Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947
[II of 1947]
illegal gratification—Trap case—Because of tough requirement of proof beyond reasonable doubt the laying of trap is the only method for detecting crimes like bribery which are committed in covert manner. Such a method is not prohibited. For laying a trap the investigating officer cannot be said to be thereby instigating commission of the offence. Principles of accomplice evidence cannot be extended to the evidence of trap witness, because the latter cannot be termed as accomplice. As to corroboration of trap witnesses no hard and fast rule can be given. There may be cases where the Court may accept evidence of trap witnesses.
Shahabullah Vs. State 43 DLR (AD) 1.
The petitioner by showing false documents induced the purchaser to enter into an agreement to purchase the house on receipt of Taka 12 lacs on a plea that he would refund Taka 14 lacs in the event of failure to execute sale document. The contention of the petitioner to the effect that it was a civil dispute and that the Court of Settlement had given a final decision over all the disputes including the question of criminal liability is not sustainable. The criminal proceeding cannot be held to be liable to be quashed.
Aga Kohinoor Alam Vs. State 43 DLR 95.
Allegation was that the appellant dishonestly misappropriated 10 bags of powder milk, which was meant for distribution among the poor students— Defence version was that he did not submit any application seeking allotment of relief powder milk nor did he take delivery of them —Question arose as to whether the legality of the conviction on the ground of contradictot7 and insufficient evidence which necessarily calls for the scrutiny: of the evidence is maintainable.
Held—”We have given our anxious consideration to the facts of the case and discrepancy in evidence as to R bags or 10 bags and our conclusion is this conviction cannot be sustained”.
Moslemuddin Talukder Vs. State 42 DLR (AD) 103.
Sentence of imprisonment till rising of the Court—Whether it is an imprisonment.
An important question arose to be answered in this case. It is a: whether a sentence of imprisonment till rising of the Court can be said to be a sentence of imprisonment within the meaning of section 409 of the Penal Code as well as under section 5 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 (Act lI of 1947). The detention of the accused—appellant till the rising of the Court is Imprisonment within the meaning of section 409 of the Penal Code and section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 (Act II of 1947) as his liberty freely to go about his business as at other times was restrained by order of the Court as he was confined in the Court precincts.
Jalaluddin Ahmed Chowdhury Vs State 41 DLR 87.