The Anti-Corruption Commission v. A.B.M. Khalilor Rahman and others

Case No: CRIMINAL PETITION FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL NO. 20 OF 2012

Judge: Muhammad Imman Ali,

Court: Appellate Division ,,

Advocate: A.S.M. Khalequzzaman,Syed Mahbubar Rahman,,

Case Year: 2014

Appellant: The Anti-Corruption Commission

Respondent: A.B.M. Khalilor Rahman

Subject: Corruption,

Delivery Date: 2014-06-01

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BANGLADESH

Appellate Division


PRESENT

 Madam Justice Nazmun Ara Sultana  

Mr. Justice Syed Mahmud Hossain

Mr. Justice Muhammad Imman Ali


CRIMINAL  PETITION  FOR  LEAVE  TO  APPEAL  NO. 20 OF 2012

(From the judgement and order dated 10th of August, 2011 passed by the High Court Division in Criminal Miscellaneous Case No.28092 of 2010)


The Anti-Corruption Commission represented by its Chairman, Head Office, 1 Shegunbagicha, Raman, Dhaka.

 

... Petitioner

  = Versus =

 

 

A.B.M. Khalilor Rahman and others

... Respondents

For the Petitioner

 

:Mr. A.S.M. Khalequzzaman, Advocate, instructed by

Mrs. Shahnara Begum,

Advocate-on-Record

For Respondent No. 1

 

: Syed Mahbubar Rahman,

Advocate-on-Record

Respondent No. 2-3

:Not represented

Date of hearing

:The 1st of June, 2014




O R D E R

 MUHAMMAD IMMAN ALI, J:-

The delay of 155 days in filing this criminal petition for leave to appeal is hereby condoned.

This criminal petition for leave to appeal is directed against the judgement and order dated 10.08.2011 passed by a Division Bench of the High Court Division in Criminal Miscellaneous Case No. 28092 of 2010 making the Rule absolute.

The facts necessary for disposal of the case, in short, are that one Md. Abul Hasan, Assistant Director, Anti-Corruption Commission, Co-ordinated District Office, Barisal as informant on 23.03.2009 lodged a First Information Report with Muladi Police Station against the respondent and another alleging inter alia that one Md. Anwar Hossain, Head Master of 77 No. Cailmari Government Primary School, Muladi filed an allegation with the office of the informant on 22.03.2009 against the respondent alleging that the accused respondent demanded Taka 3000/- as bribe to hand over two cheques of 6685/- and 9775/-. The said Head Master on 19.03.2009 took the cheques by assurance of giving the said amount and accordingly the allegation was submitted to the office of Anti-Corruption Commission, Barisal. Thereafter the Director, Anti-Corruption Commission, Barisal directed the informant to prepare Trap case and the informant on 23.03.2009 in presence of the witnesses made an inventory list of the numbers on 5(five) 500/- Taka bank notes. Thereafter, the informant gave those notes to said Anwar Hossain to give to the accused respondent as bribe.  It is further alleged that thereafter the informant with his forces was waiting outside the office of the accused respondent and the complainant Anwar Hossain handed over the bribe money to the respondent and gave signal to the informant. Accordingly the informant entered into the office of the respondent and challenged him. But no bribe money was found from him. The witness Jakir Hossain stated that he saw the accused respondent taking money from Anwar Hossain. On interrogation the respondent informed that after receiving the envelope, he handed over the same to his Office Assistant Md. Serajul Hoque, after receiving the envelope from accused respondent, Serajul Hoque threw it out of the window sensing the presence of the informant. Accordingly, the envelope with money was recovered as per pointing out of the accused respondent No. 2 and seized. The respondents were arrested by the informant. Hence the case was stared under section 161/165A of the Penal Code read with section 5 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947. 

The accused respondent No. 1 was enlarged on bail by the High Court Division in Criminal Miscellaneous Case No. 6937 of 2009 and the petitioner No. 2 was enlarged on bail by the learned Sessions Judge, Barisal in Criminal Miscellaneous Case No. 268 of 2009. They have been enjoying the privilege of bail.

After conclusion of investigation the Investigating Officer submitted charge-sheet being  Charge Sheet No. 06 dated 21.01.2010  under section 161/165A of the Penal Code read with section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 against the respondents. 

Thereafter, the case record was transmitted to the Court of learned Senior Special Judge, Barisal and the same was numbered as Special Case No. 01 of 2010. Subsequently the case record was transmitted to the Court of Divisional Special Judge, Barisal for disposal. 

The accused respondents filed an application under section 241A of the Code of Criminal Procedure before the trial court for their discharge. After hearing the parties and perusal of the records the learned Judge rejected the said application and framed charge against the respondents under sections 161/165A
of the Penal Code read with section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act by order dated 08.06.2010.

Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the continuation of proceedings of special Case No. 01 of 2010 the respondents filed an application under section 561A of the Code of Criminal Procedure before the High Court Division and obtained Rule. By the impugned judgment and order dated 10.08.2011, the High Court Division made the Rule absolute. Hence, the Anti-Corruption Commission as petitioner has filed the instant criminal petition for leave to appeal before this Division.

Mr. A.S.M. Khalequzzaman, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that there is a prima facie and arguable case disclosed in the First Information Report and ingredients under sections 161/165A of the Penal Code read with section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act were made out in the FIR and as such the impugned judgement and order of the High court Division is bad in law and the same is liable to be set aside.

Mr. Syed Mahbubar Rahman, learned Advocate-on-Record appearing on behalf of the respondent made submission in support of the impugned judgement of the High Court Division.

We have considered the submissions of the learned Advocates appearing for the parties concerned, perused the impugned judgment and order of the High Court Division and other connected papers on record.

  In view of the submissions made by the learned Advocate for the petitioner, we find merit in the criminal petition for leave to Appeal.

Accordingly, leave is granted.

  Preparation of paper book, as prayed for, is dispensed with.