[XXVI of 1957]
In view of the provisions of section 3 of the Anti-Corruption Act, 1947 ad paragraph 59 of the Anti-Corruption Manual the
investigation held by an Assistant inspector of the Bureau of the Anti- Corruption was not illegal and without jurisdiction.
Abul Hossain (Md) vs State 4 BLC (AD) 122
Sections 3 and 4—
An Officer of the Anti-Corruption Department can exercise power under section 94, CrPC while making an enquiry on receipt of complaint and that the offences which are included in the schedule are not confined to public servant which are liable to be committed by any person and hence an Officer of Bureau of Anti-Corruption can exercise power under sections 94 and 160 of the Code of Criminal procedure against private persons and that the enquiry being of a preliminary nature the statement or documents produced by the petitioners will not lead to their conviction ,1 punishment and a person cannot seek the protection of Article 35(4) of the Constitution when a notice is sent by the Bureau of Anti-Corruption under sections 94 and 160, CrPC when section 3 of Anti-Corruption Act has empowered an Officer of Bureau of Anti-Corruption to serve notice under sections 94 and 160 of the Code of Criminal Procedure only for the purpose of enquiry to determine the truth of the information received.
Gaisuddin-al-Mamum and 12 others vs DG, Bureau of Anti-Corruption and others 5 BLC 134
Section 3 (2)—
Section 3(2) of the Anti- Corruption Act, 1957 provides that subject to any order of the Government, officers of the Bureau of Anti-Corruption shall have power to enquire or hold investigation throughout Bangladesh and shall have such powers which the police officers are empowered in connection with investigation and further the paragraph 59 of the Anti-Corruption Manual
expresses that the investigation held by an Assistant Inspector was not without jurisdiction and as such the proceeding cannot be quashed.
Abu Sufian Mia vs State 4 BLC 193
As the impugned orders under section 4(1) of the Act of the three writ petitions having been issued under the authority and in the name of the Government under the signature of an officer of the Bureau of Anti-Corruption giving references of letters either of the President’s Secretariat or of the Prime Minister’s Secretariat, it cannot be said that the impugned orders have been issued by the Bureau of Anti-Corruption, rather, the same have been under the authority of the said references after being satisfied and the authority is no other than the Government of Bangladesh but the satisfaction/belief in the impugned order of writ petition of the petitioner Engineer Afsaruddin is not of the Government.
Mustafizur Rahman and 3 others vs DG, Anti-Corruption & others 2 BLC 605
As the Government appeared to have conducted a secret preliminary enquiry which is not required to be disclosed in order to maintain secrecy for which the contention of the petitioners that the satisfaction and the belief on the part of the Government in the three writ petitions got no basis cannot he accepted.
Mustafizur Rahman and 3 others vs DG, Anti- Corruption & others 2 BLC 605
By the respective impugned order, the respective petitioner has been asked to submit statements in the prescribed form giving full particulars of the properties acquired in his name or in the benami and the sources of income so that he can satisfy the Government that the properties acquired by him arc not disproportionate to his known sources of income. Mere calling of statements detailing full particulars cannot be characterised as accusation as contemplated under Article 35(4) of the Constitution and that the impugned order under section 4(1) of the Anti-Corruption Act does offend the fundamental right guaranteed under Article 35(4) of the Constitution.
Mustafizur Rahman and 3 others vs DG, Anti- Corruption & others 2 BLC 605.