Anti-Corruption Act, 1957


Anti-Corruption Act

[XXVI of 1957]

 

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 and others 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 (Md) and others vs Director General, Bureau of
Anti-Corruption, Government of Bangladesh 51 DLR 72.

 

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(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 in other words ‘an ordinary citizen’.

Expressions “certain persons”
“any person” and “whoever” that have been used in different
parts 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 groups of 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.

 

Anti-Corruption Act, 1957

 

Anti-Corruption
Act 1957 (Xxvi Of 1957).

 

Section—3(2)

Anti-Corruption
Manual Articles—31 and 50

When
the Court is in seisin of a matter involving a question of right, title and
interest relating to any immovable property, the Bureau of Anti-corruption has
no jurisdiction or authority to hold any inquiry under Articles 31 and 50 of
Anti-Corruption Manual, either suo motu
or upon an application of any person—the Anti-Corruption may, however, inquire
in to a specific case under an order of the court, otherwise not.

Humayun
Majid v. Bangladesh Bureau of Anti-corruption, 21 BLD (HCD) 551

Ref:
Durga Das v. Emperor AIR 1943 Lah. 28.

 

ANTI-CORRUPTION ACT, 1957

 

ANTI-CORRUPTION
ACT, 1957

 

Section—3

Anti-Corruption Manual

Paragraph—59

Code of Criminal Procedure,
1898 (V of 1898)

Section—561A

In view of the provisions of section 3 of the Anti-Corruption Act, 1957
and 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.

The investigation by an Assistant Inspector does not per se become
illegal and without jurisdiction. A proceeding cannot also be quashed merely
because there is irregularity, if any, in the investigation.

 Md. Abul
Hossain Vs The State, 19BLD (AD)97.

 

Anti Corruption Act, 1957

Anti Corruption Act, 1957

Section—4(
1)

Whether serving of notice by the Deputy Director was not legal

The un-denied position is that the notice
impugned in the writ petition was issued by the Deputy Director of the Bureau
of Anti-Corruption. As stated hereinabove there is no delegation of power by
the Government to the said Deputy Director authorizing him to exercise the
power or to do the things as in section 4(1) of the said Act. —Petition is
Dismissed.

Govt. of Bangladesh & Ors Vs. Shahadat Hossain 16 BLT (AD)183.

 

Anti-Corruption Act, 1957


Anti-Corruption Act

[XXVI of 1957]

Section 3—

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


Section 4(1)—

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


Section 4(1)—

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


Section 4(1)—

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.