Anti-Corruption Commis­sion Vs. Sigma Huda and another, 62 DLR (AD) (2010) 227

Case No: Criminal Petition for Leave to Appeal No.269 of 2008

Judge: Md. Abdul Matin,

Court: Appellate Division ,,

Advocate: Md. Khurshid Alam Khan,Mr. Rafique-ul-Huq,,

Citation: 62 DLR (AD) (2010) 227

Case Year: 2010

Appellant: Anti-Corruption Commis­sion

Respondent: Sigma Huda and another

Subject: Corruption, Criminal Trail,

Delivery Date: 2008-6-19

 
Supreme Court
Appellate Division
(Criminal)
 
Present:
MM Ruhul Amin CJ
Md. Fazlul Karim J
Md. Tafazzul Islam J
Joynul Abedin J
Md. Hassan Ameen J
Md. Abdul Matin J
 
Anti-Corruption Commis­sion
…....................Petitioner
Vs.
Sigma Huda and another
........................Respondents
 
Judgment
June 19, 2008.
 
Criminal Law Amendment Act (XL of 1958)
Section 10
Emergency Power Rules, 2007
Rule 11(2)
The High Court Division has correctly followed the observations made by this Division in Criminal Appeal No. 6 of 2008 in granting bail to the respondent No. 1. The appeal could not be disposed within ninety days and the respondent has already served out a substantial portion of sentence.                                                 …. (9-10)
 
Lawyers Involved:
Khurshid Alam Khan, Advocate instructed by Mrs Sufia Khatun, Advocate-on-Record-For the Petitioner.
Rafique-ul-Huq, Senior Advocate (Ajmalul Hossain QC, Senior Advocate with him) instructed by Syed Mahbubur Rahman, Advocate-on-Record—For the Respondent No.1.
Not Represented—For the Respondent No. 23.
 
Criminal Petition for Leave to Appeal No.269 of 2008.
(From the judgment dated 3-6-2008 passed by the High Court Division in Criminal Appeal No.4813 of 2007).
 
JUDGMENT
 
Md. Abdul Matin J.
 
This petition for leave to appeal is directed against order dated 3-6-2008 passed by the High Court Division in Criminal Appeal No. 4813 of 2007 granting ad-interim bail to the respondent No. 1.
 
2. The facts, in short, are that the present respondent No.1 was put on trial before the Special Judge No.2, Dhaka who found the respondent guilty under sections 161/109 of the Penal Code and sen­tenced  her to suffer simple  imprisonment  for 3(three) years by the judgment and order dated 26-8-2007.
 
On 22-3-2007 the Deputy Director of the Anti-Corruption Commission lodged an FIR with Dhanmondi Police Station against the respondent No.1 and Barrister Nazmul Huda and the said case was registered as Dhanmondi Police Station Case No.70 dated 21-3-2007 under section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 read with sec­tions 26 and 27 of the Anti-Corruption Commission Act, 2004 and section 109 of the Penal Code alleg­ing, inter alia, that the informant has been working as an enlisted contractor with the Roads and Highways Department under the Ministry of Com­munications since 1988 and received 5(five) work Orders from the Ministry of Communications on 14 December, 2004, 10 March 2005, 22 January, 2004 (two work orders) and 04 November, 2004 respec­tively. Upon receiving the above mention 5 (five) work orders Mir Zahir Hossain went to the then Communications Minister Mr. Nazmul Huda's house and personally paid him altogether Taka 2,40,00,000 (taka two crore and forty lac) in three cheques as bribe for the said work orders on 12 February 2005 and 21 April 2005 respectively. Out of the said sum of Taka 2,40,00,000 (taka two crore and forty lac) amounting Taka 1 crore and another cash cheque amounting Taka 40,00,000 (Taka forty lac only) was deposited in the account of a weekly publication called "the Khoborer Ontoraley" owned by the respondent No.1 on 17th February 2004 and 23rd April 2004 respectively. Subsequently she withdrew the said amount of Taka 2, 40, 00,000 (taka two crore and forty lac only) from her account through differ­ent cheques and opened two fixed deposits for her two daughters, Taka 50 lac each. In light of the above Mr. Nazmul Huda and respondent No. 1 com­mitted an offence under section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 sections 26 and 27 of the Anti-Corruption Commission Act, 2004 and section 109 of the Penal Code read with section 15 of Emergency Power Rules, 2007.
 
3. The matter was taken up for investiga­tion and after investigation, the investigation officer submitted a charge sheet dated 4-6-2007 against the respondent No.1 under sections 109 and 161 of the Penal Code.
 
4. After submission of charge sheet the case was ultimately sent to the Court of Metropoli­tan Special Judge, Court No. 1 Dhaka where the case was registered as Metropolitan Special Case No.27 of 2007. The learned Judge of the Metropolitan Special Court took cognizance against her and trans­ferred the case to the Special Court No.2, Dhaka where the case was renumbered as Special Case No.2 of 2007. On receipt of the case the learned Judge of Special Court No.2 framed charge against the accused petitioner under sections 161/109 of the Penal Code.
 
5. The prosecution examined as many as 40 witnesses and defence examined 8 witnesses.
 
6. Having being convicted the respondent preferred Criminal Appeal No.4813 of 2007 before the High Court Division and also prayed for bail and by the impugned judgment and order the High Court Division was pleased to grant bail to the respondent No.1.
 
7. Being aggrieved by granting of bail to the respondent No.1 the Anti-Corruption Commission has filed this petition for leave to appeal.
 
8. Heard the learned Advocate and perused the petition and the impugned judgment and order of the High Court Division and other papers on record.
 
9.  It appears that the High Court Division has correctly followed the observations made by this Division in Criminal Appeal No.6 of 2008 in grant­ing bail to the respondent No.1.
 
10. It further appears that the appeal could not be disposed of within ninety days and the respondent has already served out a substantial portion of sentence.
 
We do not find that the judgment and order of the High Court Division suffers from any infirmity.
 
Accordingly the petition is dismissed.
 
Ed.