[XXVI of 1957]

Section 3—The contention that action of notice by the respondent No. 3 was violative of Article 35(4) of the Constitution is of no substance since the same were issued in connection with an enquiry as regards the information received against the petitioners. The petitioners are not accused of any offence and, as such, protection under Article 35(4) is not available to them. Abu Siddique vs Ministry of Defence 54 DLR (AD) 154.

Section 3—The officers of the Anti-Corruption Bureau in connection with investigation of a complaint to ascertain the truth thereof are authorised to issue notice under section 160 CrPC. Abu Siddique and anr vs Ministry of Defence 54 DLR (AD) 154.

Section 3—When the investigation is held by any officer of the Bureau of Anti-Corruption, the provisions of section 5A of Act II of 1947 shall not be applicable but provisions of section 3 of the Anti-Corruption Act, 1957 shall apply. Nazrul Islam vs State 51 DLR 368.

Section 3—The authority of the Anti-Corruption Officer requiring the petitioners to attend and give statements before him in the interest of an inquiry under the provisions of section 94 of the Code cannot be questioned. Abdul Hafiz vs Director General, Bureau of Anti-Corruption, Government of Bangladesh 51 DLR 72.

Section 3—Sanction to prosecute—The sanctioning authority is under a legal duty to act without bias and to apply its mind to the materials placed before it. A valid sanction is a pre-condition for launching a prosecution under section 6 of the Anti-Corruption Act, 1957 (repealed by the ACC Act, 2004). Tofail Ahmed vs State 63 DLR 363.

Section 3(2)—The provision of section 5A of the Act II of 1947 and section 3(2) of the Anti- Corruption Act, 1957 when read with paragraph 59 of the Anti-Corruption Manual, it is seen that investigation of offences enumerated in Act II of 1947 and in the schedule of the Anti-Corruption Act, 1957 by an Assistant Inspector of the Bureau of Anti-Corruption is neither irregular nor illegal. Bangladesh vs Md Amjad Ali Mridha 56 DLR (AD) 119.

Section 4—The contention that the provisions of this section are applicable only against public servants is not acceptable in law. Tarique Rahman vs Director General, Bureau of Anti- Corruption 52 DLR 518.

Sections 4 & 5—Any private person whether he has any connection with a public servant or not can also be tried and punished under the Act of 1957. Abdul Kabir vs State 50 DLR 306.

Sections 4 & 9—Satisfaction under section 4 of the Act is the satisfaction of the Government alone as the satisfaction aspect of the section is retained by the Government and it can not be delegated as it is incapable of delegation. Begum Tahmina vs Bangladesh 52 DLR 503.

Section 4(1)—There is no fundamental right to privacy or secrecy in respect of property and wealth of a person and therefore calling upon the petitioners to submit statement of their properties does not violate any fundamental right guaranteed by the Constitution. Tarique Rahman vs Director General, Bureau of Anti-Corruption 52 DLR 518.

Section 4(1)—There is no scope for violation of the fundamental rights of the petitioner as guaranteed by Article 35(4) of the Constitution inasmuch as the issuance of the notice under section 4(1) of the Act will be presumed to be the fact collection process only. Begum Tahmina vs Government of Bangladesh 52 DLR 503.

Section 4(1)—It does not reflect from the evidence that before issuance of notice any preliminary inquiry was done by the Government or any direction was given to the bureau of Anti- Corruption to issue notice on being satisfied that the appellant had properties disproportionate to his income. So the notice served under section 4(1) of the Act is lacking in jurisdiction. Saidur Rahman vs State 54 DLR 489.

Section 4(1)—ln view of the provision of law prescribing the punishment for failing to submit the statement and in view of the fact that the accused-petitioner failed to furnish such statement in spite of being called upon he cannot be absolved of the consequence that resulted in his conviction after due trial. Habibur Rahinan vs State 58 DLR (AD) 12.

Sections 4(1) & 9—Even in exercise of power under section 9 of the Anti-Corruption Act the initial satisfaction of the Government as provided in section 4(1) of the Act cannot be delegated and the initial satisfaction, before proceeding against the appellant, must be of the Government. Saidur Rahman vs State 54 DLR 489.

Sections 4(2) & 5(1)—Provision of the Act can be resorted to enquire into or for investigation of pecuniary resources or property of any person whether he is a public servant or any other else or words ‘an ordinary citizen’.

Expressions “certain persons” “any person” and “whoever” that. have been used in different of the Act apparently show that same are unspecified and general in nature as well as in character or in other words the said expressions are in no way referable to any specified class or persons, like public servant, as has been contended by the petitioner in support of his prayer for discharging him from the proceeding. AKM Muhituddin vs State 51 DLR 274.