ATM Nazimullah Chowdhury VS State and Another (2013)

The fact of the case:

The accused appellant ATM Nazimullah Chowdhury had been an ambassador of Bangladesh to UAE for 2 years. There were several allegations of corruption against him. By making corruption he made 2002209 taka wrongful gain. After making an investigation about his corruption it is found to be true about his corruption. Abdullah Al-Zahid the investigator submitted charge-sheet no 336 dated 28/8/2008 against the accused applicant under section 409 of penal code 1860 read with section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1947.

Issues of the case:

1) Whether the appellant will be liable or not?

2) Will section 409 of Penal Code 1860 be applicable?

Decision:

The High Court division decision was against the appellant.

Justification:

The learned Advocate Mr Fida M Kamal said that the impugned order and sentence can not be maintained in law. They mentioned that the foreign ministry approved hiring a new resident to Mangrove village at a rate of 240000 Dirham. Another learned Advocate on behalf of the appellant said the cost of hiring a new residence in Mangrove Village is legally incurred. He also said that the provision of rule 19 (Jha) of the emergency power rule of 2007 was not followed in the letter and spirit in the matter of service of notice upon the appellant as a result he was not aware of the proceedings and he failed to surrender.

On the contrary, Mr. Harunur Rashid learned Advocate submitted that the learned trial judge minutely followed the procedural due process in respect of the trial of the appellant in absentia and on correct assessment of evidence. Every document that was presented before the court was proved by investigation. The appellant compelled the embassy staff to pay the bill that he bought.

By the impugned judgment and order, the learned special judge convicted the appellant under section 409 of Penal Code 1860, read with section 5(2) of Prevention Corruption Act 1947, and sentenced him thereunder to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 5 years and to pay a fine of taka 2100000 in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a further period of 1 year in absentia.

 

Case Cited:

1) Khandaker Mostaque Ahmed vs Bangladesh through the secretary, 

2) Ministry of Home Affairs, 34 DLR(AD)222.

Written by---
Mahmudul Hasan
Department of Land Management and Law
Jagannath University, Dhaka

Read Also

• State vs Md Ali Reza (2019) 71 DLR (AD) 332
• Masud Mia vs State (2004) 56 DLR
• Abdul Latif vs State (2009) 14 BLC 784