Notice is Not Required to be Served Under Section 27 Against Any Person
27 – Notice is not required to be served under section 27 against any person, is an independent provision and initiation for a proceeding under the provision. If the prosecution can establish that any person has acquired for amassed wealth which is beyond his known source of income, he may be prosecuted and convicted Under section 27(1).- Anti-Corruption Commission Vs.Iqbal Hasn Mahmood (Criminal), 66 DLR (AD) (2014) 185.
27 – The findings made in impugned judgment and also in the case of Mohiuddin Khan Alamgir [15 BLC 107 , Para 97] shall be deemed to have been modified in respect of the assessment made by the PWD officials in that the assessment of valuation of any property made by PWD officials shall have evidentiary value when no such assessment is made and accepted as correct by another independent department of the Government authorized in that behalf.-State vs Faisal Morshed Khan (Criminal), 66 DLR (AD) (2014) 236.
27- There may be a situation when there is no assessment of valuation of any competent authority of the Government exercising power in that behalf and in such a case, the Anti Corruption Commission has no other option but to take the assistance of the PWD in assessment of the valuation of any property.therefore, it cannot be said that the assessment of valuation made by the PWD officials does not have any evidentiary in all situations. – State vs Faisal Morshed Khan (Criminal), 66 DLR (AD) (2014) 236
19 – On the allegation of corruption on any subject matter as well as on the allegation of commission of schedule offences commissioners or the officers of the commission entrusted with the power to enquire is 6-3-18 empowered under Section 19 of the Ain, 2004 read with rules 8 and 20 of the riles, 2007 to direct the person, against whom a complaint is made , to appear before the commission to give explanation either orally or in writing, with a view to find out the correctness of the allegation. Issuance of the order directing the petitioner and 4 others to appear before the Commission to record their statements does not suffer from any illegality requiring interference by his Court.– Shahidullah Miah (Md0 vs Government of Bangladesh (Spl Original), 66 DLR (HCD) (2014) 444.
19 and 20 – No where within the four corners of the notice the respective petitioner has been identified as hence, he has been called upon by the Commission to appear as a witness in connection with an enquiry. As such, it is a notice under section 19(1) of the Ain and a mere quoting of section 20 of the Ain, will not go to violate the effect of the notice. – AKM Khurshid vs Anti-Corruption (Spl Original), 66 DLR (HCD) (2014) 645.
S..26(2) (Ka) – 14 BLC is not applicable in the case as there is no order of stay relating to proceeding by the Hon’ble Appellate Division. Moreover, this Division directed the court below to conclude trial of the case as expeditiously as possible. There is no legal bar in continuation of the proceeding against this petitioner rather it is obligatory upon the trial court to implement the judgment and order according to the provisions of Article III of the Constitution. – Mahmudur Rahman vs State (Criminal) 66 DLR (HCD) (2014) 609.
27(1) – There scope for the accused-petitioner to explain about the matter and rectify the mistake in calculating assets, even if any, at the time or trial as required under section 27(1) of the Act. Prosecution must also be given opportunity to prove the allegation by adducing evidence. The disputed facts are not supposed to be resolved without taking aid of the evidence to be adduced by the parties before the trial court. – Mohidul Islam (Md) vs State (Criminal), 66 DLR (HCD) (2014) 108.
17(T) – One of the function of the Commission is to prescribe the procedure as to the sanction to be given by it in respect of the enquiry, investigation and filling of a case in relation to corruption. Neither in clause nor in clause of section 17, any difference has been made about the offences under the Ain, 2004 or the offences under other laws mentioned in the schedule to the Ain. – Kaisor-uz-Zaman (Md) vs State, represented by the Deputy Commissioner, Sylhet (Criminal), 19 BLC (AD) (2014) 101.
20(1) – The moment the Ain, 2004 came into force, the police had lost its jurisdiction to continue with the investigation of the case and was legally obliged to stop the investigation of the case and same to the Commission to complete the investigation by it and submit the report accordingly.- Kaisor- Uz-Zaman (Md vs State, represented by the Deputy Commissioner, Sylhet (Criminal), 19 BLC (BD) (2014) 101.
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.