Anti-Corruption Commission Act, 2004


Anti-Corruption Commission Act, 2004

 

Anti-Corruption Commission Act, 2004

Section 26(a) Lodging F.I.R initiation and
continuation of criminal proceedings and conviction and sentence ate declared
illegal and are quashed.

When in a number of inquiries nothing was detected
as regards acquisition of property disproportionate to the known sources of
income of the petitioner, the lodging of P.1K initiation of prosecution, the
trial, conviction and sentence impugned in the writ petition are declared by
the learned judges of the High Court Division as illegal and are thus quashed.

Abul Kalam Shamsuddin (Md.) Vs. Anti-Corruption
Commission, represented by its Chairman and others 14 MLR  (2009) (HC) 87 .

Anti-Corruption Commission Act, 2004

Section 27(1) Conviction and sentence Bail in
appeal on humanitarian ground

In the instant case the convict- appellant was
convicted and sentenced to 3 (three) years simple imprisonment. In appeal the
High Court Division allowed him the bail on humanitarian consideration which
the apex court found justified and held the High Court Division committed no
illegality.

Anti-Corruption Commission, represented by its
Chairman, Dhaka Vs. Barrister Mir Mohammad Helal ZJddin and another 15 MLR
(2010) (AD) 216.

Anti-Corruption Commission Act, 2004

Section 26 and 32 Authority of the Commission to
issue notice requiring a person to submit statement of his assets and
liabilities.Requirement
of sanction for the prosecution to be accompanied with the charge-sheet.

Requirement of the law is that the person asking to
submit statement of his assets and liabilities must be given reasonable time
and opportunity. Directing to submit the statement at the time the person was
in detention is not a legal notice in the eye of law. Proceedings initiated on
such invalid notice and the conviction and sentence passed therein is illegal
and not sustainable in law. Only one sanction of the Commission is necessary.

Anti-Corruption Commission, represented by its
Chairman Vs. Dr. Mohiuddin Khan Alamgir and others 15 MLR (2010) (AD) 406.

Anti-Corruption
Commission Act, 2004

Section 32 – Sanction given in prescribed form held
proper Anti-corruption Commission Rules, 2007.

Rule 10 Time limit held directory When trial of the
case has already began and some witnesses are examined and cross-examined, the
learned judges of the High Court Division found no cogent ground to quash the
proceedings at this stage.

Habibur Rahman Motlah Vs. The State 14 MLR (2009)
(HC) 94.

Anti-Corruption
Commission Act, 2004

Section 32(2) Does not apply to cases prior to the
Act coming into operation No res-judicata.

There is no res-judicata in the Criminal
jurisdiction except the bar provided under section 403 Cr.p.c. When steps under
section; 6(5) of the Criminal Law Amendment Act,1958 were duly taken, there was
no legal requirement to obtain sanction any more. Section 32 of the
Anti-Corruption Commission Act,2004 has no manner of application to the cases
prior to the Acts coming into force.

Mostafa Kamal and others Vs. Salahuddin Ahmad and
others 14 MLR (2009) (AD) 412.

 

Anti-Corruption
Commission Rules, 2007

Rule 16–To lay and conduct trap to catch hold of an
accused red handed and the requirement of the officer so conducting trap to be
empowered by the Anti-Corruption Commission.

To empower an officer by the commissioner
in charge of, investigation lay trap and conduct the proceedings required under
rule 16 of the Anti-corruption Commission Rules, 2007 is
mandatory requirement of law. In absence of such empowerment or authorisation the learned judges held proceedings’ illegal and abuse of the court and as such quashed the same.

R Kabir (Md.) Vs.
State and another 14 MLR (2009)
(HC) 482.

 

Disclaimer:

The information contains in this web-site is prepared for educational purpose. This site may be used by the students, faculties, independent learners and the learned advocates of all over the world. Researchers all over the world have the access to upload their writes up in this site. In consideration of the people’s participation in the Web Page, the individual, group, organization, business, spectator, or other, does hereby release and forever discharge the Lawyers & Jurists, and its officers, board, and employees, jointly and severally from any and all actions, causes of actions, claims and demands for, upon or by reason of any damage, loss or injury, which hereafter may be sustained by participating their work in the Web Page. This release extends and applies to, and also covers and includes, all unknown, unforeseen, unanticipated and unsuspected injuries, damages, loss and liability and the consequences thereof, as well as those now disclosed and known to exist.  The provisions of any state’s law providing substance that releases shall not extend to claims, demands, injuries, or damages which are known or unsuspected to exist at this time, to the person executing such release, are hereby expressly waived. However the Lawyers & Jurists makes no warranty expressed or implied or assumes any legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy, completeness or usefulness of any information, apparatus, product or process disclosed or represents that its use would not infringe privately owned rights. Reference herein to any specific commercial product process or service by trade name, trade mark, manufacturer or otherwise, does not necessarily constitute or imply its endorsement, recommendation or favouring by the Lawyers & Jurists. The views and opinions of the authors expressed in the Web site do not necessarily state or reflect those of the Lawyers & Jurists. Above all, if there is any complaint drop by any independent user to the admin for any contents of this site, the Lawyers & Jurists would remove this immediately from its site.