The New Nation - Internet Edition

Appellate Division

(Criminal)

Syed J.R Mudassir Husain-C.J.

Mohammad Fazlul Karim-J.

Amirul Kabir Chowdhury-J.

CRIMINAL PETITION FOR LEAVE TO

APPEAL NO.47 OF 2004.

(From the judgment and order dated 5.8.2003 passed by the High Court Division in Criminal Appeal No.2059 of 2001.)

Md. Habibur Rahmantt.. Petitioner.

Vs.

The State ttttRespondent.

For the petitioner-Mr. Abdul Malek, Senior Advocate, (Mr. S.M. Shajahan, Advocate. with him,. instructed by Mrs Sufia Khatun. Adocate-on-Record.

For the Respondent -Mr. Abdul Rouf,

Deputy Attorney General. instructed by Mvi. Md. Wahidullah, Advocate-onRecord.

Judgment: 23 October 2005

Anti-Corruption Act, 1957, Section 4- Failure to submit statement of assets- consequential punishment-"

Failure to submit statement of his assets as required under sub-section (1) of section 4 of the Anti-Corruption' Act, 1957 constitutes offence punishable thereunder and when no illegality is found the apex court upheld the order of conviction and sentence.

On perusal of the aforesaid provision of law it appears that any person failing to furnish the statement when called upon under section 4(1) of the Act commits the offence punishable under the law, The validity or otherwise of the notice cannot be questioned at this stage in such a case. There is other forum, if any, to ventilate such grievance. In view of the provision of law prescribing the punishment for failing to submit the statement and in view of the fact that the accused petitioner failed to furnish such statement in-spite of being called upon he cannot be absolved of the consequence that resulted in his conviction after due trial. ttt.(Para 6)

JUDGMENT

AMIRUL KABIR CHOWDHURY, J: Md. Habibur Rahman accused petitioner, challenges the judgment and order dated 5.8.2003 passed by the High Court Division in Criminal Appeal No.2059 of 2001 affirming the conviction under section 4(2) of Anti Corruption Act, 1957, in short. the Act and reducing his sentence to I Y2 years from 2 years imprisonment.

2. Prosecution case in brief, is that on the basis of enquiry that the petitioner accumulated a property amounting to Tk.32.00.000j- (thirty-two lac) which was disproportionate or beyond the known sources of his income. the Bureau of Anti Corruption asked him to furnish proper statement in the prescribed form under section 4(1) of the Act but the accused petitioner did not turn up to comply and as such an F.I.R. was lodged on the basis of which a case was started and after trial he was convicted as mentioned above by the learned Special Judge and Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge. 5th Court. Dhaka on 14.6.2001 in Metropolitan Special Case No.21 of 2000. The petitioner went on Criminal Appeal No.2059 of 2001 before the High Court Division and a Single Bench of the High Court Division passed the impugned judgment and order. Hence is this petition.

3. Mr. Abdul Malek, the learned Senior Advocate, in support of the petition submits. inter-alia. that section 4(1) of the Act enjoins the government to enquire and satisfy about the assets of an accused but in the notice under section 4(1) issued by the Bureau of Anti-Corruption it is stated that the Bureau of Anti-Corruption authority was satisfied as to the allegation made in the notice and as such, the notice itself being not valid the order of conviction thereupon is illegal and the High Court Division committed error in not considering this aspect of the case.

4. Mr. Abdul Rouf. the learned Deputy Attorney-General, appearing on behalf of the respondent, opposes the petition submitting, inter-alia, that there being clear violation in compliance with the notice in question the petitioner committed the offence as alleged and as such, there is no illegality in the order of conviction.

5. We have considered the submissions made at the Bar and peused the materials on record. To appreciate the submissions. let us examine section 4 of the Anti-Corruption Act, 1957 (Act XXVl of 1957) which runs as follows:

"4. DECLARATION OF ASSETS.-

(1) When the Government, on receipt of information and after making such enquiries as it may deem. necessary. is satisfied that there is reason to believe that any person or any other person on his behalf is in possession of pecuniary resources or property disproportionate to his known sources of income it may by order. require such person to furnish in the prescribed manner and within the prescribed time a statement of his property and liabilities and such information relating thereto as may be required by the order

(2) If such person-(a) upon being so required by an order under sub-section (1) fails to furnish the statement or information or furnishes a statement or information which he knows or has reasonable cause to believe to be false or not true in any material particular or

(b) Makes in any book. account. record. declaration. return or other doc.ument which he is required by an order under sub-section (I) to furnish any statement which he knows or has reasonable cause to believe to be false or not true, in any material particular he shall be punishable with imprisonment for a learn which may extend to three years and shall also be liable to fine."

6. On perusal of the aforesaid provision of law it appears that any person failing to furnish the statement when called upon under section 4(1) of the Act commits Ute offence punishable under the law, the validity or otherwise of the notice cannot be questioned at this stage in such a case. There is other forum if any to ventilate such grievance. In view of the provision of law prescribing the punishment of failing to submit the statement and in view of the fact that the accused petitioner failed to furnish such statement in spite of being called upon he cannot be absolved of the consequence that resulted in his conviction after due trial.

7. There is no other ground advanced on behalf of the petitioner.

8. In such view of the matter we do not find any illegality in the judgment passed by the courts below. The criminal petition is therefore, dismissed.