State Vs. Md. Chowdhury Alam, VII ADC (2010) 346

Case No: Criminal Petition for Leave to Appeal No. 70 of 2009

Judge: Md. Abdul Matin,

Court: Appellate Division ,,

Advocate: Mr. Rafique-ul-Huq,Enayatur Rahim,,

Citation: VII ADC (2010) 346

Case Year: 2010

Appellant: State

Respondent: Md. Chowdhury Alam

Subject: Bail,

Delivery Date: 2009-03-01


Supreme Court
Appellate Division
(Criminal)
 
Present:
MM Ruhul Amin, CJ.
Mohammad Fazlul Karim, J.
Md. Tafazzul Islam, J.
Md. Joynul Abedin, J.
Md. Abdul Matin, J.
 
The State, repre­sented by the Deputy Commissioner, Dhaka
……….….......Petitioner
Vs
Md. Chowdhury Alam
……..…..........Respondent
 
Judgment
March 1, 2009.
 
Criminal Appeal granting bail for a period of 4 months. …. (1)
Rules 15 (Gha )(1), 15 (Gha)(2)  of the Emergency Power Rules, 2007 (hereinafter referred to as the said rules), Sections 18 and 26(1) of the said Act directed him to submit his statement of assets and the statement of assets of his wife, children and others within 75 hours from the date of receipt of the said notice. …. (5)
It appears that High Court Division while granting bail considered the health condition of the appellant respondent and granted bail and the appeal being  still pending this Court is not inclined to interfere at this stage and accordingly the petition is dismissed……(14)
 
Lawyers Involved:
Enayetur Rahim, Additional Attorney General instructed by Mrs. Sufia Khatun, Advocate -on-Record-For the Petitioner.
Rafique-ul Huq, Senior Advocate (Ahsanul Karim, Advocate with him) instructed by Mvi. Md. Wahidullah, Advocate-on-Record-For the Respondent.
 
Criminal Petition for Leave to Appeal No. 70 of 2009.
(From order dated 15.02.2009 passed by the High Court Division in Criminal Appeal No. 8020 of 2008.)
 
JUDGMENT
 
Md. Abdul Matin J.
 
This petition for leave to appeal is directed against the order dated 15.02.2009 passed by the High Court Division in Criminal Appeal No. 8020 of 2008 granting bail for a period of 4(four) months.
 
2. The short facts giving rise to the present petition are as under:-
The respondent surrendered before the Court of Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Dhaka in connection with Ramna P.S. Case No. 53(12)206 on 22.02.2007 and the Court of Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Dhaka vide order dated 22.02.2007 sent him to custody. Thereafter in connection with Ramna P.S. Case No. 53 (12)2006, the petitioner-respondent was shown arrested in the said case by the Court of Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Dhaka vide order No.7 dated 03.07.2007.
 
3. The Government of Bangladesh vide notification dated 15.12.2008 lifted Emergency with effect from 17.12.2008. Further, the President of the Republic promulgated the Emergency Power Ordinance, 2007 and Emergency Power Rules, 2007.
 
4. Briefly the prosecution case is that Secretary of the Anti-Corruption Commissioner (the said Commissioner) served a notice under Rules 15(Ghao) (1), 15(Gha) (2) of the Emergency Power Rules, 2007 (hereinafter referred to as the said Rules), Sections 18 and 26(1) of the said Act directed him to submit his state­ment of assets and the statement of assets of his wife, children and others within 75 hours from the date of receipt of the said notice.
 
5. He prepared his statement of assets for reaching the same to the said Commissioner within the time limit set by its Secretary.
 
6. Thereafter, one Md. Abdul Latif, Assistant Director, Anti-Corruption Commissioner, Dhaka lodged an First Information Report (FIR) with Khilgaon Police Station, Dhaka on 13.06.2007 being Khilgaon P.S. Case No.30 (6)07 alleging, inter-alia, that on his enquiry he came to know that the respondent violated the Anti-Corruption Commissioner Act, 2004 by concealing the description of his property in his statement of asset. Scrutinizing his statements of asset as mentioned under the "Income/Received" heading the total income of the respondent was found to be Tk. 1,28,41,800.00 and from the description given by the respon­dent under the "Expenditure/Payment" the total amount of expenses was found to be of Tk. 5,56,76,070/- among which immov­able property of Tk. 4,42,70,581/- and moveable property Tk. 1,14,05,489.75. As per the Income Tax Return submitted by the respondent in the income tax year 2006-2007, the respondent has property of Tk. 1,18,76,630/- and the wife of the peti­tioner-respondent has property worth Tk. 2,78,15,987/- total  property  worth Tk. 5,56,76,070/-. As per the Income Tax Return for the year 2006-2007 the respon­dent has  property of Tk. 1,18,15,987/-totaling Tk. 3,96,92,617/-among which amount of Tk. 3,95,05,697/- was legalized (whitened) under SRO No. 200-ain/2005. That property worth of Tk. 1,19,83,453/- is disproportionate to the latest income tax return filed by the respondent and his wife who have been acquired through unlaw­ful means and beyond known source of income. During the enquiry it was found that the respondent has been possessing property of Tk. 9, 75, 26,646/- in the name of his son Abu Saied Chowdhury, his wife of Hasina Chowdhury, his two daughters namely Mahmuda Akter and Mahfuza Akter, his son-in-law Selim Miah, brother-in-law Rahmat Ali Labu, his brother Khorshed Alam Mintu, his nephew Zumman, his two sisters namely, Samsun Nahar and Noor Nahar. But the respondent himself is the owner of the said property of Tk.9,75, 26,646/- which he has been holding in the name of his relatives to con­ceal his illegal property. The property worth of Tk.6,53,10,099/- is inconsistent with the latest income tax return of the respondent his relatives which is in fact the property of the respondent acquired beyond his known source of income and Hasina Chowdhury, Abu Sayed Chowdhury, Mahmuda Akter Monica, Mohammad Selim Miah, Rahmat Ali Labu and Khorshed Ali Mintu abetted the offence. Respondent has concealed the information as to his illegal property. The respondent has concealed the information as to his property worth Tk. 92,60,543/- in his statement of asset. The respondent and to there accused in collusion with each other committed offence under Sections 26(2) and 27(1) of the Anti-Corruption Commission Act, 2004, Section 5(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947, Rule 15(Ghoa) 5 of Emergency Power Rules 2007 and Section 109 of the Penal Code by acquiring property worth of Tk.6,53,10,099/- through illegal mean and beyond known source of income and by concealing property worth of Tk. 92,60,543/- in his statement of asset submitted to the Anti-Corruption Commission. In the said FIR the time of occurrence has been shown from the year 1968 to February 2007.
 
7. The said FIR was recorded as Khilgaon Police Station Case No. 30 dated 13.06.2007 which was subsequently recorder as A.C.C. G. R. Case No. 46 of 2007. The investigation officer, after com­pletion of the investigation, submitted charge sheet being charge sheet No. 600 on 02.10.2007 against respondent amongst others for committing  offence under Sections 26 and 27 of the Anti Corruption Commission Act, 2004  and  Rule 15(Goha) 5 of the Emergency Power Rules, 2007 read with Section 109 of the Penal Code.
 
8. The Court of Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Dhaka accepted the said charge sheet and transferred the case for disposal by the Court of Metropolitan Senior Special Judge, Dhaka ultimately, the said case was transferred to the Court of Special Judge, Court No.3, Dhaka for holding trial.
 
9. During the course of trial, the Court of Special Judge, Court No. 3 Dhaka exam­ined 90 (ninety) prosecution witness whereas the defence examined 2 (two) witnesses including the respondent him­self. After conclusion of the trial the court of Special Judge, Court No.3, Dhaka vide order dated 26.06.2008 convicted the respondent and sentenced him to suffer simple imprisonment for 3 (three) years under Section 26(2) of the Anti-Corruption Act, 2004 read with Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as to said Act of 1947) and sentenced him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 10(ten) years and to pay fine of Tk. 1,00,00,000/- (Taka one crore) in default to suffer 1 (one) year rig­orous imprisonment more and directed the sentences shall run consecutively and con­fiscated Tk.4,97,93,988/- and other move-able properties of the respondent and other accused in favour of the State which are disproportionate to their valid source of income.
 
10. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the order dated 26.06.2008 the instant   appellant preferred Criminal Appeal No.8020 of 2008 before the High Court Division and in the pending appeal the High Court Division granted bail by order dated 15.02.2009.
 
11. As against the judgment and order of the High Court Division the petitioner has filed this petition for leave to appeal.
 
12. Heard Mr. Enayetur Rahim, learned Additional Attorney General and perused the petition and the impugned judgment and order of the High Court Division and other papers on record.
 
13. It appears that the High Court Division while granting bail considered the health condition of the appellant respondent and granted bail and the appeal being still pending this Court is not inclined to inter­fere at this stage and accordingly the peti­tion is dismissed.
 
Ed.