Ain are cognizable, a private person or a police officer or an officer of the Commission may arrest a suspected offender if he is satisfied that such suspected person has committed a cognizable offence either punishable under the Ain or under any other Ains, and lodge an FIR with the local police station without the permission of the Commission. If the police finds that the offence attracts the offences punishable under the Durnity Daman Ain, it may intimate the matter to the Commission for taking action under the Ain. Iqbal Hasan Mahmood alias Iqbal Hasan Mahmood Tuku vs ACC, 70 DLR (AD) 109.

Sections 21 and 20-The officer of the Commission has power to arrest an offender if he finds credible evidence for commission of a cognizable offence and arrange for recording his statement if he is willing to make a confession. There should not be any confusion in this regard. Durnity Daman Commission vs Abdullah-al-Manun, 21 BLC (AD) 162.

22. Hearing of the accused person.—If the Commission deems that, during inquiry or investigation of an allegation of corruption, it is necessary to hear any person connected to the allegation of corruption, the Commission may give him a reasonable opportunity to be heard.

Case Law

Section 22-Neither in the Code of Criminal Procedure nor in the Durniti Daman Commission Ain nor in the judgment delivered by this Division in the case of Durnity Daman Commission vs Dr. Mohiuddin Khan Alamgir reported in 62 DLR (AD) 290 it has been said that investigating agencies are not empowered to arrest any person in connection with a cognizable offence before institution of a case. Since the allegation against the petitioner is that he has committed a cognizable offence there is no legal impediment to arrest him. Durnity Daman Commission vs Dr. Khandaker Mosharraf Hossain, XIV ADC (2017) 170.

Section 22-On a close examination of sections 19, 20 and 22 of he Ain. it is apparent that vide section 19(1) read with rule 20 the Commission is empowered to interrogate a person as a “witness” in State, 24 BLC 330. law and rules is mandatory in nature. Altaf Hossain Chowdhury vs accused at the inquiry or investigation stage as contemplated in the

Section 22-There is no scope to say that the provision to hear anCorruption Commission, 66 DLR 645. AKM Khurshid Hossain vs Anti- investigation and provide him adequate opportunity of hearing “Ca»a upon an accused, if deems necessary, in connection with an inquiry or section 20 read with section 22 the Commission is authorized to call connection with an inquiry or investigation. Per contra, in view of Investigation of complaint.— ‘(1) The Commission may, at the time of inquiry or investigation into allegations of corruption, within a time specified by it, call for any report or information from the Government or any authority or organization under the Government or may seek expertise assistance of one or more officer, who are skilled, experienced and expert in relevant issues, and in case of failure of receiving the report or information called for within the specified time, the Commission may on its own motion enquire into or investigate the concerned complaints.]

(2) During inquiry or investigation into allegations of corruption by the Commission, on its own motion, the Government or the concerned authority or organisation under the Government shall be bound to co-operate with the Commission in the manner prescribed by general or special order of the Commission.

2(3) For carrying out the purposes of sub-section (2), if the concerned authority or organization does not provide necessary assistance to the Commission or fails spontaneously and responsibly to provide the Commission with information, the Government may, on the application of the Commission, take appropriate action against the saidauthority or organization.

Independence in discharging duties.-Subject to the provisions of this Act, the Commissioners shall be

independent in discharging their duties under this Act.

Case Law

Sections 24, 3(2) and 12(2)-Sub-section (2) of section 12 stands as a stumbling-block to the independent and impartial discharge of functions by the Commissioners under the Act of 2004. The Commission shall be independent and impartial. Unless and until all the Cominissioners can function independently and impartially, the Commission will definitely be bogged down in the perception of the people. All the Commissioners including the Chairman must be accountable to the Commission and that is the essence and spirit of the Act of 2004. In order to safeguard and protect the independence of the Commissioners of the Anti-Corruption Commission, they must be accountable to the Commission and not to the Chairman, though he is the Chief Executive of the Commission. Since sub-section (2) of section 12 impairs the individual independence of the Commissioners leading to the malfunctioning of the Commission as a composite body, it can not remain in the Statute Book. Sub-section (2) of section 12 is void and ultra vires the Preamble and sections 3(2) and 24 of the Act of 2004. Kamal Hossain vs Bangladesh, 21 BLC 106.

Financial independence of the Anti Corruption Commission:

—(1) The Government shall allocate the amount of money fixed in favour of the Commission for expenditure for every financial year; and it shall not be necessary for the Commission to obtain prior approval of the Government for

expenditure of the said allocated money in its approved and fixed head.

(2) This section shall not be construed as violating rights of the Comptroller and Auditor-General under article 128 of the Constitution.

Declaration of assets to Anti Corruption Commission

Sections 26(2) and 27(1)— A mere irregularity or procedural error if at all committed at the stage of inquiry or investigation is not a ground to quash a proceedings. Altaf Hossain Chowdhury vs State, 24 BLC 330.

Declaration of assets.—(1) Whenever the Commission, on any information and after conducting such (inquiry] as it may deem necessary, is satisfied that any person or any other person on his behalf is in possession or has acquired any property disproportionate to his legal source of income, the Commission may, by order in writing, direct that person to furnish statement of his assets and liabilities including any other information specified in that order in the manner prescribed by the Commission.
 
(2) If any person – (a) fails to submit a written statement or an information in compliance with the order mentioned under sub-section (1) after receipt of the same or submits any written statement or any
 
1. The word “inquiry” was substituted for the word “investigation” by section 4 of the Anti-Corruption Commission (Amendment) Act, 2016 (Act No. 25 of 2016). information which for sufficient reasons is considered false or baseless, or
 
(b) submits any book, accounts, record, declaration, return or any document under sub-section (1) or gives any statement which, for sufficient reasons,
is considered false or baseless,
 
he shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to 3 (three) years, or with fine, or with both.

Issuing notice under section 26 

Section 26-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 alias Iqbal Hasan Mahmood Tuku vs ACC, 70 DLR (AD) 109.
 
Section 26- It does not make any sense to say that each and every notice under section 26(1) served on the person in custody shall stand illegal, particularly when the section 26(1) of the Act, does not create any bat to serve such notice on the person in custody. The accused- petitioner shall be at liberty to establish his inconvenience and unfair treatment of the authority in giving direction to submit wealth statement in response to the notice in question during trial of the case. Moudud Ahmed vs Anti-Corruption Commission, 17 BLC 778.
 
Section 26— Admittedly, the Anti-Corruption Act, 1957 conferred power to the Bureau of Anti-Corruption to issue notice under section 4(1) of the Act, directing any person to submit statement of his property and liabilities. It cannot be said that under the Act the Bureau is without jurisdiction to issue such notice. Moreover, the High Court Division cannot decide whether the impugned notice is for the self-
 same properties for which inquiry was held in the year 2001, Only on getting the statement of the petitioner, the Bureau itself can take appropriate steps in that regard. At this stage the present writ petition is a premature one. Abdus Sattar Khan vs DG, Bureau of Anti-corruption.

Section 26 -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.

Section 26-If any person acts beyond his authority, to the prejudice of any person, such acts cannot be ratified or validated by post facto legislation, his action remains void. Anti-Corruption Commission vs Dr Mohiuddin Khan Alamgir, 62 DLR (AD) 290.

Section 26-Notice—A notice must allow a reasonable time to check-up the details of the assets of a person, if necessary, on examination of his records and after consultation with his lawyers and other concerned persons. Section 26 certainly does not envisage a notice upon a person who is in detention and he is not expected to give any details of his assets within the time specified. The person concerned must be afforded a fair and reasonable opportunity to respond to the notice, otherwise, it is no notice in the eye of law. A notice issued under section 26 of the Act to a detenu, away from his hearth and home, cannot be said to be a fair and bonafide exercise of power. Anti-Corruption Commission vs Dr Mohiuddin Khan Alamgir, 02 DLR (AD) 290.

Section 26-Provision of furnishing wealth statement within 72 hours has been mentioned in Rule 15Gha(2) of Emergency Powers Rule 2007, but in the Act itself there is no any provision to submit the wealth statement within 72 hours. Only in the Act it has been said that

the Commission can ask any person to submit wealth statement, if wealth beyond his known source of income. Joynal Abedin Hazari vs Commission itself is satisfied that any person has been possessing State, 64 DLR 58.

Section 26-The power of Anti-Corruption Commission to issue fresh notice under section 26 of the Act is still open. But if the Commission desires to send any notice to any person it must be done without any inordinate delay. Joynal Abedin Hazari vs State, 64 DLR.

Section 26-Section 26 of the Act, does not contemplate that a notice for submission of wealth-statement cannot be issued or served upon a person who was in detention. So, it cannot be said that notice served on a person who is in detention will automatically be invalid notice, Dr Khandaker Mosharraf Hossain vs State, 65 DLR 1.

Section 26-There is no gainsaying the fact that notice under section 26(1) of the Act is necessary to be served upon the principal accused and the abettors to proceed against them under section 26(2) of the ACC Act, 2004. In the instant case, notice required under section 26(1) of the ACC Act, 2004 was served upon the accused- petitioner. Dr Khandaker Mosharraf Hossain vs State, 65 DLR 1.

Section 26- Notice-Fundamental Right-Held: Issuance of notice in Form 5 on the facts there is nothing to suggest that the writ- petitioner was made an accused or formal accusation has been made against her, on the contrary, the writ-petitioner was asked to submit a statement with full particulars of her property acquired in her name or in the benami etc. and the sources of her income and there was nothing to suggest in the notice that the writ-petitioner was made an accused or compelled to give evidence against her since notice was not issued with any accusation but to submit statement with full particulars of her properties and sources of income for the purpose of satisfaction that the properties are not disproportionate to her known sources of income and the said notice could, by no stretch of the imagination, be construed as an accusation contemplated under Article 35(4) of the Constitution and thus, the same does not offend the fundamental right guaranteed under Article 35(4) of the Constitution, In the view, the notice issued under Section 26 of the ACC Act, 2004 and the Rule 17 of the ACC Rules, 2007 do not offend the fundamental right of the writ-petitioner guaranteed under the Article 35(4) of the Constitution. Anti-Corruption Commission vs Sheikh Hasina Wazed, 17 BLT (AD)

Section 26- The matter relates to issuance of notice upon the writ petitioner for submitting wealth statement. The Appellate Division from the record found that 3 (three) successive notices have been served upon the writ petitioner, of them, 2 notices were issued by the same officer of the Commission. If the Commission is not satisfied with the wealth statement, there is provision for filing case against the writ petitioner, but the Commission cannot issue repeated notice upon any person for submitting wealth statement. This is a malafide act on the part of Durnity Daman Commission. The Apex Court directs the Chairman of Durnity Daman Commission to take legal action against the officers who intentionally issue such notices. Ashraful Haque vs Anti-Corruption Commission, 2017 BLD (AD) 1.

Sections 26 and 27-In any case the ACC must continue with the inquiry to find out whether the notice recipient is actually holding any property disproportionate to his known/legal sources of income and if it is so found, the ACC would further prosecute him under sections 26(2) and 27 of the Ain. Delwar Hossain (Md) (Delu) vs Anti- Corruption Commission, 70 DLR 110.

Sections 26 and 27-Offences punishable under sections 26 and 27 are independent offences and the filing of a case punishable under section 27 is not dependent upon issuance of notice under section 26 of the Ain. Iqbal Hasan Mahmood alias Iqbal Hasan Mahmood Tuku vs ACC, 70 DLR (AD) 109.Sections 26 and 27-Section 26 and section 27 of the Act are independent from each other and there is no nexus between these two sections. Section 27 being an independent section provides that if there are sufficient reasons to think that a person has acquired or amassed property illegally which is beyond his known source of income then he may be sentenced to suffer imprisonment for a term not more than 10 years and not less than 3 years and to pay fine and the property in question is liable to be confiscated. Before issuance of any notice under section 26 of the Act upon a person the Commission must have knowledge that the said person has acquired property beyond known source of income. Moudud Ahmed vs State, 68 DLR

Sections 26 and 27-Notice under section 26(1) is a condition precedent to proceed against any person under section 26(2) of the Anti-Corruption Commission Act, 2004. If it is found that any person in the aid of concealing information so furnished in compliance of notice, did any act or omission, he may be proceeded against as an abettor of the offence committed by the principal accused, and to proceed against such an abettor, no notice is necessary. Salma Shahadat vs State, 14 BLC 26.

Sections 26 and 27-Section 26 incorporates the provisions for issuance of notice in order to ascertain the property/wealth of a person to determine as to whether possession of those property was disproportionate to his known sources of income which constitute an offence under section 27(1) of the Act, as well as section S(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947. Preamble of the Act shows that this course of action have been embodied in the Act, 2004 in order to prevent corruption and corrupted acts. Zamir Ahmed vs Bangladesh, 21 BLC 200.

Sections 26 and 27-Whether the appellant has disproportionate wealth, he has concealed his known source of income, there is mis- joinder of charges and the trial of the appellant on facts allegedly committed prior to the promulgation of Durnity Daman Commission Ain, 2004 constitute an 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.

Sections 26 and 27-Since the prosecution case 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 of the trial Court. Habibur Rahman Mollah vs State, 62 DLR (AD) 233.

Sections 26 and 27-Those are exclusively related to concealment of income in order to evade the tax thereupon while sections 26 and 27 of the Act, 2004 deal with searching property disproportionate to the known sources of income and for making untrue declaration in the statement relating to searching aimed to find out the property disproportionate to the known sources of income. Zamir Ahmed vs Bangladesh, 21 BLC 200.

Sections 26 and 27-Commission makes an enquiry before issuance of notice and after being satisfied the Commission is issuing the notice. Upon submission of wealth statement in pursuance of the notice, the Commission again holds enquiry for their prima facie satisfaction and thereafter the case is being lodged and that the same again requires investigation and to be placed for trial on submission of charge sheet after holding the investigation. The procedure provided in these two sections appear to be transparent, fair and not arbitrary. Zamir Ahmed vs Bangladesh, 21 BLC 200.

Sections 26 and 27-Offences punishable under sections 26 and 27 of the Ain, 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 Ain. Anti-Corruption Commission vs Md Mosaddek Ali Falu, 22 BLC (AD) 311.

Sections 26 and 27-Provisions provided in the IT Ordinance and that of the Ain, 2004 are completely separate and distinct and, as such, question of having overriding force relating to subsequent law does not arise at all. Zamir Ahmed vs Government of the People’s Republic of Bangladesh, 22 BLC 28.

Sections 26 and 27-Section 26 is about which a notice is required to be served by the Commission seeking a wealth statement and this provision is similar to section 4(1) of the Act, 1957. Whereas section 27 is about ta mans ten at aft which contains ownership or possession of any property disproportionate to legal source of income by any person and a notice before proceeding any investigation or even continuation of any case in the special judge a notice under section 26 (1) of the Ain 2004 is not required. Kazi Mosharrof Hossain vs State, 22 BLC 219.

Sections 26 and 27-Offences punishable under sections 26 and 27 of the Ain, 2004 are distinct offences and that no notice is required by the Commission for prosecution of an offender in respect of an punishable under section 27 of the Ain. Anti-Corruption Commission vs Mofazzal Hossain Chowdhury Maya, 67 DLR (AD) 230.

Sections 26 & 27-On expiry of stipulated period the Court shall not functus officio. Held: Since no consequence has been provided for the provisions both in Section 6A of the Criminal Law Amendment Act and Rule 19Ka of the EP Rules, 2007 are directory in nature and the Court shall not be become functus officio even after the expiry of stipulated period. AHM Mustafa Kamal @ Lotus Kamal vs Bangladesh, 6 ADC 46.

Section 26 & 27-Repeated lodging of FIR investigation and initiation of proceedings on the self same matter held illegal and unauthorized. Held: The application so far it relates to the cost upon the learned Advocate is expunged while maintaining the substantive judgment and order of the High Court Division regarding caution, initiation and continuation of the proceeding declaring the conviction and sentence upon the respondent No. to have been lodged/taken continued and obtained without lawful authority and is of no legal effect. Anti-Corruption Commission vs Md Abul Kalam Shamsuddin,

14 MLR (AD) 153.

Sections 26 and 27(1)-The Commission makes an enquiry before issuance of the notice and after being satisfied the Commission is issuing the notice. Upon submission of wealth statement in pursuance of the notice, the Commission again holding enquiry for their prima facie satisfaction and thereafter the case is being lodged and that the same again requires investigation and to be placed for trial on submission of charge sheet after holding the investigation. The procedure provided in these two sections appear to us transparent, fair and not arbitrary. Zamir Ahmed vs Government of the People’s Republic of Bangladesh, 22 BLC 28.

Section 26(1)-Police report clearly shows that no notice was served upon the petitioner, inasmuch as, she was away from the country. 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. Syeda Iqbal Mand Banu vs Anti-Corruption Commission, represented by its Chairman, 70 DLR (AD) 66.

Section 26(1)- Notice-The appellant never took such plea that due to service of notice inside the jail, he failed to make a complete and proper wealth statement. He also did not take any steps during the trial to file any additional statement to supplement the original one. Moreover, the appellant was given enough time to submit his wealth statement and he submitted it after 14 (fourteen) days of the service of notice. Osman Goni vs State, 21 BLC 786.

Section 26(1)-The submission of the learned Counsel for the appellant relying on the case of 62 DLR (AD) 290/277 and 279 regarding the service of notice under section 26 of the Ain, upon appellant inside the jail and that the appellant did not get resonable opportunity to respond to the notice and it was no notice in the eye of law, cannot be taken as a valid ground inasmuch by this time our Appellant Division in 68 DLR (AD) 118 has overruled its observation regarding service of notice inside the jail. Osman Goni vs State, 21 BLC 786.

Section 26(1)-Section 26 of the Ain does not envisage a notice upon a person, who is in detention, the notice served upon the petitioner of the case while he was in detention is also to be held not in accordance with law, without lawful authority and no notice in the eye of law. MA Hashem vs State, 17 BLC 136.

Section 26(1)-Section 26 of the Ain does not envisage a notice upon a person in detention is an independent finding, not subject to the finding that notice served by the Secretary in that case is without jurisdiction. MA Hashem vs State, 17 BLC 136.

Section 26(1)-Section 26(1) of the Ain does not envisage notice to a person, who is in detention. The notice as nullity and no notice as contemplated in section 26(1) of the Ain. MA Hashem vs State, 17 BLC 136.

Section 26(1)-Fresh Notice–The Durnity Daman Commission

66 Anti-Corruption Commission Act, 2004 IS. 26

is at liberty to issue fresh notice under section 26(1) of the Ain upon the petitioner, if advised and to proceed against him afresh in accordance with law. MA Hashem vs State, 17 BLC 136.

Section 26(1)-It does not mean that every notice served on the detenu shall have to be treated illegal automatically. Rather it depends on the proof of such a situation in each case as was prevailing in the reported case. Moudud Ahmed vs Anti-Corruption Commission, 17 BLC 778.

Section 26(1) The notice is served upon a detenue by the Commission is valid one and on the plea of detention there is no scope to say that the Commission has no authority to serve a notice upon a detenue. Abdus Salam (Md) vs Anti-Corruption Commission, 22 BLC 128.

Section 26(1)— A well-established legal principle is that a person upon whom power is delegated cannot delegate the same to another person. In the instant case the legal provision in Rule 17(1) is such that the Commission itself could delegate the power to issue a notice for submission of wealth statement to anyone of its officers not below the rank of Deputy Director (DD). Akbar Khan vs Anti-Corruption Commission, 62 DLR 20.

Section 26(1)- In any event, the Commission may itself issue the notice or delegate the authority to issue the notice or may empower any of its Commissioners to delegate the authority to issue the notice. The memo dated 9-11-2009 issued by the Director (Additional charge), ACC Divisional Office, Chittagong specifically directed the DD to issue the notice under his (the DD’s) signature and to serve the same. This chain of delegation is not contemplated by the law. A Director of the Divisional Office does not have the power of delegation. Akbar Khan vs Anti-Corruption Commission, 62 DLR 20.

Section 26(1)-The strict interpretation of the law, is that the power to delegate lies with the ACC or any Commissioner empowered by the ACC. There is nothing to prevent the ACC even now to authorise the DD of the Anti-Corruption Commission, Integrated District Office (safe coral 71497), Rangamati to issue the notice upon the petitioner. The Commission may directly authorise any DD of the Commission. Equally, the ACC could empower any of its Commissioners and that Commissioner so empowered could delegate his authority upon anyone not below the rank of DD of Anti- Corruption Commission to issue the notice and there is no legal bar to do so even now by issuing a fresh authority in accordance with law. The delegatee, namely the DD, if so authorised by the proper authority, may issue a fresh notice. But from the facts: and circumstances of the instant case, we do not find any authority given to the Director of the Divisional Office, Chittagong to delegate his authority to the DD to issue the impugned notice. It is a highly technical legal defect which can be cured. Akbar Khan vs Anti- Corruption Commission, 62 DLR 20.

Section 26(1)-Any observation on a point of law given by any judge of the Appellate Division does carry serious weight and should not outrightly be ignored by the High Court Division without cogent or legal reason. Mahmudur Rahman vs State, 65 DLR 437.

Section 26(1)-Since the Appellate Division stayed operation of the ad-interim order passed by the High Court Division, there is no reason as to why the notice issued under section 26(1) should not revive. Mahmudur Rahman vs State, 65 DLR 437.

Section 26(1)-The Tidbid use of certain wards shall not invalidate the notice. Held: We have perused the impugned notice in Form 5 with reference to section 26(1) of the ACC Act and Rule 17 of the ACC Rules’ and in that view that the order dated 17-7-2007; has been passed in accordance with procedure laid down in section 26 of the Act and rule 17 of the Rules on the basis of information and inquiry as the Commission considers deem fit and necessary and on being satisfied that the respondent possesses or has acquired ownership of property disproportionate to him/her known sources of income by order dated 17-7-2007 was asked to supply the required information. The notice as contemplated is to convey the object intended for the purpose of action if required for the purpose of Section 26 which provides for the satisfaction. upon investigation that the person icquired or is in possession of property disproportionate io his/her legal sources of income warranting him/her to submit statement of information/specifying statement of assets and liabilities that could be on any other information. The whole notice shall have to be taken into consideration and if the notice be considered as a whole, it will be seen that the writ-petitioner was directed to submit the statement of her wealth/immovable assets etc. and the same in the context is intelligible, in our view, the tid bit use of certain words shall not invalidate the notice. Anti-Corruption Commission vs Sheikh Hasina Wazed, 28 BLD (AD) 218.

Sections 26(1) and 27(1)-Section 27 is independent of the notice served under section 26(1) of the Act and the proceedings under section 27(1) have no nexus with the notice served by the ACC under section 26(1) of the Act demanding statement of assets and liabilities of the accused. Moudud Ahmed vs State, 68 DLR (AD) 118.

Section 26(2)-The matter is at the very initial stage and no proceedings are yet drawn up against the petitioner. It may be legitimately argued that the petitioner did not suffer any prejudice since the notice was issued by a DD who under the law has the rank and status to be authorised to issue the notice. The point raised by the petitioner is highly technical and should not be allowed to obstruct the course of justice. Akbar Khan vs Anti-Corruption Commission, 62 DLR 20.

Section 26(2)-No legal impediment for the Commission to issue fresh notice under section 26 of the Act, if so advised, but not in those cases where the accused has already been acquitted on merit of the case as is in this case, Anti-Corruption Commission vs Dr Mohiuddin Khan Alamgir, 62 DLR (AD) 290.

Section 26(2)-Notice-Not Ultra Virus-Held: Upon proper construction of section 26 of the ACC Act or the Rule 17 of the ACC Rules a notice in Form 5 is contemplated for that the notice should be issued asking for particular statement of assets under the signature of the commissioner and, as such, the notice under rule 17 of the ACC Rules is not ultra vires to section 26 of the ACC Act. ACC vs Sheikh Hasina Wazed, 60 DLR (AD) 172.

Section 26(2)(Ka)-Clear prima-facie case has been made out therein against the petitioner under the first part of section 26(2)(Ka) of the Ain, 2004 making him liable for prosecution. Dr. Tapan Kumar Dey vs State, 65 DLR (AD) 1.

Section 26(2)(Ka)—14 BLC is not applicable in the case as there is no order of stay relating to proceedings by the Hon’ble Appellate Division. Moreover, this Division directed the court below to conclude trial of the case as expeditiously as possible. There is no legal bar in continuation of the proceeding against this petitioner rather it is obligatory upon the trial court to implement the judgment and order according to the provisions of Article 111 of the Constitution. Mahmudur Rahman vs State, 66 DLR 609.

Sections 26(2) and 27(1)-Leave to Appeal preferred against the judgment and passed by the High Court Division in the case of Habibur Rahman Mollah vs State reported in 61 DLR 1, was granted by their Lordships of the Appellate Division only to consider whether section 27(1) of the Anti-Corruption Act, 2004 is applicable to the offence, which took place before commencement of the Anti- Corruption Commission Act, 2004. Ultimately, the said Appeal has been dismissed by a full fledged judgment and order dated 25-3-2010 passed in Criminal Appeal No. 5 of 2009. Therefore there is no legal bar to proceed with the impugned criminal case. Obaidul Kader vs State, 15 BLC 824.

Sections 26(2) and 27-The charge was framed upon perverse allegations, beyond the scope and purview of the notice issued under section 26(1)A the ACC Act, 2004 and without jurisdiction and the impugned judgment and order passed on the basis thereof is not tenable in law. Sk Helal Uddin vs State, 16 BLC 444.

Sections 26(2) and 27(1)-It has been held by the Appellate Division that commission of an offence under section 26(2) is disclosed only when any person after receipt of an order under section 26(1) would not file statement of assets or submit false or fraudulent atement of assets. In commission of such offence, there is no scope of any body to aber and such proceeding is quashed insofar as it relates to petitioners, Nasten Haque vs Bangladesh, 16 BLC 720. Sections 26(2) and 33-Anticipatory Bail/Pre-arrest Bail-It is an extra-ordinary remedy and an exception to the general rule of bail which can be granted only in extra-ordinary and exceptional circumstances 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. Anti-Corruption Commission, vs Jesmin Islam, 67 DLR (AD) 1.

Sections 26, 27, 32 and 38(3)-Section 409 of the Code was in the schedule to the Act, 1957, it was a part of it and had to be treated as an offence under the Act. Sub-section (3) of section 38 of the Ain, 2004 was applicable in respect of the investigation of offence under section 409 of the Code. Offences mentioned in the schedule to the Ain, 2004, be it an offence as contemplated in sections 26 and 27 thereof, or the offences under other laws as mentioned therein, section 32 of the Ain, 2004 shall be applicable. Kaisor-uz-Zaman vs State, represented by the Deputy Commissioner, Sylhet, 19 BLC (AD) 101.

Possession of property disproportionate to known sources of income:

(1) If any person has in his possession or acquired title of any property, movable or immovable, either in his own name or in the name of any other person on his behalf, and there is sufficient reason to believe to have been acquired by dishonest means and disproportionate to his known sources of income, he shall, if he fails to account for such possession to the satisfaction of the court at the trial, be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to 10(ten) years but not less than 3 (three) years and with fine; and the said property shall be liable to be confiscated.

(2) If in any trial of an offence under sub-section (1), it is proved that the accused person or any other person on his behalf has acquired title or is in possession of property, movable or immovable, disproportionate to his known sources of income, the court shall presume, unless rebutted, that the accused person is guilty of said offence; and a conviction shall not be illegal as is based only on such presumption.

Cognizable offence in presence of a private person

Section 27-If any person commits any cognizable offence in presence of a private person, he may detain the offender and handover him to the police or report the police that he has detained an offender while committing a crime. A police officer or a private person has been given power to arrest a person for commission of a cognizable offence on the spot. Iqbal Hasan Mahmood alias Iqbal Hasan Mahmood Tuku VS ACC, 70 DLR (AD) 109.

Section 27—An officer of the Commission or a police officer cannot have a final say in respect of an occurrence which is punishable under section 27 of the Ain or any other provision of the said Ain. The officer may find case against an offender after investigation that the allegatión 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. Iqbal Hasan Mahmood alias Iqbal Hasan Mahmood Tuku vs ACC, 70 DLR (AD) 109.

Section 27-FIR can be lodged under section 27 without issuing any notice, if properties in possession of a person are visibly found disproportionate to known source of income. Moudud Ahmed vs Anti- Corruption Commission, 17 BLC 778.

Section 27-Offence punishable under section 27 of the Ain is distinct offence and no notice is required by the Commission for prosecution of an offender in respect of the offence. Anti-Corruption Commission vs Haji Md Salim, 20 BLC (AD) 127.

Section 27-Offences punishable under section 27 of the Ain, are distinct and that no notice is required by the Commission for prosecution of an offender in respect of an offence punishable under section 27 of the Ain. The question has already been settled by this Division. The judgment of the High Court Division is set aside. The matter is sent back on remand to the High Court Division for disposal of the appeal on merit afresh. Anti-Corruption Commission vs Joynal Abedin Hazari alias Joynal Hazari, 20 BLC (AD) 351.

Section 27- Owning a huge wealth without giving any reasonable explanation is an offence under section 27 of the Ain, 2004. Kazi Mosharrof Hossain vs State, 22 BLC 219.

Section 27-Section 109 of the Penal Code is included in paragraph ‘Gha’ of the schedule to the ACC Act, 2004 for abetment to any offence under the schedule is committed by any sort of involvement or complicity. Such offence could never be intended or could be a substantive offence. The High Court Division held that no such offence of abetment could be conceived of in respect of an offence under section 26(2) or 27(1) of the ACC Act, 2004. Accordingly, lodging of FIR, taking cognizance, initiation of criminal proceedings against the writ-petitioners are unwarranted, unauthorized and without jurisdiction. Anti-Corruption Commission vs Shamima Begum, 62 DLR (AD) 277.

Section 27-In the absence of any statement of assets; there was no scope to submit any explanation for acquisition of assets there was no scope for him to submit any explanation for acquisition of the assets. No citizen could be arraigned for such a severe offence in the absence of service of any notice or order for explaining the source of income. Offence of abetment under section 109 equally could not be conceived of with regard to such an offence. Anti-Corruption Commission vs Nargis Begum, 62 DLR (AD) 279.

Section 27-Section 27 is an independent provision and for initiation of a proceeding against any person under the provision, no notice is required to be served. If the prosecution can establish that any person has acquired or amassed wealth which is beyond his known source of income, he may be prosecuted and convicted under section 27(1). Anti-Corruption Commission vs Iqbal Hasan Mahmood, 66 DLR (AD) 185.

Section 27-The findings made in the impugned judgment and also in the case of Mohiuddin Khan Alamgir (15 BLC 107, Para 97) shall be deemed to have been modified in respect of the assessment made by the PWD officials in that the assessment of valuation of any property made by PWD officials shall have evidentiary value when no such assessment is made and accepted as correct by another independent department of the Government authorized in that behalf. State vs Faisal Morshed Khan, 66 DLR (AD) 236.

Section 27- There may be a situation when there is no assessment of valuation by any competent authority of the Government exercising

power in that behalf and in such a case, the Anti-Corruption Commission has no other option but to take the assistance of the PWD officials in making assessment of the valuation of any property. Therefore, it cannot be said that the assessment of valuation made by the PWD officials does not have any evidentiary value in all situations. State vs Faisal Morshed Khan, 66 DLR (AD) 236.

Section 27— Offences punishable under sections 26 and 27 of the Ain, are distinct and indepen-dent offence and no notice is required for prosecution of an offender in respect of an offence punishable under section 27 of the Ain. Anti-Corruption Commission vs Md Ariful Haque Chowdhury, 24 BLC (AD) 44.

Sections 27 and 26-In any case the ACC must continue with the inquiry to find out whether the notice recipient is actually holding any property disproportionate to his known/legal sources of income and if it is so found, the ACC would further prosecute him under sections 26(2) and 27 of the Ain. Delwar Hossain (Md) (Delu) vs Anti- Corruption Commission, 70 DLR 110.

Sections 27 and 26-Offences punishable under sections 26 and 27 are independent offences and the filing of a case punishable under section 27 is not dependent upon issuance of notice under section 26

of the Ain. Iqbal Hasan Mahmood alias Iqbal Hasan Mahmood Tuku VS ACC, 70 DLR (AD) 109.

Section 27(1)-This is an unique provision of law which provides a person guilty for possessing and owning wealth earred from illegal source of income and the court can assume the guilt of a person under

section 27(1) of the Ain. Kazi Mosharrof Hossain vs State, 22 BLC 219.

Section 27(1)-If any person fails to give any satisfactory explanation for owning and possessing property he shall be considered has committed offence under section 27 of the Ain. Kazi Mosharrof Hossain vs State, 22 BLC 219.

Section 27(1)-Offences punishable under sections 26 and 27 of the Ain, are distinct offences and that no notice is required by the Commission for prosecution of an offender in respect of an offence punishable under section 27 of the Ain. State vs Engineer Monjurul Ahsan Munshi, 20 BLC (AD) 149.

Section 27(1)-Notice issued under section 26(1) by the Secretary of the Commission was without jurisdiction. But, for this reason the High Court Division cannot set-aside the conviction of the accused in respect of an offence under section 27(1) of the Ain High Court Division acted illegally in setting aside the conviction of the accused in respect of offence under section 27(1) of the Ain. The judgment and order of the High Court Division so far as it relates to setting aside the conviction and sentence under section 27(1) of the Ain, is set-aside. The matter is remanded to the High Court Division to dispose of the appeal on merit afresh. Anti Corruption Commission vs Aman Ullah Aman, 19 BLC (AD) 239.

Section 27(1)-The appellant being a Government servant who withdrew fixed salary and had no paternal property of his own, as per income tax return, cannot be the owner and possessor. of such huge wealth as found. The explanation given in the statement and the suggestions offered to the prosecution witnesses during cross- examination do not show that it was proportionate to his legal source of income. Osman Goni vs State, 21 BLC 786.

Section 27(1)-Bail in a pending appeal-The matter of granting bail by the High Court Division, during the period of emergency, in a pending appeal filed by the convict who has been convicted and sentenced under the provision of Anti-Corruption Commission Act, 2004 in case of short sentence not exceeding 3 years, when the appeal could not be disposed of within 90 working days for no fault of the appellant and/or in the case of serious illness endangering life to be certified by duly constituted Medical Board, may consider the matter of granting bail in an appropriate case in an appeal. Government of Bangladesh vs Sabera Aman, 62 DLR (AD) 246.

Section 27(1)-There is scope for the accused-petitioner to explain about the matter and rectify the mistake in calculating assets, even if any, at the time of trial as required under section 27(1) of the

Act. Prosecution must also be given opportunity to prove the allegation by adducing evidence. The disputed facts are not supposed

76 Anti-Corruption Commission Act, 2004 /S.27

to be resolved without taking aid of the evidence to be adduced by the parties before the trial court Mohidul Islam (Ripon) (Md) vs State, C DLR 108.

Section 27(1) Conviction and sentence-Bail in appeal on humanitarian ground. Held: In the instant case the convict appellan was convicted and sentenced to 3(three) years simple imprisonmera 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 Regality. Anti-Corruption Commission vs Barrister Mir Md Helal Uddin, 15 MLR (AD) 216 = 15 BLC (AD) 138.

Section 27(2)-Section 27(2) clearly provides that the accused shall have to rebut presumption about the allegation and explain his position as to the acquisition of properties disclosing source of income. Abdul Wahab (Md) vs Stase, 18 BLC 382.

Section 27(2)-The accused-petitioner is under the obligation to clear his position and account for in respect of the possession of the property allegedly disproportionate to his known sources of income to the satisfaction of the Court. Sabira Sultana vs State, 19 BLC 349.

Section 27(2)-It transpires from the FIR and charge-sheet that there is independent allegation against the accused-petitioner Mrs. Rowshena Jahan that she was owning and possessing some properties which are alleged to be disproportionate to her known source of income. It is necessary to spell out as to how she acquired those properties. Therefore, the accused-petitioner is liable to rebut presumption in the Court during the trial as contemplated under section 27(2) of the Anti-Corruption Commission Act, 2004. Rowshena Jahan vs State, 63 DLR 90.

Section 27(2)-Schedule of offences under section 17(a) of the Anti-Corruption Commission Act, 2004 shows that an offence of abetment under section 109 of the Penal Code can lawfully be applied in respect of schedule offences under the Anti-Corruption missian Act, 2004 in appropriate cases. Rowshena Jahan vs State, 63 DLR 90

78 Anti-Corruption Commission Act, 2004 IS. 28

Act, 1958 (XL of 1958) shall apply to trial and disposal of appeal for the offences under this Act and specified in its Schedule.

(3) In the event of any inconsistency between this Act and the Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1958 (XL of 1958), this Act shall prevail.

Anti-Corruption Commission Act shall prevail over any other law

Section 28-The provision of the Anti-Corruption Commission Act shall prevail over any other law. Anti-Corruption Commission vs Md Shahidul Islam @ Mufti Shahidul Islam, 68 DLR (AD) 242.

Section 28-Just because a civil suit has been filed questioning the validity of the said notice and proceeding pursuant to the same, and if only for that reason the impugned proceeding is quashed or stayed, no criminal case in this country can proceed because in each and every criminal case the accused will try to take recourse to civil suits before the Civil Courts challenging the said proceeding on any pretext. Just for the pendency of a civil suit there cannot be any legal hindrance in going ahead with the impugned proceedings. Mahmudu Rahman vs State, 2013 CLR 409.

Section 28- There is nothing in law precluding a criminal case on account of a civil suit pending against the petitioner on the same facts. The criminal case stands for the offence while the civil suit is for realization of money both can stand together. Shahidu! Karim Chowdhury vs State, 2014 BLD 242.

Section 28-The Special Judge cannot legally take cognizance of the offences before that time and stage i.e. before submission of the Investigation Report along with the sanction of the Commission. Therefore, the police on their own accord cannot arrest any accused before or after submission of the Investigation Report in any case on the allegations of the offences under the Anti-Corruption Commission Act, 2004, the offences specified in the schedule of the Act and under the Money Laundering Protirodh Ain, 2012. Abdullah Al Manun vs State, 2014 LNJ 212.

Section 28(2)-Respondent Nos. 5 and 6 committed the offence under section 409 of the Penal Code in their personal capacity and not in their official capacity as a police officer and, as such, the sanction in the present case was not at all necessary under section 6(5) of the Criminal Law Amendment Act. Salauddin Ahmed vs Principal Secretary, Office of the Hon’ble Prime Minister, 57 DLR 730.

Sections 28(2) & 32-Since the 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 case. Since by section 28(2) requirement of sanction under section 6(5) of Criminal Amendment Act, 1958 was done away with case can proceed now without any sanction in accordance with law and therefore séction 32(2) of Anti-Corruption Commission Act, 2004 has no manner of application in the instant case. Mostafa Kamal vs Salahuddin Ahmad, 15 BLC (AD) 108.

Sections 28, 17, 19, 20, 33 and 18- The Commission under the Ain of 2004 has been given exclusive power to conduct cases instituted under the Ain. Anti-Corruption Commission. vs Monjur Morshed Khan, 64 DLR (AD) 124.

Sections 28A, 26(2) and 33- Anticipatory Bail/Pre-arrest Bail— It is an extra-ordinary remedy and an exception to the general rule of bail which can be granted only in extra-ordinary and exceptional circumstances 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. Anti-Corruption Commission, vs Jesmin Islam, 67 DLR (AD) 1.

[ [28A. Offences to be cognizable and non-bailable.—

The provisions of the Schedule II of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 (V of 1898) shall apply to determine whether the offences under this Act are cognizable and bailable or not.]

1. Section 28A, 288 and 28C were inserted by section 11 of the Anti- Corruption Commission (Amendment) Act, 2013 (Act No. 60 of 2013)-

2. Section 28A was substituted by section 5 of the Anti-Corruption Commission (Amendment) Act, 2016 (Act No. 25 of 2016).

28B. Anonymity of informant.—(1) 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 the name, address or identity of the informant, or cannot be allowed to present or disclose any information which discloses or may disclose the identity of the informant.

(2) The court shall not allow to inspect any part of book, document or paper comprising evidence in any civil or criminal proceeding which part contains the name, address or the identity of the informant.

(3) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1) and (2), after completion of investigation of any offence under this Act and offence specified in its Schedule, if it

appears to the court that the informant has deliberately – given false and baseless information or it is not possible to ensure justice without disclosing the real identity of the informant, the court may disclose the whole identity of the informant.

Penalty for giving false information:

—(1) If any person gives any baseless information, knowing it to be false

or without being ?***] confirmed about the authenticity of the information, on the basis of which there is a possibility of

conducting investigation or trial under this Act, he shalll be deemed to have provided false information.

2. Omitted by section 6 of the Anti-Corruption Commission (Amendment) Act, 2016 (Act No. 25 of 2016).

(2) If any person gives any false information as mentioned in sub-section (1), he shall be deemed to have committed an offence under this section and, he shall be punished with rigorous imprisonment for a term which may extend to 5 (five) years but not less than 2 (two) years or with fine or with both.

(3) If the informant is an officer or employee of the Commission or of the Government and gives false information mentioned in sub-section (1), he shall be punished with such sentence as mentioned in sub-section

29. Annual report.— (1) The Commission shall, within the month of March of each calendar year, submit to the President a report on the conduct of its affairs during the preceding year.

(2) The President shall, after receipt of the report under this section, cause the report to be laid before Parliament.

30. Organisational set-up, etc. of the Commission.-The organisational set-up and budget of the Commission shall be determined by the Government.

31. Indemnity for actions done in good faith.— A person who is affected or is likely to be affected by any act done in good faith while performing duties under this Act or rules or order made thereunder, shall not be entitled to bring any civil suit or criminal case or any legal proceedings against the Commission, any Commissioner or any officer of employee of the Commission.

Sanction for filing cases, etc.—(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure or in any other law for the time being in force, no court shall take cognizance of an offence under this Act, without sanction of

the Commission in the prescribed manner.

(2) In order to file a case under this Act, the copy of the sanction issued by the Commission and, where applicable, issued by the Government and the Commission shall have to be submitted to the court during the filing of a case.]

The sanction for filing charge sheet

Section 32-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, 70 DLR (AD) 99.

2. Section 32 was substituted by section 12 of the Anti-Corruption Commission (Amendment) Act, 2013(Act No. 60 of 2013).

Section 32-Under the provisions of ACC Act and Rules, Rule 15(4) reasserts that only when charge sheet has to be filed before the Court sanction is required. When a Form is given for the purpose of conveying the sanction, then there cannot be any question of the sanction being mechanical: It is per se bound to be mechanical and in conformity with the format of Form 3. The previous section 32 referred to filing of case, meaning before the Court, which must be distinguished from lodging of first information report at the police station. The present section 32 also refers to a point in time when the matter comes before the Court “want Alad ?” meaning to file a case and ” meaning to lodge an first information repon cannot be the same. Power of inquiry or investigation of matters relating to corruption revealed in an first information report is given in section 19 of the ACC Act and no mention is made of any need for a sanction at that state. Sanction is not necessary for lodging any firs information report. Humayun Khan vs Anti-Corruption Commission, 15 BLC 355.

Section 32-The sanction is an administrative action of the Commission and if there be any variation in obtaining the same that may be mere irregularity not illegality and such irregularity in obtaining/giving sanction can be cured under section 537 of the Code. Abdus Salam (Md) vs State, 17 BLC 873.

Section 32- The sanction as contemplated under section 32 of the Act is indeed an administrative Act which is not subject to any judicial scrutiny. This view finds support in this regard in the case of Bangladesh vs Iqbal Hasan Mahmood @ Tuku 60 DLR (AD) 147 wherein his Lordship Justice Md. Joynul Abedin (as his Lordship then was) observed that “the process of sanction is an administrative act and is not subject to any judicial scrutiny. “Redwan Ahmed vs Bangladesh, 16 BLC 70.

Section 32-On perusal of the FIR and charge sheet, it appear that there are clear allegations against both the accused-petitioners and those allegations are not preposterous in nature, rather those attract the elements of the alleged offences, which obviously come within the schedule offences of the Anti-Corruption Commission Act, 2004.

Accordingly, the case falls within the provision of Rule 15 of the Emergency Power Rules 2007. Therefore, the question raised as to the legality of inclusion of the case under the Emergency Power Rules does not bear any substance.

It further appears that the authorised officer of the Anti-Corruption Commission conducted investigation in this case and submitted report and there is also sanction of the Anti-Corruption Commission for submission of the charge sheet against the accused-persons. So, it is clear that after due compliance of the section 32 of the Anti- Corruption Commission ‘Act, 2004, cognizance was taken’ by the learned Special Judge. So, there is no illegally in the matter of taking cognizance as well. According to section 173(3B) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, there is no legal bar to cause further investigation of an offence in respect of which charge sheet has already been submitted in the Court. It transpires that during a long period the misappropriation of bank money has been committed and still new facts of such misappropriation are coming out during investigation as informed by the learned Advocates. Tarikul Islam Khan vs State, 14 BLC 235.

Section 32-Sanction is necessary to be obtained before submission of the police report to the Court concerned for the purpose of taking cognizance. Abdul Wahab (Md) vs State, 18 BLC 382.

Section 32-No prior sanction of the commission is necessary under section 32 for the purpose of lodging FIR. Abdul Wahab (Md) vs State, 18 BLC 382.

Section 32-If the accused can really show that no sanction was accorded by the Commission before submission of the charge-sheet against him; then the trial Court shall definitely consider the same in the light of the relevant provisions of the Ain, 2004. Anti-Corruption Commission us Dr Md Rezaul Haque Chowdhury alias Dr Md Rezaul Karim, 19 BLC (AD) 160.

Section 32-It is now well-settled principle of’law that one sanction is enough to initiate a case and proceed against the writ petitioner for the alleged offences against him and others. SM Zafarullah vs Anti-Corruption Commission, 20 BLC 311.

Section 32-Sanction as required under section 32 of the Ain read with Rule 15(2) of the Bidhimala, was given before submitting of the charge-sheets. The impugned proceedings initiated against the petitioner cannot be declared to have been initiated and proceeded without lawful authority on the face of the decision reported in 62 DLR (AD) 290. SM Zafarullah vs Anti-Corruption Commission, 20 BLC 311.

Section 32-There is no requirement for sanction for initiation of the proceeding and that sanction is required only case of filing the charge-sheet. Both the sub-section (1) and sub-section (2) of section 32 envisages only one sanction, not two. Sub-section (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. Nazrul Islam vs State, 21 BLC 446.

Section 32-Special Judge did not commit any wrong in taking cognizance of offence against the accused in the case on the basis of the sanction accorded earlier under the repealed law i.e. section 6(5) of the Act XL of 1958. There was no legal requirement of asking for sanction afresh from the ACC under section 32 of the Act read with rule 15 of the Rules. Any fresh sanction would unnecessary delay the trial and defeat the justice, where in the meantime the case has become twenty-three years old. It is against the scheme and purpose of the law as well. Shamsun Nahar Haque vs State, 22 BLC 384.

Section 32-There is no scope to challenge the efficacy of the sanction which has been accorded in Form No. 3 under rule 15(7) of the ACC Rules, 2007 prescribed by the legislature. The recital of the sanction order clearly shows that sanctioning authority was satisfied, on scrutinizing the record, produced in respect of the allegation brought against the accused-petitioner to accord sanction for prosecution. Habibur Rahman Molla vs State, 61 DLR 1.

Section 32-The sanction in question has not been accorded as per prescribed Form-3, mandatorily required by rule 15(7), and that apparently the same has been given mechanically. Hence the questioned sanction is not a sanction in the eye of law. Bayazid vs State, 61 DLR 772.

Section 32-No sanction is required to file a complaint (949 and the unamended as well as the amended section 32 requires only one sanction from the Commission. Anti-Corruption Commission vs Dr Mohiuddin Khan Alamgir, 62 DLR (AD) 290.

Section 32-Sanction from the Commission will be required when the charge-sheet is filed under sub-section (2) and on receipt of the charge-sheet along with a copy of the letter of sanction the Court takes cognizance of the offence for trial, either under the original section 32 or the amended section 32. As a matter of fact, only one sanction will be required under section 32, unamended or amended. Anti-Corruption Commission vs Dr Mohiuddin Khan Alamgir, 62 DLR (AD) 290.

Section 32—After completion of the investigation, the Investigating Officer, under sub-section (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. Sub-section (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 twitt sh in m the 4{66) as spelt out in sub-section (2), no Court shall take cognizance f h f (          #fata 71) under sub-section (1) of section 32. Anti-Corruption Commission vs Dr Mohiuddin Khan Alamgir, 62 DLR (AD) 290.

Section 32-Since the decision of apex Court clearly spelt out the provision of section 32 of the Anti-Corruption Commission Act in this context holding no sanction is required before filing a case under the Act and also on the point that a case cannot be quashed unless cognizance has been taken by the Court having jurisdiction we are of the view that both the points apply adversely in the instant writ.

Renowned for its expertise in corporate law and anti corruption law, TRW Law Associates has established itself as a leader in providing legal solutions to businesses in Bangladesh. The firm’s commitment to professionalism and dedication to client success has solidified its position in the legal landscape.