Articles 31 and 50—The
information asked for by the impugned order from the petitioner is not
something which is capable of being searched. Therefore the information asked
for does not conform to section 94 of the Anti-Corruption Manual. The impugned
order purported under section 94 of the Code and Articles 31/50 of the
Anti-Corruption Manual is unauthorized and illegal as they do not confer any
power to direct a person to give information.
The information asked for the purpose
of inquiry was of a roving nature and was merely fishing for information. If we
are to believe that the inquiry was in response to the information received by
the anonymous letter then the wholesale information of all cases handled by the
petitioner from 1-3-93 to 20-3-94 cannot be said to be connected with the
alleged remittance of the sale proceeds of the house at Motijheel and Gulshan.
The asking for such wholesale information of the cases handled by him for that
period appears to us to be malafide, fishing for information only to harass the
petitioner. Imtiazur Rahman Farooqui (Md)
(MI Farooqui) vs Bureau of Anti-Corruption and others 51 DLR 421 offence under
this Special Law Sayed and 10 others vs State 48 DLR 489.
the Tribunal Judge ordered publication of notification in the daily newspapers
as prescribed in the Act it indicated that the Judge was mentally satisfied
that the accused persons had become absconders. The word satisfaction need not
be written before passing the order. Soton @ Arif Hossain and another vs State 50
of charge-sheet beyond the specified time of 30 days under the Anti-Terrorism
Act is illegal and as such the proceedings cannot proceed in the Anti-Terrorism
Tribunal. Shahidullah Kazi, Amjad Hossain
vs State Abdul Kasem 48 DLR 178.