Saidur Rahman Vs State,2001,30 CLC(HCD)
....26 of 1957) is thus set aside and the appellant be released from the bail bond. Send down the lower Court Record to the court concerned. Ed. This Case is also Reported in 54 DLR (2002) 489.......26 of 1957) is thus set aside and the appellant be released from the bail bond.
Background of the appeal: The appeal arises from a judgment passed by the Senior Special Tribunal, Dhaka, convicting the appellant under section 4(2) of the Anti-Corruption Act (Act 26 of 1957). The appellant, the proprietor of Mamtaz Jewelry, was sentenced to three years of rigorous imprisonment and fined Taka 25,000. If the fine is not paid, the appellant would face an additional nine months of simple imprisonment. The appellant was asked by the Bureau of Anti-Corruption to submit a statement of his accumulated wealth under section 4(1) of Act 26 of 1957. After failing to submit this statement, a case was initiated against him under section 4(2) of the same Act. The case was registered as Dhanmondi PS case No. 1 dated 2-8-93.
The case was transferred to the Senior Anti-Corruption Tribunal, Dhaka for trial. During the trial, the prosecution examined six witnesses to prove the charge. No defense witnesses were examined as the appellant was absconding at the time of trial. After considering the evidence, the trial court found the appellant guilty under section 4(2) (Ka) of Act 26 of 1957. The appellant has filed the present appeal against the judgment and order of conviction and sentence.
Facts: The Deputy Director of the Bureau of Anti-Corruption conducted an inquiry into an anonymous complaint. During this process, a notice was sent to the appellant under section 4(1) of Act 26 of 1957. This notice was signed by Mr. Irfan Ali, who confirmed the signature of the Deputy Director. As a result, the Anti-corruption act (26 of 1957) was set aside, and the appellant was released from the bail bond. The case was reported in 54 DLR (2002) 489 and was judged by Md Monsurul Hoque Chowdhury on December 11, 2001. The appellant in the case was Saidur Rahman. The case also referred to Tarique Rahman vs. Director General Bureau of Anti-Corruption, Government of Bangladesh and others 52 DLR 518. A case was initiated against Mustafizur Rahman under section 4(2) of the said Act after he failed to submit the wealth statement. This case was registered as Dhanmondi PS case No. 1 dated 2-8-93.
Issues: The issues revolve around whether the compensation claims fall under sections 4(1) and 9 of the Anti-Corruption Act (XXVI of 1957). The appellant argues that even under section 9, the initial satisfaction required by section 4(1) cannot be delegated and must come from the government. Legal precedents, including Tarique Rahman vs Director General Bureau of Anti-Corruption and Mustafizur Rahman vs DG Anti-Corruption, support this argument. Section 4(1) states that there was no evidence of the government conducting a preliminary inquiry or directing the Bureau of Anti-Corruption to issue a notice based on their satisfaction regarding the appellant’s disproportionate properties. Therefore, the notice served under section 4(1) lacks jurisdiction. Representing the appellant, Md Abdul Malek with Abdul Barek Chowdhury advocates, while ABM Wailur Rahman Khan, Assistant Attorney General, represents the respondent.
Judgment:
1.This appeal has arisen out of the judgment and order dated 28-1-95 passed by the Senior Special Tribunal, Dhaka in Anti-Corruption Tribunal Case No. 3 of 1994 convicting the appellant under section 4(2) of the Anti-Corruption Act (Act 26 of 1957) and sentencing him thereunder to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 3(three) years and to pay a fine of Taka 25,000 in default to suffer simple imprisonment for 9(nine) months more.
2. The prosecution case, in short, is that the accused appellant was the proprietor of Mamtaz Jewlery, New Market, Dhaka and he was asked by the Bureau of Anti-Corruption to submit statement of his accumulated wealth under section 4(1) of Act 26 of 1957 within specified time but having failed to submit the wealth statement pursuant to the aforesaid direction a case under section 4(2) of the said Act was initiated against him after lodging a First Information Report at Dhanmondi Police Station which was registered as Dhanmondi PS case No. 1 dated 2-8-93. The investigation of the case was conducted by an inspector of the Bureau of Anti-Corruption and after completion of investigation, the charge-sheet was submitted against the appellant under section 4(2) of Act 26 of 1957. Eventually the case was transferred to the Senior Anti-Corruption Tribunal, Dhaka for holding trial who then framed charge against the appellant under section 4(2) of Act 26 of 1957 to which the appellant pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried in accordance with law.
3. During the trial the prosecution examined all 6 witnesses in order to prove the charge and none was examined from the side of the defense. Since the appellant was found absconding at the time of trial, examination under section 342 of the Code Criminal Procedure could not be done. Then after considering the evidence on record the trial Court found the appellant guilty under section 4(2) (Ka) of 26 of 1957 and sentenced him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 3(three) years and to pay a fine of Taka 25,000 in default to suffer simple imprisonment for 9 months more.
4.Being aggrieved by the said judgment order of conviction and sentence the present appe has been filed.
5. Mr. Abdul Malek the learned Senior Advocate appearing with Mr. Abdul Barek Chowdhury, the learned advocate at the outset, has submitted that the notice under section 4(1) of 26 of 1957 having been served upon the appellant without any prior objective satisfaction of the Government, the same is illegal and without jurisdiction and for noncompliance of the direction, as given by the said notice, no offence has been committed. According to him, the trial Court on misconception of law has held the appellant guilty under section 4(2) (Ka) of Act 26 of 1957. He then submitted that even from the evidence of PWs it has not been established that in proceeding against the appellant the Bureau of Anti-Corruption had obtained any order from the Government as required by the above law. He then submitted that the word “satisfied” as contemplated under se 4(1) of Anti-Corruption Act is the satisfaction of the Government and in no way the satisfaction of the Bureau of Anti-Corruption.
Comment: The appeal arises from a judgment convicting the appellant under section 4(2) of the Anti-Corruption Act, sentencing him to three years of rigorous imprisonment and a fine. The prosecution alleged that the appellant, a jewelry proprietor, failed to submit a wealth statement despite a directive from the Bureau of Anti-Corruption, leading to charges. During the trial, no defense witnesses were examined, and the appellant was found guilty.
The appellant appealed, arguing that the notice lacked jurisdiction since it was issued without the government’s objective satisfaction. The appellant claimed that only the government’s satisfaction, not that of the Bureau of Anti-Corruption, was valid. The Assistant Attorney-General contended that delegation to the Bureau validated the notice.
The court referenced previous cases to determine that the government’s initial satisfaction couldn’t be delegated. Despite delegation to the Bureau, the requirement for government satisfaction remained. As the notice lacked government satisfaction, it was deemed void, rendering the proceedings against the appellant jurisdictionally flawed. The appeal was allowed, setting aside the appellant’s conviction and ordering their release.
….26 of 1957) is thus set aside and the appellant be released from the bail bond. Send down the lower Court Record to the court concerned. Ed. This Case is also Reported in 54 DLR (2002) 489…….26 of 1957) is thus set aside and the appellant be released from the bail bond. Background of the…