Md. Ariful Hoque Vs. The State and another [4 LNJ (2015) 126]

Case No: Criminal Miscellaneous Case No. 51661 of 2013

Judge: Md. Abu Tariq,

Court: High Court Division,,

Advocate: Mr. Shah Monjurul Hoque,Mr. Kazi Akter Hossain,Mr. Md. Zakir Hossain Ripon,Mr. Khorshed Alam Khan,,

Citation: 4 LNJ (2015) 126

Appellant: Md. Ariful Hoque

Respondent: The State and another

Subject: Money Laundering,

Delivery Date: 2014-03-20

HIGH COURT DIVISION
(CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS JURISDICTION)
 
Md. Abu Tariq, J.
And
Ashish Ranjan Das, J
 
Judgment on
20.03.2014
 
Md. Ariful Hoque, Son of late Kabat Sheikh
...Accused-Petitioner
-Versus-
1. The State and another
2. The Anti Corruption Commission, 1, Segunbagich, Dhaka represetned by its Chariman.
. . .Opposite-parties
 
Code of Criminal Procedure (V of  1898)
Section 561A
Money Laundering Protirodh Ain (V of 2012)
Section 14
An assertion  of “direct” and “indirect” transfer of money being vague, not evidencing any particulars transfer of money, disclosing the date, amount of money or any other particulars, so, as to prove that the accused No. 1 Md. Eklas Uddin has interest in these accounts of the instant petitioner, the freezing of the accounts appear to be not legal. The legislature has protected the citizens from being harassed by any money laundering case by providing certain protection in the Provision of Section 14 of the gvwb jÛvwis cÖwZ‡iva AvBb 2012, which must be taken into consideration by trial Court when considering an application praying for freezing the bank account of a 3rd party not apparently connected to the money laundering case, to the effect that the ACC has brought Ò‡µvK‡hvM¨ Gi mc‡ÿ hyw³ I cÖv_wgK cÖgvbvw`|Ó  The vague assertion that ÔcÖZ¨ÿ I c‡ivÿfv‡e A_© ¯’vbvwšÍwiZ n‡q‡QÕ cannot be a ground for allowing an application under Section 14 of the gvwb jÛvwis cÖwZ‡iva AvBb 2012, The financial affairs of the citizen cannot be left to the whim and caprice  of ACC to raise allegation vaguely that the same has connection with any money laundering case and hence the impugned order of freezing the 8 (eight) bank accounts was quashed.. . . (22 and 23).
 
Mr. Shah Monjurul Hoque, Advocate
Kazi Akter Hossain, Advocate.
. . . For the Petitioner.
Mr.  Md. Zakir Hossain Ripon, AAG    
. . .For the State.
Mr. Khorshed Alam Khan, Advocate
. . . For the A. C. C.
 
Criminal Miscellaneous Case No. 51661 of 2013
 
JUDGMENT
Md. Abu Tariq, J:
 
Pursuant to an application under Section 561A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, this Rule was issued upon the opposite-parties to show cause as to why the order No. 08 dated 04.07.2013, freezing the Bank account of the petitioner Md. Ariful Hoque, by the learned Sessions Judge, Rajshahi, in Money Laundering Case No. 01 of 2012, arising out of Shah Makhdum Police Station Case No. 07 dated 21.11.2011 under Section 4(2) of the মানি লন্ডারিং প্রতিরোধ আইন, ২০০৯ read with Section 109 of the Penal Code, now pending in the Court of learned Sessions Judge, Rajshahi, shall not be quashed.
 
It has been stated in the instant application that on 21.11.2011, one Mr. Md. Manjur Murshed, Deputy Director, Anti Corruption Commission, Coordinated District Office, Rajshahi, as an informant lodged a First Information Report, (FIR) with Shah Makhdum Police Station, Metropolitan, Rajshahi against one Md. Eklash Uddin as accused No. 1 and one Mr. Aminur Rahman, Manager NCC Bank Ltd., Rajshahi  as accused No. 2 alleging, interalia, that accused No. 1 Md. Eklas Uddin illegally earned great deal of money amounting to Tk. 8,22,55,098.00 through committing predicate offence during the tenure of his holding the post of Cashier in Rajshahi Unnayan Kortipakhhya (RDA) and by laundering the said money through the Bank account maintained in the NCC Bank Ltd., Rajshahi with the collaboration of the accused No. 2 Manager of the said branch of NCC Bank Limited, Rajshahi Branch. Mr. Aminur Rahman upon which the accused No. 1 Md. Eklas Uddin laundered Tk. 82255098/- (eight crore twenty two lac fifty five thousand and ninety eight taka) in the name of fake businessman, thereby committed offence under section 4 (2) of the মানি লন্ডারিং প্রতিরোধ আইন, ২০০৯ read with section 109 of Penal Code, 1860 since 1979. The accused  No. 1 was holding the post of Cashier in RDA at a basic salary of Tk. 9,435.00 P. M. in the scale of Tk. 5500-345 X 7-7915-eb-380 X 11-12095. In that period, the accused No. 1 illegally earned Tk. 7,68,00000 ( seven crore and sixty eight lacs) through committing predicate offence. The authority of Rajshahi Unnayan Kortipakhaya (RDA) has already lodged a criminal case against the accused No. 1 Md. Eklas Uddin, with the Shah Mokhdom Police Station, being No. 06 dated 11-07-2011 under Sections 409/486/477 of Penal Code 1860 and under Section 5 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 and prior to that also sent a letter to the Bangladesh Bank, through memo No. 040.001.000. 137.000.2011-4038 dated 19-04-2011, to freeze his accounts for recovering the illegally earned money, pursuant to which the Bangladesh Bank instructed, through Memo No. AMLD-23/2011-2143-2190 dated 20.04.2011, all the scheduled Banks to stop the transaction of all Bank accounts in the name of accused No. 1 Md. Eklasuddin or in the name of his family members. Later, the Bangladesh Bank sent the report to Anti Corruption Commission regarding 31 Bank accounts in 9 banks in the name of either the accused No. 1 Md. Eklas Uddin or in the name of his six family members. The informant, thereafter, himself made an enquiry, through office order No. E/R No. 15/2011 and during the enquiry the informant found existence of different bank accounts in the name of the accused No. 1, Md. Eklas Uddin in different banks which was shown in the table described in the FIR.
 
The accused No. 1 Eklas Uddin (not the petitioner) deposited Tk. 1,12,96000 + 51,12,500+ 51,12,500 as FDR in three different accounts in NCC Bank Ltd., Rajshahi Branch. He returned from his account No. 004103101 0014062 an amount of 2 corrore twenty two lacs to the authority of RDA and deposited twice an amount of Tk. 2,15,21,000.00 in NCC Bank for which the same is required to be deducted from the total laundered amount. The accused Md. Eklas Uddin practically deposited a total money of Tk. 11,36,87,586-3,00,61,000 =8,36,26,586 in the said NCC Bank. He purchased landed property in Mouza Gheepara through deed No. 3554 of 2009, registered in Sadar Sub Registry Office, Rajshahi by investing Tk. 6,00,000.00. During his service tenure the accused No. 1 received a total amount as salary Tk. 19,71,488 and as such he laundered an amount of total money (a) During his service tenure Tk. 8,36,26,586 (b) By purchasing wealth at Tk. 6,00,000 (c) Total (a+b)= Tk. 8,42,26,586 (d) He got total salary and allowances of Tk. 19,71,488 (e) During his service tenure he withdrawn money from his account of different bank of Tk. XXX (f) He laundered total money of Tk. (c-d-e)= Tk. 8,22,55,098. The accused No. 1 Md. Eklas Uddin had no source of income other than the salary and allowances yet during his service tenure, since 1979 to 2011, he deposited in the Bank total amount of Tk. 11,36,87,586 in different bank among them he laundered an amount of Tk. 8,22,55,098. Now Tk. 2,35.31,622 has been freezed in different banks and he returned Tk. 2,22,00,000 to the authority of RDA. Currently, there remains a balance of Tk. 2, 35,31,622 in 21 accounts in different bank in the name of the accused No. 1 Md. Eklas Uddin and those accounts were opened during his service tenure. Among these accounts there is loan account where Tk. 5,02,276 is overdue in respect of car purchasing. During the enquiry of the informant, it appears that the accused  No. 1 Md. Eklas Uddin could not have any savings out of his monthly salary of Tk. 9,435.00, after making family expenditure for his two wife and childrens. The deposited money in the Bank are illegally earned money of the accused No. 1, who procured a trade license on 14.05.2009 in the name of "Mia Khamar Bari" from Nauhat Pauroshova, Poba, Rajshahi but he is not a real businessman but service holder. The accused Eklas Uddin earned the alleged money illegally from RDA and he did not submit any documents to the NCC bank about earning of the said money. On 18.10.2009 he procured an Income Tax Identification Number being 469-106-0191 and he showed his wealth valued at only Tk. 5,05,119.00 in the fiscal year 2009-2010. He has no business, Bank balance and other property except his service, which is the lone source of his income which has been mentioned in the income tax return. In 2010-2011 fiscal, year the accused No. 1 Md. Eklas Uddin disclosed his wealth valued at Tk. 6,50,087.00. But during that time he deposited crores of money in the bank but he did not mention the same in the return. With the collaboration of the accused No. 2 Mr. Aminur Rahman, Branch Manager, NCC Bank Ltd., Rajshahi the accused No. 1 Md. Eklas Uddin opened account, being No. 0041-0310014062 on 03.06.2010 and he deposited most of the money in that account of the bank. During the enquiry it appears that on 03.06.2010 to March 2011 (in 9 months) the accused No. 1 deposited Tk. 4,55,53,00 in that account and he withdrawn Tk. 3,96,00,000 in different times from the said account of the bank. The accused No. 2 Md. Aminur Rahman Branch Manager of the said bank, did not discharge his official liability properly although suspicious transaction was taken place in that account and even the said Manager did not send any report to Bangladesh Bank of the two accounts of the accused No. 1 where Tk. 2 crores were kept as FDR.  The aforesaid Branch Manager accused No. 2, assisted the accused No. 1 Md. Eklas Uddin to launder the alleged money knowing fully his social status, service and income source.  Even though the said Branch Manager adjusted the debt of Tk. 44,72,576 as a guarantor before expiring the term loan taken by the accused No. 1, by breaching the banking regulation. The informant sent the enquiry report to the Head Office, ACC, Dhaka though Memo No. 1442 dated 24.10.2011. The accused Md. Eklas Uddin committed offence under Section 4(2) of the Money Laundering Prevention Act, 2009 read with section 109 of the Penal Code, 1860 for which the authority of  ACC, Dhaka lodged the instant case against the accused No. 1 Md. Eklas Uddin and the accused No. 2 Mr. Aminur Rahman on the basis of Memo being No. দুদক/বিঃ অনুঊ ও তদ¿¹ ১/মানি লন্ডারিং/২৭-২০১১/২২৯৩৬  dated 15.11.2011 and দুদক/বিকা/বগুড়া/২২০৭ dated 21.11.2011.
 
The aforesaid FIR was registered as Shah Makhdum Police Station Case No. 07 dated 21.11.2011 corresponding to M. G. R No. 1369 of 2011 under Section 4(2) of the মানি লন্ডারিং প্রতিরোধ আইন, ২০০৯ read with Section 109 of the Penal Code. The said case was investigated by the informant himself who examined the witnesses, confiscated the relevant records in the Bank and upon finding the guilt of the accused No. 1 Md. Eklas Uddin submitted charge sheet against the accused No. 1 Md. Eklas uddin and recommended for exoneration of the accused No. 2 Md. Aminur Rahman as no evidence of offence was found against him. The said charge was numbered as Shah Mukdum Police Station Charge Sheet No. 82 dated 01.10.2012 under Section 4(2) of the মানি লন্ডারিং প্রতিরোধ আইন, ২০০৯ read with Section 109 of the Penal Code.
 
On 04.07.2013 the said case, being Money Laundering No. 1/2012, was fixed for charge hearing whereupon the public prosecutor on behalf of the Anti Corruption Commission, Rajshahi, filed two applications, one praying for further investigation of the case stating the reason that Bangladesh Financial Intelligence Unit has found some other Bank accounts which are connected with the accused No. 1 Md. Eklas Uddin and through other application prayed for freezing seven accounts in the name of one Mosammat Nasrin and eight accounts in the name of the instant petitioner Md. Ariful Hoque in Marchantile Bank, Rajshahi branch and one account in the name of Sahana Pervin, the  daughter of accused No. 1, Eklas Uddin in Marchantile Bank, Satmoshjid Road     Branch, Dhaka stating that the accused Md. Eklas Uddin has interest in those bank accounts.
 
Upon hearing the said applications the learned District and Sessions Judge, Rajshahi by his order No. 8 dated 04.07.2013 allowed the application, praying for freezing seven bank accounts in the name of Mosammat Nasrin and  eight accounts in the name of the instant petitioner Md. Ariful Hoque and one account in the name of Sahana Parvin, as aforesaid, on the ground that the financial intelligence unit  has discovered those accounts as connected with the accused   No. 1 Md. Eklas Uddin. Later, the application praying for further investigation was also allowed by the order dated 09.09.2013.
 
Challenging the said order No. 8 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Rajshahi, in Money Laundering Case No. 01 of 2012 the instant petitioner Md. Ariful Hoque filed this instant application under Section 561A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 and obtained the Rule.
 
The learned Advocate Mr. Shah Monjurul Hoque appearing on behalf of the accused-petitioner in order to substantiate as to the maintainability of the instant application under Section 561A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 submits that the petitioner has been seriously prejudiced by the impugned order which was unknown to him due to violation of the Provision of Section 14(3) of the Money Laundering Protirodh Ain, 2012, since neither any gazette notification was made nor the impugned order was published in two widely circulated National News Paper. The impugned order No. 8 was passed on 04.07.2013 by the learned District and Sessions Judge, Rajshahi, and the petitioner came to know about that order on 01.09.2013 though a letter issued by a Bank Manager, in the meantime, the statutory period of 30 days for preferring appeal under Section 16 of the মানি লন্ডারিং প্রতিরোধ আইন, ২০১২ has elapsed and now the petitioner has no other alternative but to file this instant application under Section 561A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 for securing ends of justice. The learned Advocate Mr. Monjurul Hoque contends that the process of the Court has been abused by the impugned order No. 08 due to violation of statutory provision and as such the petitioners is entitled to invoke the inherent jurisdiction of this highest Court.
 
The learned Advocate Mr. Shah Monjurul Hoque strenuously argued that the petitioner was neither an accused in the Money Laundering Case No. 01 of 2012 nor the petitioner has any connection or relationship with the accused No. 1 Md. Eklas Uddin nor any money was ever transferred from the account of the accused No. 1 Md. Eklas Uddin to the accounts of the instant petitioner nor any proof of such transfer submitted by the ACC along with the application under Section 14 of the Act. The eight bank accounts belonging to the petitioner are independent accounts of the instant petitioner, out of which seven accounts are FDR account and one is savings account and therefore, the claim of transferring money from the account of accused Md. Eklas Uddin to the account of the petitioner does not arise at all as same is inconsistent with the banking rules and practice.
 
The learned Advocate Mr. Monjurul Hoque categorically argued that excepting mentioning vaguely in the application as to so called “directly or indirectly transferring money” nothing evidence was produced or stated by the ACC in the application and as such the same was not allowable under Section 14 of the Money Laundering Act, 2012.
 
The learned Advocate Mr. Monjurul Hoque further vigorously argued that the order of learned District and Sessions Judge, Rajshahi  freezing the bank accounts of the petitioner is absolutely illegal and the same was passed without having any jurisdiction in as much as only the Special Judge appointed under Section 3 of the Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1958 has jurisdiction to pass an order for freezing a bank account upon an application filed under Section 14 of the Money Laundering Protirodh Ain, 2012. The learned District and Sessions Judge, Rajshahi did not pass the order in such capacity of Special Judge, which is apparent on the face of the order. Hence, the impugned order is liable to be quashed.
 
On the other hand the learned Advocate Mr. Khorshed Alam Khan appearing on behalf of the Anti Corruption Commission heavily assailed the maintainability of the instant petition under Section 561A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 and argued that the petitioner Md. Ariful Hoque is not an accused in the Money Laundering Case No. 01 of 2012 and as such there is no locus standi of the petitioner to file the instant application under Section 561A of the of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 and his relief, if any, lies in an appeal which may be filed under the Provision of Section 16 of the “মানি লন্ডারিং প্রতিরোধ আইন ২০১২”, which since became time barred the instant petition under Section 561A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 is not Maintainable.
 
Mr. Khorshed Alam Khan further strenuously argued that the bank accounts of the petitioner are connected to the accused No. 1 Md. Eklas Uddin in as much as money from the accounts of the accused No. 1 Md. Eklas Uddin were transferred to eight accounts of the petitioner maintained in Marchantile Bank, Rajshahi Branch, directly or indirectly which was categorically mentioned in the application along with the submission of the report prepared by the Financial  Intelligence unit of the Government as such the learned Sessions Judge rightly passed the impugned order. The learned District and Sessions Judge, Rajshahi is a Special Judge, appointed under Section 3 of the Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1958 and as such the impugned order No. 8 was lawfully passed by the Special Judge, Rajshahi. 
 
The learned Advocate Mr. Khorshed Alam Khan candidly submits that if the Rule is made absolute then an avenue will be opened through which any person may come before the High Court Division under Section 561A of the Code of Criminal Procedure without being an accused and in that case the purpose of prevention of money laundering statute will be frustrated.
 
The learned Assistant Attorney General Mr. Md. Zakir Hossain Ripon, appearing on behalf of the State, adopted the arguments as advanced by of the learned Advocate Mr. Khoshed Alam Khan.
 
We have heard the learned Advocate of both the parties. Perused the impugned order and other materials on record. We have also considered  the purpose and object of the money laundering prevention statute.  
 
Admittedly, the Money laundering Case No. 01 of 2012 has been pending before senior Special Judge, Rajshahi and the impugned order No. 8 was passed not by the Senior Special Judge, Rajshahi in Money Laundering Case No. 01 of 2012 on 04.07.2013, but by the learned District and Sessions Judge, Rajshahi. Whether the learned District and Sessions Judge, Rajshahi was appointed as Special Judge, under the provision of Section 3 Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1958 is not the question to be considered, but question to be considered is whether the petitioner is satisfied that he has been dealt with by a proper Court as “justice not only to be done but also must be seen to have been done”. The order sheet containing the impugned order No. 8 does not show that the same was passed by the Special Judge, rather it is apparently clear that the learned District and Sessions Judge has passed the impugned order. Therefore, this Court find merit in the submissions made by the petitioner in this respect.  
 
The Provision of Section 16 of the মানি লন্ডারিং প্রতিরোধ আইন ২০১২ requires any person aggrieved by any order passed in money laundering case, to file appeal against the order within 30 days before the High Court Division. The said Provision of Section 16 of the aforesaid Act reads as follows:
 
মানি লন্ডারিং প্রতিরোধ আইন ২০১২
ধারা-১৬- সম্পত্তি  অবরুদ্ধকরণ বা এ্রোক আদেশের বিরুদ্ধে আপীল- (১) এই আইনের অধীন আদালত কোন সম্পত্তির অবরুদ্ধকরণ বা এ্রোক আদেশ প্রদান করিলে উও্ররুপ আদেশের বিরুদ্ধে সংক্ষুব্ধ ব্যও্রি বা সত্তা ৩০  (এিশ) দিনের মধ্যে হাইকোর্ট বিভাগে আপীল করিতে পারিবেনz
  (২) উপ-ধারা (১)   এর অধীন কোন আপীল দায়ের করা হইলে আপীল আদালত পক্ষবৃন্দকে,  শুানানীর জন্য যুও্রিসঙ্গত সময় দিয়া, শুনানী অ¿¿¹ যেইরুপ উপযুও্র মনে করিবে সেইরুপ আদেশ প্রদান করিতে পারিবেz
(৩) ধারা ১৪  এর অধীন কোন সম্পত্তির বিষয়ে আদালত কর্তৃক প্রদত্ত অবরুদ্ধকরণ বা ত্র্রোক আদেশের বিরুদ্ধে কোন সংক্ষুব্ধ ব্যও্রি বা সত্তা আপীল করিলে এবং আপীল আদালত কর্তৃক ভিন্নরুপ কোন আদেশ প্রদান করা না হইলে আপীল নিষ্পত্তি না হওয়া পর্য¿¹ উও্ররুপ অবরুদ্ধকরণ বা ত্র্রোক আদেশ কার্যকর থাকিবেz
 
The maintainability of the instant petition under Section 561A of the Code has been seriously assailed by the ACC on two grounds. First being that there is Appeal provision in the Statute and the 2nd being that the petitioner is not an accused in the Money Laundering Case No. 01 of 2012. Both these two grounds appears to have no merit in as much as the opposite party could not produce any evidence to show that the impugned order was published either in the official gazette or in two daily national newspaper complying the provision of Section 14 (3) of the মানি লন্ডারিং প্রতিরোধ আইন ২০১২, wherefrom it may be treated that the petitioner became aware of the fact of passing the impugned order, mandating him to avail the opportunity of preferring appeal, thereby to make the instant petition under Section 561A non-maintainable. Secondly, the learned Advocate Mr. Khorshed Alam Khan did not notice that the provision of Section 16 of the said Act entitled ‘any person aggrieved’ “ (সংক্ষুব্ধ ব্যও্রি বা সত্তা) to file an appeal before the High Court Division, subject to the fact that the “person aggrieved” is aware of such order through the published Gazette Notification or from publication in two national daily news paper. This has since not been done, the abuse of the process of the Court is apparent on the face of the circumstances, thereby entitling the petitioner to prefer an application under Section 561A of the Code in order to prevent the abuse of the process of the court. Therefore, this Court finds that the instant petition under Section 561A is squarely maintainable.
 
Admittedly, the petitioner is not an accused in the Money Laundering Case No. 01 of 2012. Upon application,  filed by the ACC under the provision of Section 14 of the মানি লন্ডারিং প্রতিরোধ আইন ২০১২, the learned District and Sessions Judge,  Rajshahi, freezed the Bank accounts of the petitioner, eight is number, by the impugned order No. 8. The contents of the application reads as follows: 
 
The provision of Section 14(2) of the Money Laundering Protirodh Ain, 2012 requires that the Anti Corruption Commission produce some information and evidence as to the liability under the money laundering law with the application   praying for freezing or attachment of property before the Court. The entire provision of Section 14 of the said Act is reproduced below;

মানি লন্ডারিং প্রতিরোধ আইন ২০১২
ধারাঃ ১৪ সম্পওির অরুদ্ধকরণ (পক্ষননzভশফ) বা এ্রোক (Attachment) আদেশ-(১) দুর্নীতি দমন কমিশন বা তৎকর্তৃক ক্ষমতাপ্রাপ্ত কোন ব্যও্রি বা সংসহার লিখিত আবেদনের ভিত্তিতে আদালত দেশে বা দেশের বাহিরে অবসিহত মানিলন্ডারিং অপরাধ বা অন্য কোন অপরাধের সহিত সম্পৃও্র সম্পত্তি অবরুদ্ধকরণ বা এ্রোক আদেশ প্রদান করিতে পারিবেz
(২) Dc-aviv (1) এর অধীন দুর্নীতি দমন কমিশন বা তৎকর্তৃক ক্ষমতাপ্রাপ্ত কোন ব্যক্তি বা সংসহা কোন সম্পত্তির অবরুদ্বকরণ বা ত্র্রোধ আদেশের জন্য আদালতে লিখিত আবেদন দাখিলের সময় উহাতে নিম্নবর্ণিত তথ্যাদি উল্লেখ করিবে, যথা-
(ক) অবরুদ্বকরণ বা ত্র্রোধ আদেশের নিমিত্ত সম্পত্তির পূর্ণ বিবরণ,
(খ) সম্পত্তিটি মানিলন্ডারিং বা অন্য কোন অপরাধের জন্য ত্র্রোক যোগ্য এর সপক্ষে যুক্তি ও প্রাথমিক প্রমাণাদি,
(গ) প্রার্থীত আবেদন মোতাবেক আদালত কর্তূক আদেশ প্রদান করা না হইলে অভিযোগ নিম্পত্তির পূর্বেই সম্পত্তিঢি~ অন্যত্র সহানাা¿¹র বা বেহাত হইবার আশংকাz
(৩) উপ-ধারা (১) এর অধীন কোন অবরুদ্ধকরণ বা  ত্র্রোক আদেশ প্রদান করা হইলে আদালত সম্পত্তির পূর্ণ বিবরণসহ বিষয়টি সর্বসাধারণের অবগতির জন্য সরকারি গেজেট এবং অন্যূন ২ (দুই) টি বহzল প্রচারিত জাতীয় ~~দনিক পত্রিকায় (১ এেক) টি বাংলা ও ১ (এক) টি ইংরেজী) বিজ্ঞপ্তি আকারে প্রচার করিবেz
(৪) এই ধারার অধীন অবরুদ্ধকরণ বা ত্র্রোক আদেশে অভিযুও্র ব্যও্রির নাম, পিতা, মাতার নাম, স্বামী বা স»ীর নাম, জাতীয়তা, পদবী (যদি থাকে), পেশা, ট্যাক্স পরিচিতি নম্বর (ঝঐগ), বর্তমান ও সহায়ী ঠিকানা এবং অন্য কোন পরিচিতি, যতদূর সম্ভব, উল্লেখ থাকিবেz তবে, এই সকল তথ্যের সামান্য ত্র্রটি বিচ্যুতির কারণে এই আইনের বিধান কার্যকর করা বাধাগ্রস¹ হইবে নাz
(৫) উপ-ধারা (৬) এর বিধান সাপেক্ষে, এই ধারার অধীন কোন ব্যও্রির সম্পত্তি অবরুদ্ধকরণ বা ত্র্রোকের জন্য আদালত আদেশ প্রদান করিলে আদেশ কার্যকর থাকাকালীন, আদালত কর্তৃক ভিন্নরুপ কোন আদেশ প্রদান করা না হইলে, উও্র সম্পত্তি কোনভাবে বা প্রকারে অন্যত্র হস¹া¿¹র, উও্র সম্পত্তি সংশ্লিষ্ট কোন প্রকার লেনদেন বা উও্র সম্পত্তিকে কোনভাবে দায়যুও্র করা যাইবে নাz
(৬) কোন ব্যও্রির ব্যাংক একাউন্ট অবরুদ্ধকরণ আদেশ কার্যকর থাকা অবসহায় উও্র আদেশে ভিন্নরুপ উল্লেখ না থাকিলে, উও্র ব্যও্রি প্রাপ্য হইয়াছে এইরুপ সমুদয় অর্থ তাহার অবরুদ্ধ ব্যাংক একাউন্টে জমা করা যাইবে
 
From a meticulous reading of the application, filed by the ACC under Section 14 of the মানি লন্ডারিং প্রতিরোধ আইন ২০১২, this Court failed to find any materials or evidence to substantiate the claim that these accounts of the petitioner has any connection with the Bank accounts of the accused No. 1 Eklas Uddin,  excepting an assertion that “উপরোল্লিখ একাউন্ট সমূহে আসামীর হিসাব হতে প্রত্যক্ষ ও পরোক্ষভাবে অর্থ সহানা¿¹রিত হয়েছেz ”  Such an assertion  of “direct” and “indirect” transfer of money being vague, not evidencing any particulars transfer of money, disclosing the date, amount of money or any other particulars, so, as to prove that the accused No. 1 Md. Eklas Uddin has interest in these accounts of the instant petitioner, the freezing of the accounts appear to be not legal. The legislature has protected the citizens from being harassed by any money laundering case by providing certain protection in the Provision of Section 14 of the মানি লন্ডারিং প্রতিরোধ আইন ২০১২, which must be taken into consideration by trial Court when considering an application praying for freezing the bank account of a 3rd party not apparently connected to the money laundering case, to the effect that the ACC has brought ত্র্রোকযোগ্য এর সপক্ষে যুও্রি ও প্রাথমিক প্রমানাদি”.
 
In the instant case the ACC has failed to mention the minimum proof as to the transfer of money from the account of the accused No. 1 Md. Eklas Uddin to the account of the instant petitioner. The ACC neither mention the account number of the accused No. 1 wherefrom the money was transferred nor mentioned the particulars of such transfer in any manner. The vague assertion that "প্রত্যক্ষ ও পরোক্ষভাবে অর্থ সহানা¿¹রিত হয়েছে" cannot be a ground for allowing an application under Section 14 of the মানি লন্ডারিং প্রতিরোধ আইন, ২০১২, The financial affairs of the citizen cannot be left to the whim and caprice of ACC to raise allegation vaguely that the same has connection with any money laundering case. That being happened in the instant case, this Court finds merit in the rule and accordingly, the rule is required to be made absolute.
 
In the result, the rule is made absolute. The order No. 08 dated 04.7.2013 passed by the learned District and Sessions Judge, Rajshahi, in Money Laundering Case No. 01 of 2012, freezing the 8 (eight) bank accounts of the petitioner is hereby quashed.
 
The investigating officer is directed to complete the investigation as per provision provided in law within 6(six) months positively if, not completed in the meantime.
 
However, there shall be no order as to cost.
 
Ed.

Reference: 4 LNJ (2015) 126