Prevention of Corruption Act [II of 1947]
Sections 4(2) &
A private person cannot be tried under sections 4(2) and
5(1) of the Anti-Corruption Act, 1957. The alleged offence committed by the
present petitioner may be tried under normal law but not under the
Anti-Corruption Act. So the proceeding started against him under the
Anti-Corruption Act is liable to be quashed.
Abul Basher vs State 47 DLR 521.
Sections 5 & 5A—
Investigation of an offence by an Assistant Inspector of the
Bureau of Anti-Corruption, instead of by an Inspector and thereafter initiation
of a proceeding on the basis of the prosecution report and holding of trial of
the person against whom prosecution report was submitted is not an illegality.
“Presuming that the officer making the report was not
duly authorized by the order of a magistrate, his report could still be held to
fall within the purview of section 190(l)(b) of the Code or, in the
alternative, can be accepted as a complaint within sub-section (1) (a) of the
Bimal Chandra Adhikari vs State 51 DLR 282
Investigation of the case having been done by a
Sub-Inspector of Police his report is not a police report within the meaning of
Prevention of Corruption Act and the cognizance taken on the basis of it and
framing of charge by the Additional Sessions Judge, 5th Court (ex officio
Special Judge) is illegal and without jurisdiction.
Akhter Hossain (Md) vs State 51 DLR 40
When the investigation is held by any officer of the Bureau
of Anti-Corruption, the provisions of section 5 A of Act II of 1947 shall not
be applicable but provisions of section 3 of the Anti-Corruption Act, 1957
Nazrul Islam and others vs State 51 DLR 368
The accused-petitioner’s conduct is certainly a criminal
misconduct because receipt of money from Nurun Nahar and consequent making of a
fresh recall order as a public servant have been proved and so the Court ought
not to have acquitted him of that charge.
Azizul Hoque (Md) vs State 51 DLR (AD) 216
Mens rea—Mere violation of rules and instructions cannot be
a ground for finding the guilt of the accused under this provision of law. The
prosecution failed to prove the mens rea which is a necessary element of the
offence punishable under section 5(2) of the Act.
Syed Ali Mandal alias Md Syed Ali and 4 others vs State 46 DLR 149.
Section 5(2) —
The charge of substantive offence of cheating against the
respondent having failed, the other respondents cannot be held guilty of the
offence of abetment.
State vs Md Iqbal Hossain and others 48 DLR (AD) 100.
Public Servants shall mean and include only those persons
who are public servants at the time of commission of offence and remain so when
cognizance of the offence is taken. The petitioners not being public servant at
the time of alleged commission offence no sanction for prosecution the
Government is necessary.
Mo Ranjan Pal and others vs State 50 D 163
The accused having withdrawn money of the account holder PW2
upon a previous understanding between them, the trial Court misdirected itself
in assessing evidence in the case in its true perspective and thereby wrongly
AKM Mohiuddin vs State 50 DLR 447
The High Court Division was totally wrong in holding that
the accused petitioner cannot be tried under Act II of 1947 along with other
Penal Code offences.
Mahbubul Alam vs State 50 DLR (AD) 125.