Monday, August 20, 2018 | ePaper

Investigation by an ASI does not per se become without jurisdiction

  • Print
High Court Division  :
(Criminal Revisional Jurisdiction)
Bhabani Prasad
Singha J
SM Mozibur Rahman J
Ziauddin Ahmed .....
.... Accused -Petitioner
vs
State............
..........................Opposite-Party
Judgment
September 10th, 2015.
 Code of Criminal Procedure (V of 1898)
 Section 561 A
Anti-Corruption Act (XXVI of 1957)
Section 3
Investigation by an ASI does not per se become without jurisdiction and a proceeding cannot be quashed mainly because there is irregularity, if any, in the investigation. ....(10)
Md Abul Hossain vs State, 19 BLD (AD) 97 = 4 BLC (AD) 122 ref.
None appears- For the Petitioner
Md Khurshid Alam Khan, Advocate- For the ACC
Judgment
Bhabani Prasad Singha J : This Rule W,15 issued calling upon the opposite party to show cause as to why the proceedings of Special Case No.4 of 1913 arising out of Bajitpur PS Case No. 9 (11) /87 GR Case No. 75(2)/87 under Sections 420/468/478/109 of the Penal Code read with Section 5(2) of the Anti-Corruption Act, 1947 pending in the Court of Additional Sessions Judge and Special Judge, Kishoreganj should not be set aside and / or pass such other or further order or orders as to this Court may seem fit and proper.
2. The facts leading the this instant  Criminal Revision case under Section 561A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 are that on 28-11-1987 one Serajuddin Ahmed, Assistant Inspector DAB, Kishoreganj lodged a written First Information Report with Bajitpur PS, Kishoreganj alleging that the accused Afsar Ali Akanda on the strength of some false papers showed him as a primary school teacher of Saygoan Govt. Primary School, PS Bedarganj, Faridpur from 16-9-1978 to 16-9-1981 and he on the strength of false transfer order of the DDPf, Dhaka Division to the effect that he has been transferred to Purakandi Govt. Primary School under Bajitpur PS and District Kishoreganj as an Assistant Teacher. He with his false Service Book, LPC and transfer order appeared before Ziauddin Ahmed, the then Thana Education Officer, Bajitpur, Kishoreganj who directed the Head Master concerned to accept his joining report. Accordingly, the accused Md Afsar Ali Akanda joined there and served there as an Assistant Teacher from 30-9-1981 to 31-7-1984 and drew Taka 16,028.62 in total as salary and allowances by adopting the means of forgery and cheating.
3. After investigation, chargesheet was submitted against the accused-petitioner and others under Sections 420/468/471/109/409/ 420 of the Penal Code read with Section 5 (2) of the Anti-Corruption Act, 10-17.
4. After submission of chargesheet in this case, it was transmitted to the Senior Special Judge, Kishoreganj and was numbered as Special Case No.4 of 1993.
5. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the impugned proceedings in Special Case No.4. of 1993, the accused-petitioner preferred the instant Criminal Revision under Section 561 A of the Code of Criminal Procedure and obtained the Rule.
6. No one appears on behalf of the accused-petitioner although the case appeared in the cause list for several dates.
7. Mr Md Khurshid Alam Khan, the learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the State submits that the revisional application under section 561A of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed agitating. that the investigation being conducted by an ASI, of police without obtaining sanction from the Bureau of Anti-Corruption and hence without jurisdiction; that the said point of agitation has already been decided by the Appellate Division in the case of Md Abul Hossain vs State reported in 19 BLD (AD) 97 = 4 BLC (AD) 122 and, as such, the question of sanction before taking cognizance does not arise at all. The learned Advocate further submits that there being no merit in the case, the Rule is liable to be discharged.
8. Heard the submission of the learned Advocate and perused the materials on record.
9. On perusal of the instant revisional application, it appears that the accused-petitioner has filed the instant revision on the grounds that although the accused-petitioner and others are public servant, without prior sanction from the Government proceeding against them is violative of Section 5(2) of the Anti-Corruption Act, 1947; that the investigation of the case was taken out by an AST of Police and, as such the impugned proceedings is liable to be quashed.
10. It is worth mentioning that another Division Bench of High Court Division in Criminal Revision Case No. 202 of 1993 and Criminal Revision Case No. 1805 of 1992 arising out of the same case, discharged the Rules issued in aforesaid Criminal Revision Cases holding that no substance was found in the Rule relying on the case of Md Abul Hossain vs State reported in 19 BLD (AD) 97 = 4 BLC (AD) 122. Our Apex Court, in said case, held that in view of the provision of Section 3 of the Anti-Corruption Act, 1947, the investigation held by an AST of the Bureau of Anti-Corruption was not illegal and without jurisdiction. Our Apex Court further held in the same decision that the investigation by an ASI does not per se become without jurisdiction and a proceeding cannot also be quashed mainly because there is irregularity, if any, in the investigation. We are in respectful agreement with the aforesaid decision of our Apex Court.
11. In the light of discussion made here above, we find no substance in the Rule and, as such, it is liable to be discharged.
12. In the result, the Rule is discharged.
The interim order passed at the time of issuance of the Rule stands vacated.
Let a copy of this judgment be transmitted down to the court concerned at once.

More News For this Category

The conduct of the Commission raises serious questions

High Court Division(Criminal Miscellaneous Jurisdiction) M Enayetur Rahim J Shahidul Karim J Judgment     I November 8th, 2017Salim (Md) .... Petitioner  vsState and another............... Opposite-PartiesCode of Criminal Procedure (V of

Loan once admitted cannot be subsequently denied

(From previous issue)15. He has further argued that the plaintiff and defendants by amicable settlement came to compromise and by dint of that compromise prepared application and Solenama signing by

Reopening the decree after disposal of the suit is illegal

(From previous issue) :9. Such substituted service cannot be regarded as idle formality. The law intends it as a substitute to actual personal service. Moreover it appears from the

Penal consequences for dishonour of cheque

High Court Division :(Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction) Md Rais Uddin JMohiuddin Chowdhury (Md) ..................     Accused-Appellant vs State and another......................RespondentsJudgmentFebruary 28th, 2018Negotiable Instruments Act (XXVI of 1881) Sections 138(1) and

Loan once admitted cannot be subsequently denied

High Court Division :(Civil Appellate Jurisdiction) Md Nuruzzaman JSH Md Nurul Huda Jaigirdar JRupali Bank Limited Plaintiff-Appellant vs Perfume Chemical  Industries Limited, and others.................... Defendant-RespondentsJugementJuly 30th, 2017Evidence Act (I

Photocopy of document does not have evidence value

(From previous issue) :4. Meanwhile, on conclusion of investigation the Investigating Officer submitted police report against the accused petitioners being charge sheet No. 97 dated 26-10-2011 under sections 406/420/467/468

Reopening the decree after disposal of the suit is illegal

Appellate Division :(Civil) Syed Mahmud Hossain CJ Md Imman Ali J     Hasan Foez Siddique J Mirza Hussain Haider J Parvin Akter and others ..... PetitionersvsEastern Bank Ltd. and

When a tenant can seek his re-instatement

(From previous issue) :5. Lastly plaintiff sent another notice dated 17-6-2012 requesting the defendant to vacate the property, but to no effect. Hence the suit. 6. Defendant-appellant's Case: The

Photocopy of document does not have evidence value

High Court Division :(Criminal Miscellaneous Jurisdiction) Farah Mahbub J Mahmudul Hoque JAtaur Rahman (Md) alias Dhanu and Others………….Accused-Petitioners vs State and anothers .... ...... Opposite PartiesJudgment November 22nd, 2017Code

Delay in disposal of case is no ground to commute sentence

Appellate Division :(Criminal)Surendra Kumar Sinha CJ Syed Mahmud Hossain J Hasan Foez Siddique JShahidul Islam @ Shahid ……….…………..Petitioner vs State…………............. Respondent Judgment March 5th, 2017 Code of Criminal Procedure