Background of the appeal : On 11-02-2001 District Anti-Corruption Bureau, Dhaka issued a notice upon the petitioner alleging illegal acquisition of properties disproportionate to their known income. The petitioner responded on 21-02-2001, admitting legal acquisition of some properties but denying ownership of others with permission from the Ministry of Establishment. Investigations by various authorities yielded conflicting results with the Ministry of Establishment ultimately finding the allegations unproven. Despite being a regular taxpayer without objection from tax authorities the Bureau of Anti-Corruption issued another notice under the Anti-Corruption Act prompting the petitioner to seek relief through Article 102 of the Constitution. The petitioner submitted a supplementary affidavit with a letter from the Cabinet Division indicating the allegations against them were unproven. Later during the hearing, they presented another affidavit attaching a complaint alleging illegal property acquisition. They argued that the notice they received was based on this new complaint covering properties investigated in 2001. Mr. SM Shahjahan, the petitioner’s advocate argues that previous inquiries by various government bodies in 2001 found the allegations baseless making the current notice from the Bureau of Anti-Corruption illegal and malicious. He cites precedents such as Md Abul kalam Shamsuddin vs Anti- Corruption Commission to support his case. Additionally, he contends that the petitioner’s wealth statement filed with the income tax authority which included all his properties without objection further invalidates the current notice.
Issues : Petitioner issued the rule Anti-Corruption Bureau has any rights to say submit statements under the Anti-Corruption Act-1957 section 4(1) and for this reason petitioner get any costs?
Judgment : The High Court Division discharge the rule and there will be no order as to costs. Justice Burhanuddin give the judgement. The High Court Division upon consideration of all facts and circumstances Upon examining the notice dated 22-3- 2003 it’s evident that it’s preliminary and at an initial stage. Therefore, no adverse inference can be drawn at this point. The Anti-Corruption Act, 1957 empowers the Bureau of Anti-Corruption to issue such notices under section 4(1), indicating that the Bureau has jurisdiction to do so. It’s not within our jurisdiction to determine if the notice pertains to the same properties as the inquiry in 2001. Only after receiving the petitioner’s statement can the Bureau take appropriate action. Hence, the current writ petition is premature as the notice merely requests a statement of the petitioner’s wealth, liabilities, and income source which cannot be constant as an accusation.
Comments : In this case, two issues arise. One is the Anti-Corruption Bureau has any rights to asking about the properties under Anti-Corruption Act-1957 section 4(1). For this reason the person claim any costs. We see it the The Anti-Corruption Act, 1957 empowers the Bureau of Anti-Corruption to issue such notices under section 4(1), indicating that the Bureau has jurisdiction to do so. It’s not within our jurisdiction to determine if the notice pertains to the same properties as the inquiry in 2001. Only after receiving the petitioner’s statement can the Bureau take appropriate action.