ACC vs Bayazid, 65 DLR (AD) 2013

Fact of the case:

The case involves an application filed by the petitioner Anti-Corruption Commission where that calls in question the propriety of the judgement of the High Court Division in quashing the proceedings in special case No. 3 of 2009. The case arises from an FIR lodge against the respondent for alleged criminal misconduct and Corruption. Then, when the respondent applied under Section 265(c) the Special Judge rejected the same. Then he petitioned to the High Court And considering all, the High court quashed the proceedings.

Issues of the case:

1) Whether sanction for filling the case as noticed by the High court Division is necessary or not?

2) Whether the proceedings quashed by the High Court Division are reasonable or not?

 

Decision:

The reason upon which the High Court Division quashed the proceeding is apparently contrary to law. Based on these findings, the court set-aside the Judgement and direct the learned Special Judge to proceed with the case in accordance with law.

Justification:

The petitioner submits that the High Court Division erred in law in quashing the proceedings on technical ground despite the fact that the Anti-Corruption Commission has accorded sanction for submission of police report in accordance with law.

The Court find that section-32 of the Anti-Corruption Commission Act prescribes for the sanction of the communication which is a mandatory requirement of law for taking cognizance of offences punishable under the Act.

In form-3 appended to the Anti-Corruption Rules in the subject matter as well as the contents to be included in the order of sanction letter, it was mentioned “sanction for filing case/submission of charge-sheet” was necessary.

Therefore, under the amended provision no prior sanction of the Commission for filling a case is necessary in accordance with Form-3. The High Court Division was confused by the use of the words “sanction for filing case” which were deleted by Ordinance No VII of 2007 and by overlooking this aspect of the matter quashed the proceeding.

The copy of the sanction letter as quoted in the judgment clearly shows that the Anti-Corruption Commission has accorded sanction for submission of police report. The reason upon which the High Court Division quashed the proceeding is apparently contrary to law. Based on these findings, the court set-aside the Judgement and direct the learned Special Judge to proceed with the case in accordance with law.

Read Also

• Stages of Criminal Case in Bangladesh
• Scope and Necessity of the Law of Evidence (The Evidence Act, 1872)
• Basic Principles of Evidence Law
• Manner of Lodging First Information Report (FIR) and Its Characteristics in Bangladesh