(II OF 1947)


Criminal misconduct

The accused-petitioners conduct is certainly a criminal misconduct because receipt of fresh money from Nurun Nahar and consequent making of a fresh recall order as a public servant have been proved.

It has been proved that the accused-petitioner obtained from Nurun Nahar Begurn tk. 3,093/- towards satisfaction of the agricultural loan taken by her husband. The accused-petitioner did not deposit the said money in the proper head. In that view of the matter it cannot be said that the accused- petitioner’s role was that of a bonafide act performed without mens rea.

Md. Azizul Hoque Vs The State, 19BLD (AD)2


Sanction for prosecution

Sanction to prosecute a public servant is a pre-condition for initiation of a criminal proceeding against him. Absence of sanction from the appropriate authority has vitiated the entire proceeding, rendering the conviction untenable in law.

It is well-settled that sanction to prosecute a public servant is a matter is a precondition for initiating a proceeding against him. No sanction order was produced by the prosecution. The Court did not obtain any sanction order or moved the appropriate authority for according sanction. When there is no sanction to prosecute the appellant, who is admittedly a public servant, the entire proceeding stands vitiated and only on that ground the order of conviction and sentence is liable to be set aside.

Md. Ali Hossain Vs. The State, 14BLD (HCD)102.