দায়বর্জন বিবৃতি (DISCLAIMER)

এই ওয়েবসাইটে প্রকাশিত রায় বা আদেশ আপনি google translation এর মাধ্যমে বাংলায় দেখতে পাচ্ছেন তা সুপ্রীম কোর্ট কর্তৃক বাংলায় অনূদিত নয়। জনসাধারণের বিচার-প্রক্রিয়ায় সহজ অভিগম্যতা নিশ্চিতকরণের অভিপ্রায়ে বাংলায় অনূদিত রায়-আদেশ দেখার ব্যবস্থা রাখা হয়েছে। অনূদিত রায় বা আদেশের অনুলিপি সইমোহরী/জাবেদা নকলের (certified copy) বিকল্প হিসেবে অথবা অন্য কোন উদ্দেশ্যে ব্যবহার করা যাবে না। রায় ও আদেশ বাস্তবায়নের ক্ষেত্রে মামলার নথিতে বিধৃত মূল রায় বা আদেশ প্রণিধানযোগ্য।
Microsoft Word - CrlAppeal_3537_2009_CrlAppeal_4282_2013.doc

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BANGLADESH HIGH COURT DIVISION

(CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION)

Present:

Mr. Justice Md. Moinul Islam Chowdhury

And

Mr. Justice A. K. M. Zahirul Huq

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 3537 Of 2009

WITH

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 4282 OF 2013

IN THE MATTER OF: Haji Md. Salim (Ex. M. P.)

-----Convict-appellant (in Crl. Appeal No. 3537 of 2009).

Mrs. Gulshan Ara Begum

-----Convict-appellant (in Crl. Appeal No. 4282 of 2013).

-Versus-

                            The State and another

-----Respondents. (in both the appeals)

Mr. A. Baset Majumder, Senior Advocate

                                      with

Mr. M. Sayed Ahmed, Advocate

-----For both the convict-appellants (in both the appeals).

Mr. Md. Khurshid Alam Khan, Advocate

-----For the respondent No. 2- the ACC (in both the appeals).

Mr. Md. Asaduzzaman Monir, DAG with

Mrs. Tamanna Ferdous, AAG and

Mrs. Sathi Shahjahan, AAG

-----For the respondent No. 1- the State (in both the appeals).

Heard on: 01.02.2021, 02.02.2021, 03.02.2021, 04.02.2021, 07.02.2021, 08.02.2021, 09.02.2021, 10.02.2021, 11.02.2021, 14.02.2021, 15.02.2021,


=2=

17.02.2021, 18.02.2021 22.02.2021, 23.02.2021 & 24.02.2021. Judgment on: 09.03.2021.

Md. Moinul Islam Chowdhury, J:

  1. The Hon’ble Appellate Division sent the Criminal Appeal No. 3537 of 2009 by passing a Judgment and Order dated 12.01.2015 on remand to be heard and dispose of this appeal on merit afresh after setting aside the Judgment and Order passed by the another Bench of this Court on 02.01.2011 by disposing of The Criminal Petition For Leave To Appeal No. 438 of 2011 arising from the Criminal Appeal No. 3537 of 2009. In addition, the learned Advocate Mr. M. Sayed Ahmed mentioned another Criminal Appeal being No. 4282 of 2013 on behalf of Mrs. Gulshan Ara Begum wife of Haji Md. Salim for hearing by this Court which was passed by the impugned Judgment and Order of the learned Special Judge, Special Judge Court No. 07, Dhaka as the trial Court along with the aforementioned Criminal Appeal and no order has been passed by the High Court Division in the said matter earlier. Accordingly, we have also taken up and heard the Criminal Appeal filed by Mrs. Gulshan Ara Begum along with the appeal of Mr. Haji Md. Salim to pass by the following common judgment.

Mossaddek, BO


=3=

  1. The aforementioned Criminal Appeals are directed to the impugned Judgment and Order passed by the learned Special Judge, Special Judge Court No. 07, Dhaka in the Special Case No. 07 of 2008 arising out of the Lalbagh Police Station Case No. 46 dated 24.09.2007 convicting the appellant Haji Md. Salim under section 26(2) of the Anti-Corruption Commission Ain, 2004 (c¤e£¢a cje L¢jne BCe, 2004) and sentencing him to suffer 3 (three) years rigorous imprisonment and under section 27(1) of the said BCe, 2004 convicting and sentencing him to suffer 10 (ten) years rigorous imprisonment and to pay fine of Tk. 10,00,000/- (ten lacs), in default, to suffer 01 (one) year rigorous imprisonment and also passes the Order to confiscate all the properties as per the list submitted to the Anti-Corruption Commission by way of asset statements along with other assets. By the said impugned Judgment and Order the same learned Special Judge, Special Judge Court No. 07, Dhaka also convicted the appellant (as the co-accused), Mrs. Gulshan Ara Begum wife of Haji Md. Salim, under section 109 of the Penal Code and sentencing her to suffer 3 (three) years rigorous imprisonment and to pay fine of Tk. 1,00,000/- (one lac), in default, to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 6 (six) months more.

Mossaddek, BO


=4=

  1. The relevant facts for disposal of these 2 (two) appeals, inter alia,

are that one Mohd. Mahabubul Alom, the Assistant Director of the Anti-Corruption Commission lodged the First Information Report with the Lalbagh Police Station being Case No. 46 dated 24.09.2007 corresponding to A.C.C. G. R. Case No. 102 of 2007 alleging that the present convict-appellants have committed offences under sections 26(2) and 27(1) of the c¤eÑ£¢a cje L¢jne BCe, 2004 read with section 109 of the Penal Code and also under l¦m 15(O) of the Sl¦l£ rja¡ ¢h¢dj¡m¡, 2007 alleging that the convict- appellant, Haji Md. Salim and his wife the convict-appellant, Mrs. Gulshan Ara Begum, and their sons and daughter are in possession of properties which are disproportionate to their known-sources of income. Accordingly, a notice was issued on 18.02.2007 asking Mr. Haji Md. Salim to give a wealth statement under section 26(1) of the c¤eÑ£¢a cje L¢jne BCe, 2004 within 72 (seventy two) hours from the date of issuance of the notice. The convict-appellant failed to submit any wealth statement within the stipulated period of time of 72 (seventy two) hours as per the said notice and the c¤eÑ£¢a cje L¢jne took no step after expiry of 72 (seventy two) hours.

Mossaddek, BO


=5=

  1. The convict-appellant, Haji Md. Salim, instead of submitting a wealth statement fled away from his known address at Dhaka because of the proclamation of emergency in the year of 2007 taking the State power by some ambitious few persons in a chaotic political situation and they started to govern Bangladesh by the said proclamation which has terrified the present convict- appellant Haji Md. Salim who could not receive any notice by himself issued by the c¤eÑ£¢a cje L¢jnez However, his wife Mrs Gulshan Ara Begum claimed to have received the notice which was issued on 18.02.2007. A notice was also issued by way of publishing a gazette notification dated 10.04.2008 and placing the said notice in conspicuous place as required under Section 6(1A) of The Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1958 to surrender within 3 (three) days, otherwise, the criminal case would be completed in their absence. The convict-appellants Gulshan Ara Begum and Haji Md. Salim failed to appear before the Anti-Corruption Commission (c¤eÑ£¢a cje L¢jne) to submit a wealth statement or to appear in Court to contest the criminal case against them.
  2. Instead, the convict-appellant Gulshan Ara Begum of the Criminal Appeal No. 4282 of 2013 filed the Writ Petition No. 2011 of 2007 on behalf of her husband, Haji Md. Salim, before

Mossaddek, BO


=6=

the High Court Division praying for intervention of the Writ Jurisdiction under section 102 of the Constitution of Bangladesh impugning the said notice dated 18.02.2007 and seeking direction from the Court to allow her husband to submit a wealth statement

as per the above notice from the commission. Accordingly, Mrs. Gulshan Ara Begum submitted a wealth statement in compliance

to the direction of the High Court Division in the above Writ Petition on 27.03.2007 and the c¤eÑ£¢a cje L¢jne received and accepted the statement of assets given by Mrs. Gulshan Ara Begum on behalf of Haji Md. Salim under section 26(1) of the BCe, 2004z Later on, in the above mentioned Writ Petition the convict-appellant Gulshan Ara Begum filed an application to submit further statement of assets owned by Haji Md. Salim as per the notice dated 18.02.2007 issued by the c¤eÑ£¢a cje L¢jne which was also accepted by the c¤eÑ£¢a cje L¢jne upon the direction

of the High Court Division.

  1. On receipt of the above statement of assets, the c¤eÑ£¢a cje L¢jne lodged the First Information Report with the Lalbagh Police Station being No. 46 on 24.09.2007 against the appellants, namely, (1) Haji Md. Salim and also (2) Mrs. Gulshan Ara Begum alleging that Haji Md. Salim has committed offences

Mossaddek, BO


=7=

under sections 26(2) and 27(1) of the BCe, 2004 along with rule 15(O)(5) of the Sl¦l£ rja¡ ¢h¢dj¡m¡, 2007 |as well as under section 109 of the Penal Code for acquiring and owning properties amounting to Tk. 14,65,62,503 (fourteen crores 65 lacs sixty two thousands five hundreds and three) and Gulshan Ara Begum for aidding and abetting to her husband which were acquired by dishonest means and are disproportionate to known-sources of income and also for concealing the wealth amounting to Tk. 8,70,09,758 (eight crores seventy lacs nine thousands seven hundred and fifty eight). The Commission thereafter recommended for further investigation and to take action against the present appellants after providing the required approval from the Commission. The said FIR contains properties having structures both at Dhaka and Narayangonj and moveable properties including trucks, shares and other vehicles in the name of Haji Md. Salim himself along with in the name of his wife and in the name of his 3 (three) sons.

  1. After investigation by the c¤eÑ£¢a cje L¢jne it issued a sanction letter being Memo No. 454675 dated 30.03.2008 for undertaking investigation into the allegations made in the FIR and thereby submitting the charge sheet No. 14 dated 22.04.2008 making

Mossaddek, BO


=8=

allegations against Haji Md. Salim, Ex-M.P. son of late Chan Mia Sarder, House No. 25, Barakatara, Debi Das Ghat Lane, Lalbagh, Dhaka and also Flat No. C/2, House No. 27, Road No. 126 and 130, Gulshan-1, Dhaka as the accused No. 1. Haji Md. Salim and the accused No. 2. Mrs. Gulshan Ara Begum wife of Haji Md. Salim of the above mentioned address.

  1. On receipt of the above charge sheet the charge was framed by the learned Special Judge, Special Judge Court No. 07, Dhaka on 22.04.2008 in absence of the convict-appellants as none of them appeared in the trial Court. The learned Special Judge, Special Judge Court No. 07, Dhaka, thereafter, recorded the deposition of the prosecution witnesses. The prosecution adduced as many as 20 PWs.
  2. P.W. 1, Mohd. Mahabubul Alam, deposed in the Court that he was the informant of this case and the accused Haji Md. Salim was Ex-M.P. and his wife Mrs. Gulshan Ara Begum and other members of his family acquired huge properties and assets beyond their legal known-sources of income, as such, a notice was issued under section 26(1) of the Ain, 2004 being Memo No. c¤cL/70-2007(Ae¤x-2)/676 a¡¢lMx 18/02/2007 Cw and Mrs. Gulshan Ara Begum submitted a wealth statement on 27.03.2007 on

Mossaddek, BO


=9=

behalf of her husband Haji Md. Salim pursuant to the direction of the High Court in a Writ Petition which was accepted by the Anti-Corruption Commission. Not being satisfied with the said statement, the Anti-Corruption Commission given a sanction letter to prepare a report his properties. Accordingly, he submitted a report on 11.04.2007 accusing Haji Md. Salim and his wife (the present convict-appellants) for owning and possessing the properties amounting to Tk. 59,37,26,132/- (fifty nine crores thirty seven lacs twenty six thousands one hundred and thirty two). In the charge sheet he particularly noted that the statement submitted by the accused persons mentioned that in the wealth statement they did not mention about landed property in the District of Narayangonj, Fatullah which they acquired on 22.02.2000 by deed No. 761 amounting to Tk. 70,000/- (seventy thousands) measuring 0490 aujutangsha (Aka¤¡wn) he concealed in the wealth statement along with other movable and immovable properties without mentioning any legal sources of income in purchasing the above huge properties and he exhibited as exhibits- 4, 4/1 and exhibits- 5/1 and 6/1. The said prosecution witness was not cross-examined as the present convict-appellants as the accused were absconding.

Mossaddek, BO


=10=

  1. P.W. 2, Nobo Joti Khisha (eh ®SÉ¡¢a M£p¡), deposed on behalf of the prosecution that he was performing his duties as In-Charge of the Officer-In-Charge on 07.02.2007 at Lalbagh Police Station. He also deposed that on 24.09.2007 Mohd. Mahabubul Alam, the Assistant Director, c¤eÑ£¢a cje L¢jne, fdË¡e L¡k¡Ñmu submitted a First Information Report being exhibit- 7 and the charge sheet No. 46 dated 24.09.2007 being exhibit- 7/1.
  2. P.W. 3, Md. A. K. M. Sohrawardi, Sub-Divisional Engineer, Azimpur, Public Works Sub-Division (NZfa§Ñ Ef-¢hi ¡N)- 1, Lalbagh, Dhaka deposed in the Court that he evaluated 6 (six) properties owned by Haji Md. Salim on 21.04.2007, 22.04.2007 and 23.04.2007 along with his another colleague Md. Abdus Sabur Khan and also was present Md. Lutfor Rahma on behalf of owner Haji Md. Salim exhibit- 11/1. He was not cross-examined.
  3. P.W. 4, Md. Rawshan Habib, as the Executive Engineer, Azimpur, Public Works Division, Dhaka deposed that upon the request of c¤cL his Subordinate Engineer submitted a valuation report upon his direction on 29.04.2007 as exhibits- 9 and 9/1.
  4. P.W. 5, Md. Kaikobad, Sub-Divisional Engineer, Public Works

E.  M. Sub-Division- 8, Paltan, Dhaka deposed that on 21.04.2007- 23.04.2007 he assessed the electric materials in the

Mossaddek, BO


=11=

houses and plots owned by the accused and submitted the same to the Executive Engineer as exhibit- 8/2. He was not cross- examined.

  1. P.W. 6, Abdur Razzak Khan, Executive Engineer, Public Works E/M Division- 4, Segunbagicha, Ramna, Dhaka deposed in Court in support of the prosecution case for evaluating the properties mentioned in the asset statements of the accused and submitted the said above report to the c¤eÑ£¢a cjne L¢jne on 14.01.2008 exhibits- 10 and 10/1.
  2. P.W. 7, Md. Abul Bashar Khan, Executive Engineer, Azimpur, Public Works Department, New Market, Dhaka deposed in Court in support of the prosecution that for evaluating the properties mentioned in the assets statement of the accused and submitted the said report to the c¤eÑ£¢a cje L¢jne on 15.01.2008 exhibits- 11 and 11/1.
  3. P.W. 8, Md. Abul Hamid Hawlader, District Registrar, Dhaka deposed in Court that he collected information from the record room of the registry office regarding 18 (eighteen) deeds and submitted the said report to the c¤eÑ£¢a cje L¢jne, exhibits- 12 and 12/1.

Mossaddek, BO


=12=

  1. P.W. 9, Bhobotosh Bhowmik, Sub-Registrar, Record Room, Tejgaon, Dhaka deposed that he prepared a list of 18 (eighteen) deeds on 21.11.2007 and submitted these to the District Registrar, Dhaka exhibit- 13/1.
  2. P.W. 10, Md. Monirul Islam Khan, the Upper Assistant (EµQj¡e pqL¡l£), BRTA, Circle (South) Keranigonj, Dhaka deposed as per the direction of the Anti-Corruption Commission and he evaluated the documents of 12 (twelve) Trucks which were seized and later on given by way of jimma (¢SÇj¡) being exhibit- 14/15. He was not also cross-examined.
  3. P.W. 11, Deb Broto Mistry, the Police Inspector, BRTA, Circle (South) Keranigonj, Dhaka deposed that on 29.11.2007 he submitted a report to the c¤eÑ£¢a cje L¢jne regarding 12 (twelve) trucks and he also signed in the seizure list as exhibit- 14/1 and 14/2.
  4. PW. 12, Md. Mohsin Ali, District Registrar, Narayangonj deposed in the Court that he collected a report as to 7 (seven) deeds and he forwarded a report to the c¤eÑ£¢a cje L¢jne on 27.11.2007 being exhibits- 16 and 16/1 and exhibit- 17 as the forwarding letter.

Mossaddek, BO


=13=

  1. P.W. 13, Arif Masud Chowdhury, the General Manager (Marketing), Sonar Tori Tower, Sonargaon Road, Dhaka deposed that Haji Md. Salim purchased cars in his name and his wife’s name to repay in installments and he submitted the reports thereabout on 21.11.2007, exhibits 18, 18/1, 19 and 19/1.
  2. P.W. 14, Md. Golam Kabir, Deputy Commissioner, Income Tax Department, Dhaka deposed that on 06.12.2007 he seized the Income Tax File of Mrs. Gulshan Ara Begum and took into custody of the file being TIN No. 002-100-1889, Company Circle- 21 exhibit- 20. He took custody of the said file exhibit-
    1. He was not cross-examined.
  3. P.W. 15, Md. Aman Ullah, Upper Assistant (EµQj¡e pqL¡l£), Income Tax Department, Kar Anchal (Ll A’m)- 7, Dhaka deposed in Court in support of the prosecution case that on 06.12.2007 he seized the Income Tax File of Mrs. Gulshan Ara Begum and also given under custody of her which has been marked as exhibits- 20/2 and 21/1.
  4. P.W. 16, Abdullah Al Arif, the Deputy Income Tax Commissioner, Head Office, Large Taxpayer Unit, Dhaka deposed in support of the prosecution that on 11.12.2007 he seized the Income Tax File of Haji Md. Salim and took into his

Mossaddek, BO


=14=

custody of the file as exhibit 22 and submitted the said report to the Court being TIN No. 072-100-4546.

  1. P.W. 17, Md. Aminul Hoque, Upper Assistant (EµQj¡e pqL¡l£), Large Taxpayer Unit, Segunbagicha, Dhaka deposed that on 11.12.2007 the c¤eÑ£¢a cje L¢jne seized the Income Tax File of Haji Md. Salim and handed over it as jimma (¢SÇj¡). I signed jobdonama (Sëe¡j¡) and jimmanama (¢SÇj¡e¡j¡). These were my signatures as exhibits- 22/2 and 23/2. He was not also examined.
  2. P.W. 18, Md. Siddiqur Rahman, Upper Assistant (EµQj¡e pqL¡l£), BRTA, North Circle, Mirpur, Dhaka deposed that he took all the relevant documents regarding 5 (five) cars of Haji Md. Salim and presented the said documents to the Officer of the Anti- Corruption Commission, namely, Md. Abu Sayed on 10.12.2007 which was seized by him and given under custody of that documents to the present PW which have been marked as exhibit- 24/1 and jimmanama (¢SÇj¡e¡j¡) as exhibit- 25.
  3. P.W. 19, A. S. M. Wazed Hossain, Inspector of Vehicles, BRTA (North), Mirpur, Dhaka deposed that he took the documents under his custody regarding 5 (five) cars of the accused but that cars given his custody on 10.12.2007. He signed his jobdonama (Sëe¡j¡) and custodynama (¢SÇj¡e¡j¡) as exhibits- 24/2 and 25/2.

Mossaddek, BO


=15=

  1. P.W. 20, Md. Abu Syed, the Deputy Director, Anti-Corruption Commission, Head Office, Dhaka deposed that he took charge for investigation on 29.10.2007 which exhibited as exhibit- 26/1. He also deposed that after obtaining the statement of assets submitted by Haji Md. Salim and his wife Mrs. Gulshan Ara Begum on 27.03.2007 claiming to have owned moveable and immovable properties amounting to Tk. 67,43,96,742/- (taka sixty seven crores forty three lacs ninety six thousands seven hundreds and forty two) and thereafter also submitting another statement of assets pursuant to the direction of the High Court Division under Writ Jurisdiction submitted a supplementary wealth statement for owning and possessing further amount of Tk. 78,52,500/- (taka seventy eight lacs fifty two thousands and five hundreds). Accordingly, both of them had a property valued at Tk. 68,22,49,242/- (sixty eight crores twenty two lacs forty nine thousands two hundreds and forty two). He also deposed after investigation he found that the accused Haji Md. Salim and his wife Mrs. Gulshan Ara Begum by giving the above 2 (two) statements concealed the assets and wealth both moveable and immovable properties amounting to Tk. 10,04,13,935/- (ten

Mossaddek, BO


=16=

crores four lacs thirteen thousands nine hundreds and thirty five) which are as follows:

(1) 25, hs L¡Vl¡, m¡mh¡N, Y¡L¡ h¡s£ h¡hc 1,89,16,882/-

(2) 16/¢h, ®R¡V L¡Vl¡, m¡mh¡N, Y¡L¡ h¡s£ h¡hc 60,12,585/- V¡L¡ ®N¡fe L­lez

(3) 9, ®ch£c¡p O¡V ®me, m¡mh¡N, Y¡L¡ h¡s£ h¡hc 89,45,535/- V¡L¡l pÇfc ®N¡fe L­lez

(4) 18/2, Blj¡¢e­V¡m¡, ®L¡au¡m£, Y¡L¡ h¡s£ h¡hc 3,56,07,054/- V¡L¡l pÇf­cl

abÉ ®N¡fe L­lez

(5) 8/®ch£c¡p, O¡V­me, m¡mh¡N, Y¡L¡ h¡s£ h¡hc 2,13,790/- V¡L¡ ®N¡fe L­lez

(6) 2 ew n¡q¡S¡c¡ ¢ju¡ ®me, ®L¡au¡m£, Y¡L¡ h¡s£ h¡hc 1,56,57,447/- V¡L¡ ®N¡fe L­lez

(7) c¤c­Ll c¡¢Mm£ pÇfc ¢hhlZ£­a 33 ew œ²¢j­L E­õM L­l­Re 17, n¡q¡S¡c¡ ¢ju¡ ®me, Y¡L¡u c¢mm ew 73 a¡w 16/01/2000 Cw œ²uL«a S¢j­a 2,80,322/-

V¡L¡l abÉ ®Nfe L¢lu¡­Rez

(8) q¡S£ ®j¡x ®p¢mj 7 ¢V c¢mm j¤­m œ²uL«a S¢jl j§mÉ 8,64,086/- V¡L¡l S¢j h¡hc pÇf­cl j¤mÉ E­õM e¡ L¢lu¡ abÉ ®N¡fe L­lez c¢mm ew kb¡œ²­j 214, a¡w 25/1/01, 3363, a¡w 20/9/98, 882, a¡w 2/4/90, 3404, a¡w 24/12/91,

158, a¡w 6/1/94, 710, a¡w 7/2/94, 4142, a¡w 23/8/99z

(9) q¡S£ ®j¡x ®p¢mj 2 VÊ¡­Ll jm§É 5,25,000/- V¡L¡ ®N¡fe L­lez

(10)                     q¡S£ ®j¡x ¢p¢mj Hl Ù»£ ¢j­pp …mn¡e Bl¡ ®hNj gÓÉ¡V ew- ¢p 2, h¡s£ ew 27, ®l¡X ew- 126 J 130, …mn¡e 1, Y¡L¡l j¤mÉh¡e ®~hc¤É¢aL p¡jNË£l j¤mÉ 3,37,000/- V¡L¡ ®N¡fe L­lez

(11)                     q¡S£ ®p¢m­jl Ù»£ J ¢ae p¿¹¡­el e¡­j Ru¢V c¢mm j¤­m œ²uL«a S¢jl j¤mÉ 50,24,539/- Y~¡L¡ ®N¡fe L­le, c¢mm …¢m kb¡œ²­j 2926, a¡w 28/7/98,

3814, a¡w 25/5/98, 751, a¡w 22/2/2000, 212, a¡w 14/1/2003 Cwz

(12)         q¡S£ ®j¡x ®p¢m­jl Ù»£ 12 ¢V VÊ¡L h¡hc 46,80,000/- V¡L/¡l j¤mÉ Lj ®cM¡Cu¡ abÉ ®N¡fe L¢lu¡­Rez I ph VÊ¡­Ll L¡NSfœ Ll¡ qCu¡­Rz

VÊ¡L ew Y¡L¡ ®j­VÊ¡-V-11-1230,

VÊ¡L ew Y¡L¡ ®j­VÊ¡-V-11-1297,

VÊ¡L ew Y¡L¡ ®j­VÊ¡-V-11-1296,

Mossaddek, BO


=17=

VÊ¡L ew Y¡L¡ ®j­VÊ¡-V-11-2022,

VÊ¡L ew Y¡L¡ ®j­VÊ¡-V-11-1229,

VÊ¡L ew Y¡L¡ ®j­VÊ¡-V-11-2169,

VÊ¡L ew Y¡L¡ ®j­VÊ¡-V-11-2170,

VÊ¡L ew Y¡L¡ ®j­VÊ¡-V-11-2171,

VÊ¡L ew Y¡L¡ ®j­VÊ¡-V-02-06000,

VÊ¡L ew Y¡L¡-e-4716,

VÊ¡L ew Y¡L¡ ®j­VÊ¡-V-02-0629,

VÊ¡L ew Y¡L¡ ®j­VÊ¡-V-3396z

(13)         Bp¡j£ …mn¡e Bl¡ ®hNj BlJ 3 ¢V VÊ¡­Ll ®O¡oe¡ ¢c­mJ j¤mÉ E­õM e¡ L¢lu¡ 33,49,705/- V¡L¡l abÉ ®N¡fe L­le k¡q¡l eðl

Y¡L¡ ®j­VÊ¡-V-14-2144,

Y¡L¡ ®j­VÊ¡-V-2145,

Y¡L¡ ®j­VÊ¡-V-11-4541

phÑ ®j¡V ®N¡fe Ll¡ qu 10,04,13,935/- V¡L¡z q¡S£ ®p¢m­jl BuLl e¢b k¡l ¢V,BC,He, eðl 072-100-4546 fl£r¡­¿¹ ®cM¡ k¡uz

2006-2007 fkÑ¿¹ B­ul f¢lj¡e- 22,32,92,847/-

Hhw hÉ­ul f¢lj¡e c¡s¡u  7,02,00,526/-

p’u c¡s¡u  15,47,68,018/-

  1. He also deposed that the convict-appellant earned huge amount of money and assets by both of them which were disproportionate to their known-sources of income, as such, he obtained the sanction letter being Memo No. 2675 dated 30.03.2008 from the c¤eÑ£¢a cje L¢jne to submit charge sheet being No. 127 dated 01.04.2007 under sections 26 and 27 of the BCe, 2004 and also under section 109 of the Penal Code which has been exhibited as exhibit- 27(1) and the statement of wealth submitted by the

Mossaddek, BO


=18=

accused Mrs. Gulshan Ara Begum which exhibited as exhibits-

28 and 21.

  1. On the basis of the above prosecution witnesses no one were cross-examined as the present convict-appellants were remained absconding and the learned Special Judge, Special Judge Court No. 07, Dhaka passed the impugned Judgment and Order on 27.04.2008 convicting the convict-appellant Haji Md. Salim in the Special Case No. 07 of 2008 arising out of Lalbagh (DMP) Police Station Case No. 46(9)2007 under sections 26(2) of the c¤eÑ£¢a cje L¢jne BCe, 2004 and sentencing him to suffer rigorous imprisonment 3 (three) years and to pay fine. The same learned Special Judge also convicted the appellant Haji Md. Salim by the said impugned judgment under section 27(1) of the c¤eÑ£¢a cje L¢jne BCe, 2004 and sentenced him to suffer 10 (ten) years rigorous imprisonment with fine of Tk. 10,00,000/- (ten lacs), in default, to suffer another 1 (one) year rigorous imprisonment. The learned Special Judge also convicted Mrs. Gulshan Ara Begum wife of Haji Md. Salim by the same Judgment and Order under section 109 of the Penal Code and sentenced her to suffer 3 (three) years rigorous imprisonment with fine of Tk. 1,00,000/- (one lacs), in default, to suffer 6 (six) months rigorous

Mossaddek, BO


=19=

imprisonment (both were absconding) for aidding or abating her husband for acquiring the properties/ wealth which are disproportionate to the known-sources of income. The learned Judge also directed to confiscate all the immovable and moveable properties owned and possessed by both the convict-appellants in favour of the State.

  1. During hearing of these appeals the learned Advocate for the appellants and the learned Advocate for the c¤eÑ£¢a cje L¢jne and the learned Deputy Attorney General with both Assistant Attorney General for the State make their several submissions.
  2. Mr. Abdul Baset Majumder, the learned Senior Counsel, appearing along with the learned Advocate Mr. M. Sayed Ahmed, submits that during the time of issuance of the notice on 18.02.2007 there was a mistake committed by the c¤eÑ£¢a cje L¢jne as the Secretary of the Commission served this notice upon the convict-appellant Haji Md. Salim which is not a notice in the eye

of law.

  1. He further submits that the case has been initiated by the commission for offences which are indefinite and unspecified from the plain reading of the FIR, the charge sheet and from the judgment and order it appears that the appellant was convicted for

Mossaddek, BO


=20=

alleged acquisition of the property acquired before 9th May, 2004 but the appellant has been convicted for alleged offences under sections 26(2) and 27(1) of the said Act of 2004 which was not in force at the relevant time of the commission of the offences i.e. before 09.05.2004 which is in violation of Article 35(1) of the Constitution, as such, the ordedr of conviction, sentence, fine and confiscation for alleged acquisition of property before 9th May, 2004 are hit by Article 35(1) of the Constitution, as such, the same is liable to be set aside.

  1. He also submits that the Court convicted and sentenced the appellant illegally and unlawfully by way of shifting the onus of proof from prosecution to the accused requiring the appellant to prove his innocence by way of proving his properties to have been acquired lawfully but releasing the prosecution from all sort of burden of proof without considering that the prosecution must prove the receipt of a notice by the appellant Haji Md. Salim (as an accused) for convicting under section 26 of the Ain, 2004, in fact, Haji Md. Salim never received the notice and section 27(2) of the said Act, 2004 imposes an initial burden of proof upon the prosecution to prove that the appellant or any other person on behalf of the appellant is in possession or acquired properties are

Mossaddek, BO


=21=

disproportionate to the known source of income of the appellant which burden the prosecution utterly failed to discharge by way of adducing any legal evidence, whatsoever, the said conviction and sentence against the appellants are liable to be set aside.

  1. He also submits that the prosecution submitted price evaluation of property of the appellant without any authentic evidence as to their correctness of valuation, whereas for a criminal proceeding it is must that no person shall be convicted on surmise and conjecture and therefore in absence of any concrete evidence that the appellant actually invested a certain amount of money mere unauthenticated evaluation of property which cannot be a basis for holding that the said amount was presumed to have invested by the appellant from any illegal means of earnings.
  2. He next submits that the Special Judge, Special Judge Court No. 07, Dhaka took cognizance of the said case against the appellant without prior sanction of the Anti-Corruption Commission which is a clear violation of section 32(1) of the Anti-Corruption Commission Act, 2004 read with Rule 13(2) of the Anti- Corruption Commission Rules, 2007, as such, the entire proceeding is without jurisdiction and violated the relevant laws,

Mossaddek, BO


=22=

therefore, the judgment and order of conviction and sentence in the said case is unlawful.

  1. He finally submits that the judgment and order of conviction and sentence in the said case being passed without any sanction of the said commission is liable to be set aside since for initiating the said case for filing charge sheet, especially, for taking cognizance of the said case the Commission has to issue sanctions considering the existence of sufficient incriminating evidence justly and fairly before issuance of a sanction letter by the Commission which is sine qua non, as such, the judgment and order of conviction, sentence and fine in the said case is liable to be set aside.
  2. Both the appeals have been opposed by the respondent No. 2- the c¤eÑ£¢a cje L¢jne a d the respondent No. 1- the State.
  3. Mr. Md. Khurshid Alam Khan, the learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the respondent No. 2- the c¤eÑ£¢a cje L¢jne submits that upon obtaining some specific allegations the Commission made an inquiry and issued a notice upon the present convict- appellants under section 26(1) for submitting a statement as to the wealth owned, possessed and enjoyed by the appellants but the appellants failed to submit the wealth statement within the

Mossaddek, BO


=23=

stipulated period of time, nevertheless, by filing a Writ Petition the appellant Mrs. Gulshan Ara Begum submitted a statement of assets after 40 (forty) days of the stipulated period time which was accepted by the Commission, however, another notice was published in the Gazette Notification being the Gazette Notification dated 10.04.2008 under the provision of 6(1H) of the Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1958 upon the absconding appellants to appear in the Court, as such, no question arises as to service of notice upon the convict-appellants.

  1. The learned Advocate further submits that the case i.e. First Information Report was lodged with Lalbagh Police Station, Dhaka and investigation was undertaken by the Commission which found some true allegations of owning, possessing and acquiring huge number of land and property both the moveable and immovable amounting to Tk. 67,43,96,742/- (sixty seven crores forty three lacs ninety six thousands seven hundreds and forty two) in his own names and in the names of the convict- appellant Mrs. Gulshan Ara Begum and their 2 (two) sons which were disproportionate to their known-sources of income, therefore, the learned Special Judge, Special Judge Court No. 07, Dhaka as the trial Court passed the impugned Judgment and

Mossaddek, BO


=24=

Order convicting and sentencing the appellant under section 27 of the c¤eÑ£¢a cje L¢jne BCe, 2004 for 10 (ten) years rigorous imprisonment to the convict-appellant Haji Md. Salim and also convicting and sentencing to the convict-appellant Mrs. Gulshan Ara Begum (now deceased) for aidding and abetting by owning and possessing disproportionate known-sources of income under section 109 of the Penal Code on the basis of the prosecution witnesses and other relevant documents adduced and produced by the parties, as such, no interference from this Court is called for. He therefore prayed to dismiss the appeals filed by the Haji Md. Salim and another in order to undergo the remaining entire period of sentence as per the impugned Judgment and Order under the provision of law.

  1. The learned Advocate for the c¤eÑ£¢a cje L¢jne also submits that the convict-appellant Mrs. Gulshan Ara Begum died after passing the Judgment and Order by the Appellant Division and before hearing of her appeal afresh but she died on 30.11.2020, as such, the appeal against her has been abated under section 431of the Code of Criminal Procedure, however, the asset-properties both moveable and immovable which she owned shall remain to be

Mossaddek, BO


=25=

confiscated as per the impugned Judgment and Order passed by

the learned Special Judge, Special Judge Court No. 07, Dhaka.

  1. The learned Advocate lastly submits that the c¤eÑ£¢a cje L¢jne BCe, 2004 was remained operative during the issuance of the notice under section 26(2) of the c¤eÑ£¢a cje L¢jne BCe, 2004 and trial of

the case against the present convict-appellants, even though, the Commission was not operative at the time of issuance of notice but under the provisions of law pursuant to ex-post facto approval

of the law made the Commission operative during the relevant period of time. In this regard, he has referred the decision of the case of Moudud Ahmed and others vs State reported in 68 DLR

(AD) (2016) page 139 para 60 as follows:

“60. This Division having considered the facts and circumstances of the case rightly dismissed the Criminal Petition for Leave to Appeal No. 398 of 2009 on merit by the impugned judgment and order. In the instant case relevant issues on point of law were in respect of sanction by the Commission pursuant to section 32 of the ACC Act read with sub-rule (1) of rule 13, sub-rule (4) and sub-rule (7)  of rule 15 of the Rules and the order/notice dated 18.02.2007 under the provisions of section 26 read with section 18 of the ACC Act which was served upon the respondent No. 1 on 20.02.2007. This Division rightly observed that the High Court Division erred in law in holding that the learned Special Judge committed illegality in taking cognizance of the offence without sanction from the Commission purportedly under section 32(1) of the ACC Act and that requirement of sub-section (1) of section 32 was complied with when the charge sheet was submitted along with a copy of the sanction letter from the

Mossaddek, BO


=26=

Commission to the concerned Court. As per provision of law, only one sanction will be required under section 32 of the un-amended Act or the amended Act. In that view of the matter no illegality was committed by the learned Metropolitan Special Judge in taking cognizance of the case. At the time of hearing of the Criminal Petition for Leave to Appeal No. 398 of 2009 the learned Advocate for the Anti-Corruption Commission could not make correct submissions in assisting this Division regarding the true scope and import of section 26 read with section 18(2) of the Act and as a result an error of law crept in formulating the opinion by this Division while disposing of the leave petition with the above observations on misconceived view of law as reported in 62 DLR (AD) 290 and 297 paragraphs 42 (partly) and 43. The aforesaid observations of this Division are not tenable in law because sub-section (2) of section 18 of the Act in unequivocal terms made it abundantly clear that the Commission can accord ex-post facto approval pursuant to the amending Ordinance No. VII of 2007. In disposing the leave petition, if the opinion formed by this Division on the effect of the ex-post facto amending Ordinance No. VII of 2007 is treated to be correct, then it would amount to declaring the law ultra vires or repeal of the law, section 18(2), without examining the vires of the law by a competent Court. We are of the view that declaring a law ultra vires or striking down a law or treating a law to be repealed or nullity without having assailed the vires of the law would tantamount to legislation by the Court which is unknown to our jurisprudence.”

  1. Mr. Md. Asaduzzaman Monir, the learned Deputy Attorney General, appearing along with the learned Assistant attorney General Mrs. Tamanna Ferdous and the learned Assistant Attorney General Mrs. Sathi Shahjahan, appearing on behalf of the respondent No. 1- the State submits that there are precise and un-doubted evidences adduced and produced by the c¤eÑ£¢a cje

Mossaddek, BO


=27=

L¢jne and could successfully prove the guilt of the appellants in the trial Court under sections 26 and 27 of the c¤eÑ£¢a cje L¢jne BCe, 2004 and also under section 109 of the Penal Code. The learned Deputy Attorney General, therefore, adopted the submissions made by the learned Advocate of the Anti- Corruption Commission.

  1. After considering the above submissions made by the learned Advocates appearing for the respective parties and also considering both the petition of appeals preferred by the present convict-appellants by way of 2 (two) appeals, in particular, the impugned Judgment and Order passed by the learned Special Judge, Special Judge Court No. 7, Dhaka as the trial Court and also considering the huge volume of Lower Court Records and the Paper Books with Additional Paper Books submitted by the parties, it appears to us that there was a c¤eÑ£¢a cje L¢jne during the period of proclamation of emergency on 11.01.2007 and an authority started to take actions against several persons including the present convict-appellants upon a preliminary inquiry made

by the Commission found some allegations. The commission thereafter issued an Order (notice) on 18.02.2007 under section 26(2) of the c¤eÑ£¢a cje L¢jne BCe, 2004 upon the present convict-

Mossaddek, BO


=28=

appellant Haji Md. Salim to submit a wealth statement but the convict-appellant Haji Md. Salim and his wife Mrs. Gulshan Ara Begum (now deceased) failed to submit any statement within the stipulated period of 72 (seventy two) hours as they were absent at their last known addresses. However, the convict-appellants approached the Writ Jurisdiction of the High Court Division under Article 102 of the Constitution seeking a Rule and Direction by filing the Writ Petition No. 2011 of 2007 to permit them to submit wealth statement beyond the time stipulated under

the notice of the c¤eÑ£¢a cje L¢jnez

  1. Upon the above legal and factual aspects, we have carefully examined the depositions of the P.Ws. and exhibits as well as the impugned Judgment and Order passed on 27.04.2008 by the learned Special Judge, Special Judge Court No. 07, Dhaka. We have also considered the Petition of Appeal preferred by Haji Md. Salim under section 10 of the Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1958. We found that there are some specific allegations against the present convict-appellants for acquiring properties beyond their known-sources of income. We, particularly, carefully examined the wealth statement submitted by the convict-appellant Mrs. Gulshan Ara Begum on behalf of the convict-appellant Haji Md. Salim containing the following assets both moveable and immovable which reads as follows:

Mossaddek, BO


=29=

gcÑ-1

""p¡­hL S¡a£u pwpc pcpÉ, h¡wm¡­cn BJu¡j£m£N, Y¡L¡ jq¡eNl L¢j¢Vl k¤NÈ p¡d¡lZ

pÇf¡cL q¡S£ ®j¡x ®p¢mj Hl ÙÛ¡hl J AÙÛ¡hl pÇf¢šl ¢hhlZ

ÙÛ¡hl pÇf¢š

 

œ²x

pÇf¢šl AhÙ

Û¡e  f¢lj¡

Z  c

ew

¢mm a¡¢lM

S¢jpq c¡m¡­el j§m

Evp/j¿¹hÉ

É

1  25 ew hs L¡V¡l¡, 0728 Aka¤¡wn  2840  26/10/1991  968,000  BuLl  BCe m¡mh¡N, Y¡L¡  3405  24/12/1991  Ae¤k¡u£  BuLl

347  05/02/1992  f¢l­n¡¢da  Hhw 2005-2006 Ll

h­oÑl Ll B­c­n Nªq£a  qCu¡­Rz pÇfc  ¢hhlZ£l

p¡¢VÑg¡CX  L¢f pwk¤š²

2  31/1, q¡S£ h¡m¤ 0250 Ak¤a¡wn  7863  26/01/1987  1,654,500  I

®l¡X, m¡mh¡N,

Y¡L¡

3  16/¢h, ®R¡V  0353 Ak¤a¡wn  180  20/01/1997  14,974,377  I

L¡V¡l¡, m¡mh¡N 0353 Ak¤a¡wn  3226  19/11/1998

Y¡L¡

S¢jl j§mÉ

4  9 ew ®ch£c¡p O¡V 0528 Ak¤a¡wn  2779  30/10/1992  300,000  I

®me, Y¡L¡

5  5 N£Ëe úu¡l ®l¡X,  20 ®X¢p­jm  1757  27/05/1998  3,000,000  I

Y¡L¡

6  ¢à…e, ¢jlf¤l,  1 HLl  696  04/02/1998  100,000  I

Y¡L¡

7  p¢gf¤l, N¡S£f¤l  44 ®X¢p­jm  3251  08/06/1985  50,000  I 8  p¢gf¤l, N¡S£f¤l  44 ®X¢p­jm  3194  05/06/1985  50,000  I 9  p¢gf¤l, N¡S£f¤l  44 ®X¢p­jm  3190  05/06/1985  50,000  I 10  p¢gf¤l, N¡S£f¤l  44 ®X¢p­jm  3191  05/06/1985  50,000  I 11  p¢gfl¤, N¡S£f¤l  44 ®X¢p­jm  3192  05/06/1985  50,000  I

12  p¢gfl¤, N¡S£f¤l  44 ®X¢p­jm  3189  05/06/1985  50,000  I

13  e¾cm¡mf¤l,  10 ®X¢p­jm  4663  22/07/1997  200,000  I

e¡l¡ueN”

14 ®X¢p­jm  932  05/02/1997  200,000  I 11 ®X¢p­jm  3429  24/06/1994  200,000  I 47 ®X¢p­jm  4644  14/08/1994  700,000  I 31 ®X¢p­jm  4645  14/04/1994  520,000  I

S¢jpq

c¡m¡­el j§mÉ

14  p¡e¡lf¡s,  36.5 ®X¢p­jm  13736  15/07/1982  700,000  I

e¡l¡ueN”

15  ­p¡e¡lN¡yJ,  1.5 HLl  6884  25/10/1995  400,000  I

e¡l¡ueN”

Mossaddek, BO


=30=

 

œ²x

pÇf¢šl AhÙ

Û¡e  f¢lj¡

Z  c

ew

¢mm a¡¢lM

S¢jpq c¡m¡­el j§m

Evp/j¿¹hÉ

É

16  ­p¡e¡lN¡yJ,  2.35 HLl  3825  28/07/1998  240,000  I

e¡l¡ueN”

­p¡e¡lN¡yJ,  35 ®X¢p­jm  2060  29/03/1995  15,000  I e¡l¡ueN”

­p¡e¡lN¡yJ,  162 ®X¢p­jm  2152  29/04/1993  170,000  I e¡l¡ueN”

­p¡e¡lN¡yJ,  135 ®X¢p­jm  1338  22/02/1995  100,000  I e¡l¡ueN”

­p¡e¡lN¡yJ,  135 ®X¢p­jm  2059  29/07/1995  100,000  I e¡l¡ueN”

­p¡e¡lN¡yJ,  85 ®X¢p­jm  4621  08/09/1993  60,000  I

e¡l¡ueN”

17  ­p¡e¡lN¡yJ,  20 ®X¢p­jm  3826  28/07/1993  10,000  I

e¡l¡ueN”

Mossaddek, BO


117 ®X¢p­jm 86 ®X¢p­jm 30 ®X¢p­jm 70 ®X¢p­jm

172 ®X¢p­jm 30 ®X¢p­jm 10 ®X¢p­jm

18  18/2,  0880Aka¤¡wn

Blj¡¢e­V¡m¡,

Y¡L¡

19  84,84/1,  0093 Ak¤a¡wn

Cpm¡jf¤Êl, Y¡L¡

84,84/1,  0088 Ak¤a¡wn Cpm¡jf¤Êl, Y¡L¡


157  06/01/1993 2593  26/05/1993 1889  08/06/1996 4815  18/08/1994 6174  08/07/1993 2151  29/04/1993 2676  23/04/1995

1509  07/05/1995

3460  10/12/1997 3461  10/12/1997


100,000  I 60,000  I 50,000  I 60,000  I

200,000  I 30,000  I 10,000  I

800,000  I

465,000  I 435,000  I


20  S¤l¡Ce, ®Xjl¡,  16 ®X¢p­jm

Y¡L¡

21  6 ew CnÄl Q¾cÐ 0368 Ak¤a¡wn

®O¡o ØV£V, Y¡L¡

2096 Ak¤a¡wn 22  16/2, 16/3,  0785 Aka¤¡wn

Bqp¡e EõÉ¡

®l¡X, Y¡L¡

23  8 ew ®ch£c¡p O¡V 0247Aka¤¡wn

®me, Y¡L¡


1627  09/03/1998  100,000  I

2315  18/08/1997  434,231  I

2096  18/08/1996

86  14/01/2001  1,500,000  BuLl BCe Ae¤k¡u£ Ll

f¢l­n¡¢da Hhw 2006-2007 Ll

h­oÑ Ll ¢edÑ¡lZ£ B­c­nl

A­fr¡u l¢qu¡­Rz

6  11/05/2000  600, 000  BuLl BCe Ae¤k¡u£ Ll

f¢l­n¡¢da Hhw 2006-2007 Ll

h­oÑ Ll ¢edÑ¡lZ£ B­c­nl A­fr¡u l¢qu¡­Rz


=31=

 

œ²x

pÇf¢šl AhÙ

Û¡e  f¢lj¡

Z  c

ew

¢mm a¡¢lM

c¢mm j§

 Evp/j

¿¹hÉ

24  2 ew jq¡S¡c¡ ¢ju¡ 1630Ak¤a¡wn  65  23/01/2000  2,250, 000  I

®me, Y¡L¡

25  S¤l¡Ce, Y¡L¡  27.50  11470  01/03/2001  1,250, 000  I

®X¢p­jm

26  Sl¤¡Ce, Y¡L¡  27.50  532  28/01/1999  1,250, 000  I

®X¢p­jm

27  ­p¡e¡lN¡yJ,  311.50  9242  28/11/1999  500,000  I

e¡l¡ueN”  ®X¢p­jm

28  L¡Jl¡e h¡S¡l  6 L¡W¡  4894  26/11/2000  600,000  I

29  L¡Jl¡e h¡S¡l  6 L¡W¡  362  03/02/1999  300,000  I

30  N¡S£f¤l  04.95  9142  14/05/2002  100, 000  BuLl BCe ®X¢p­jm  Ae¤k¡u£ Ll

f¢l­n¡¢da Hhw 2005-2006 Ll

h­oÑ Ll ¢edÑ¡lZ£ B­c­nl A­fr¡u l¢qu¡­Rz

Mossaddek, BO


31  S¤l¡Ce, Y¡L¡ 32  ­p¡e¡lN¡yJ,

e¡l¡ueN”


20 ®X¢p­jm 26 ®X¢p­jm


3893  20/06/2002 3481  05/05/2002


800, 000  I 100,000  BuLl BCe

Ae¤k¡u£ Ll f¢l­n¡¢da Hhw 2006-2007 Ll

h­oÑ Ll ¢edÑ¡lZ£ B­c­nl A­fr¡u l¢qu¡­Rz


33  17, n¡q¡S¡c¡ ¢ju¡ 0270 Ak¤a¡wn

®me

34  ­p¡e¡lN¡yJ,  11.50

e¡l¡ueN”  ®X¢p­jm


73  17/01/2000  100,000  BuLl BCe Ae¤k¡u£ Ll

f¢l­n¡¢da Hhw 2005-2006 Ll

h­oÑ Ll ¢edÑ¡lZ£ B­c­nl A­fr¡u l¢qu¡­Rz

182  07/01/2003  50,000  BuLl BCe Ae¤k¡u£ Ll

f¢l­n¡¢da Hhw 2006-2007 Ll

h­oÑ Ll ¢edÑ¡lZ£ B­c­nl A­fr¡u l¢qu¡­Rz


35  ­p¡e¡lN¡yJ,

e¡l¡ueN” 36  ­p¡e¡lN¡yJ,

e¡l¡ueN” 37  ­p¡e¡lN¡yJ,

e¡l¡ueN” 38  ­p¡e¡lN¡yJ,

e¡l¡ueN”


40.50 ®X¢p­jm 19.33 ®X¢p­jm 36 ®X¢p­jm

6 ®X¢p­jm


183  07/01/2003 1569  15/03/2003

4890  16/07/2003 4891  16/07/2003


200,000  I

100,000  I

150,000  I 50,000  BuLl BCe

Ae¤k¡u£ Ll

f¢l­n¡¢da Hhw 2005-2006 Ll

h­oÑ Ll ¢edÑ¡lZ£ B­c­nl A­fr¡u l¢qu¡­Rz


=32=

 

œ²x

pÇf¢šl AhÙ

Û¡e  f¢lj¡

Z  c

ew

¢mm a¡¢lM

c¢mm j§

 Evp/j

¿¹hÉ

39  ­p¡e¡lN¡yJ,  13 ®X¢p­jm  1566  15/03/2003  100,000  BuLl BCe e¡l¡ueN”  Ae¤k¡u£ Ll f¢l­n¡¢da Hhw

2006-2007 Ll

h­oÑ Ll ¢edÑ¡lZ£ B­c­nl A­fr¡u l¢qu¡­Rz

40  16/1/1, Bqp¡e  0372 Ak¤a¡wn  690  11/03/2003  2,000,000  BuLl BCe EõÉ¡qÚ ®l¡X, Y¡L¡  Ae¤k¡u£ Ll f¢l­n¡¢da Hhw

2005-2006 Ll

h­oÑ Ll ¢edÑ¡lZ£ B­c­nl A­fr¡u l¢qu¡­Rz

41  ­p¡e¡lN¡yJ,  44.50  7520  05/11/2003  1,500,000  BuLl BCe e¡l¡ueN”  ®X¢p­jm  Ae¤k¡u£ Ll f¢l­n¡¢da Hhw

2006-2007 Ll

h­oÑ Ll ¢edÑ¡lZ£ B­c­nl A­fr¡u l¢qu¡­Rz

Mossaddek, BO


42  ­p¡e¡lN¡yJ,  15 ®X¢p­jm

e¡l¡ueN”

43  16/1/1, Bqp¡e  2.5 L¡W¡ EõÉ¡qÚ ®l¡X, Y¡L¡

44  16/1/1, Bqp¡e  2.5 L¡W¡ EõÉ¡qÚ ®l¡X, Y¡L¡

45  ­p¡e¡lN¡yJ,  21.50

e¡l¡ueN”  ®X¢p­jm 46  ­p¡e¡lN¡yJ,  22.50

e¡l¡ueN”  ®X¢p­jm 47  ­p¡e¡lN¡yJ,  5 ®X¢p­jm

e¡l¡ueN”

48  f¤lh¡L¾cl,  20 L¡W¡

¢jlf¤l, Y¡L¡


7522  05/11/2003 4443  27/12/2003 4694  30/12/2003

5382  09/08/2004 5381  09/08/2004

5384  09/08/2004 6853  22/11/2004


1,000,000  I 2,000,000  I 2,000,000  I

250,000  I 200,000  I

50,000  I 1,680,000  I


49  ­p¡e¡lN¡yJ,

e¡l¡ueN” 50  ­p¡e¡lN¡yJ,

e¡l¡ueN” 51  ­p¡e¡lN¡yJ,

e¡l¡ueN” 52  ­p¡e¡lN¡yJ,

e¡l¡ueN”


38 ®X¢p­jm 63 ®X¢p­jm 20 ®X¢p­jm 24 ®X¢p­jm


6693  06/10/2004 7263  08/11/2004 7726  25/11/2004 157  10/01/2005


200,000  I 400,000  I 100,000  I 150,000  BuLl BCe

Ae¤k¡u£ Ll f¢l­n¡¢da Hhw 2006-2007 Ll

h­oÑ Ll ¢edÑ¡lZ£ B­c­nl A­fr¡u l¢qu¡­Rz


=33=

 

œ²x

pÇf¢šl AhÙ

Û¡e  f¢lj¡

Z  c

ew

¢mm a¡¢lM

c¢mm j§

 Evp/j

¿¹hÉ

53  ­p¡e¡lN¡yJ,  37.50  164  10/10/2005  215,000  I

e¡l¡ueN”  ®X¢p­jm

54  ­p¡e¡lN¡yJ,  16 ®X¢p­jm  1267  17/02/2005  150,000  I

e¡l¡ueN”

55  ­p¡e¡lN¡yJ,  13.75  1266  27/02/2005  100,000  I

e¡l¡ueN”  ®X¢p­jm

56  ­p¡e¡lN¡yJ,  6 ®X¢p­jm  1265  27/02/2005  50,000  I

e¡l¡ueN”

57  ­p¡e¡lN¡yJ,  6.33 ®X¢p­jm  2937  21/04/2005  50,000  I

e¡l¡ueN”

58  ­p¡e¡lN¡yJ,  0860 Ak¤a¡wn  2938  21/04/2005  75,000  I

e¡l¡ueN”

59  ­p¡e¡lN¡yJ,  13 ®X¢p­jm  2946  21/04/2005  100,000  I

e¡l¡ueN”

60  ­p¡e¡lN¡yJ,  12 ®X¢p­jm  5707  07/07/2005  100,000  I

e¡l¡ueN”

61  ­p¡e¡lN¡yJ,  1180 Ak¤a¡wn  5706  07/07/2005  100,000  I

e¡l¡ueN”

62  e¾cm¡mfl¤, ga¥õ¡,  5 ®X¢p­jm  6179  01/12/1998  100,000  I

e¡l¡ueN”

63  16/¢h/1, ®R¡V  2500 Ak¤a¡wn  4140  27/07/2006  2,300,000  BuLl BCe L¡V¡l¡, m¡mh¡N,  Ae¤k¡u£ Ll

Y¡L¡  f¢l­n¡¢daz k¡q¡ 2007-2008

Ll h­oÑ ¢h­hQÉ

q­hz

64  16/¢h/1, ®R¡V  0165 Ak¤a¡wn  4141  27/07/2006  600,000  I

L¡V¡l¡, m¡mh¡N,

Y¡L¡

65  ¢p¢LlN¡J,  94 ®X¢p­jm  2326  10/08/2006  1,314,000  I

NS¡¢lu¡, j¤¢¾pN”

66  ¢p¢LlN¡J,  108 ®X¢p­jm  2327  10/08/2006  1,509,000  I

NS¡¢lu¡, j¤¢¾pN”

67  ¢p¢LlN¡J,  61 ®X¢p­jm  2324  10/08/2006  853,000  I

NS¡¢lu¡, j¤¢¾pN”

68  ¢p¢LlN¡J,  77 ®X¢p­jm  2325  10/08/2006  1,076,000  I

NS¡¢lu¡, j¤¢¾pN”

69  31/H/1, q¡S£ h¡m¤ 0164 ®X¢p­jm  5469  05/10/2006  700,000  I

®l¡X, Y¡L¡

70  ¢p¢LlN¡J,  68 ®X¢p­jm  2447  23/08/2006  952,000  I

NS¡¢lu¡, j¤¢¾pN”

71  ¢p¢LlN¡J,  39 ®X¢p­jm  2452  23/08/2006  546,000  I

NS¡¢lu¡, j¤¢¾pN”

72  ¢p¢LlN¡J,  57 ®X¢p­jm  2450  23/08/2006  798,000  BuLl BCe NS¡¢lu¡, j¤¢¾pN”  Ae¤k¡u£ Ll

f¢l­n¡¢daz k¡q¡ 2007-2008

Ll h­oÑ ¢h­hQÉ

q­hz

73  ¢p¢LlN¡J,  66 ®X¢p­jm  2449  23/08/2006  924,000  I

NS¡¢lu¡, j¤¢¾pN”

Mossaddek, BO


=34=

 

œ²x

pÇf¢šl AhÙ

Û¡e  f¢lj¡

Z  c

ew

¢mm a¡¢lM

c¢mm j§

 Evp/j

¿¹hÉ

74  ¢p¢LlN¡J,  60 ®X¢p­jm  2451  23/08/2006  840,000  I

NS¡¢lu¡, j¤¢¾pN”

75  ¢p¢LlN¡J,  70 ®X¢p­jm  2448  23/08/2006  980,000  I

NS¡¢lu¡, j¤¢¾pN”

76  ¢p¢LlN¡J,  63 ®X¢p­jm  2965  08/10/2006  882,000  I

NS¡¢lu¡, j¤¢¾pN”

77  ¢p¢LlN¡J,  46 ®X¢p­jm  2960  08/10/2006  644,000  I

NS¡¢lu¡, j¤¢¾pN”

78  ¢p¢LlN¡J,  33 ®X¢p­jm  2966  08/10/2006  462,000  I

NS¡¢lu¡, j¤¢¾pN”

79  ¢p¢LlN¡J,  35 ®X¢p­jm  2964  08/10/2006  490,000  I

NS¡¢lu¡, j¤¢¾pN”

80  ¢p¢LlN¡J,  44 ®X¢p­jm  2961  08/10/2006  616,000  I

NS¡¢lu¡, j¤¢¾pN”

81  ¢p¢LlN¡J,  45 ®X¢p­jm  2962  08/10/2006  630,000  I

NS¡¢lu¡, j¤¢¾pN”

82  ¢p¢LlN¡J,  75 ®X¢p­jm  2963  08/10/2006  1,050,000  I

NS¡¢lu¡, j¤¢¾pN”

83  ­p¡e¡lN¡yJ,  20 ®X¢p­jm  7731  24/12/2006  200,000  I

e¡l¡ueN”

84  16/3, Bqp¡e  1900 hNÑ ¢jV¡l  15,339,750  BuLl BCe Eõ¡q ®l¡X, Y¡L¡  Ae¤k¡u£ Ll f¢l­n¡¢daz k¡q¡

2006-2007 Ll

h­oÑ ¢h­hQÉ q­hz 85  ­q¡¢ôw ew 16/1, 416 hN Ñ¢jV¡l  3,457,120  I

Bqp¡e Eõ¡q

®l¡X, Y¡L¡ (h¡x

ihe)

86  8 ®ch£c¡p O¡V  182 hN Ñ¢jV¡l  1,520,550  I

®me, Y¡L¡ (2 am¡

¢h¢ôw)

gcÑ-2

(L)   AÙÛ¡hl pÇf¢š x

   ¢m¢j­VX ®L¡Çf¡e£l ®nu¡lx  ­nu¡l j§mÉ  Evp/j¿¹hÉ

   ­L¡Çf¡e£l e¡jx

1z j¢ce¡ ®VÊ¢Xw L¡­f¡Ñx (fË¡x)  50,000  (2005-2006  Ll  h­oÑ ¢m¢j­VX  pÇfc  ¢hhlZ£­a  fËc¢nÑa

Hhw Ll ¢ed¡ÑlZ£ B­c­n

Nªq£az  pÇfc  ¢hhlZ£l

p¡¢VÑg¡CX L¢f pwk¤š²) 2z Hj¢V¢p ¢p­j¾V Cä¡x ¢m¢j­VX 60,000,000  I

    ¢nö p¿¹¡e-1  12,375,000

    ¢nö p¿¹¡e-2  12,375,000

Mossaddek, BO


=35=

3z Hj¢V¢p ®hi¡­lS ¢m¢j­VX

4z Hj¢V¢p ¢p¢fw m¡C¾p ¢m¢j­VX 5z Hj¢V¢p ®L¡ô ®ø¡­lS ¢m¢j­VX 6z j¢ce¡ é¥Vp ¢m¢j­VX

7z Hj¢V¢p f¢mLe Cä¡x ¢m¢j­VX 8z Hj¢V¢p fËf¡¢VÑS ¢m¢j­VX


40,000  I 79,960,000  I

60,000,000  I 350,000  I

200,000  I 60,000,000  I

Mossaddek, BO


(M)        k¡eh¡qex

¢en¡e ®fË­VÊ¡m, Y¡L¡ ®j­VÊ¡- O-11-2, 26,514  (BuLl BCe Ae¤k¡u£ Ll 2375  f¢l­n¡¢da  Hhw  Ll

¢edÑ¡lZ£  B­c­n  Nªq£az pÇfc ¢hhlZ£Z p¡¢VÑg¡CX L¢f  2005-2006  Ll

h­oÑl pwk¤š²)

(N)        üZÑ AmwL¡l

22/02/2007 Cw fkÑ¿  ¹ 108,000  (2006-2007  Ll  h­oÑ

pÇfc  ¢hhlZ£­a  fËc¢nÑa k¡q¡ Ll ¢edÑ¡lZ£ B­c­nl A­fr¡u B­Rz)

(O)        Bph¡hfœ J pl”¡j

22/02/2007 Cw fkÑ¿  ¹ 208,000  (2006-2007  Ll  h­oÑ

pÇfc  ¢hhlZ£­a  fËc¢nÑa k¡q¡ Ll ¢edÑ¡lZ£ B­c­nl A­fr¡u B­Rz)

(P)         hÉ¢š² j¡¢mL¡e¡d£e hÉhp¡x

j¢ce¡ ®VÊ¢Xw L­f¡Ñ­lne  ¢el£r¡ fË¢a­hce( 2006-2007  Ll  h­oÑ

pwk¤š²  pÇfc  ¢hhlZ£­a  fËc¢nÑa

k¡q¡ Ll ¢edÑ¡lZ£ B­c­nl

A­fr¡u B­Rz)

¢hp¢jõ¡q ®VÊX¡pÑ  ¢el£r¡ fË¢a­hce  

pwk¤š²

q¡S£ L¡­up BulZ Hä ØV£m ®ØV¡l  ¢el£r¡ fË¢a­hce

pwk¤š²

¢hp¢jõ¡q ®e¢i­Nne  ¢el£r¡ fË¢a­hce

pwk¤š²

¢hxâx ¢hp¢jõ¡q ®VÊX¡pÑ Hl e¡­j 2005-2006 AbÑ hvp­ll f­l 2006-2007 AbÑ hvp­l AbÑ¡v 07.08.06 Cw a¡¢l­M ¢p¢V hÉ¡wL, Cj¡jN” n¡M¡u 20,00,000 (¢hn mr) V¡L¡l HL¢V Hg¢XBl œ²u Ll¡ qCu¡­R, k¡q¡l eðl 41503133z k¡q¡ Eš² fË¢aù¡­el j§mde à¡l¡ pj¢bÑa, k¡q¡ 30.06.2007 Cw a¡¢l­M ¢el£r¡ fË¢a­hc­e Cq¡l hÉ¡MÉ¡ fË¢ag¢ma qC­hz

(Q)      eNc Ab Ñ 3,026,315 ¢hp¢jõ¡q ®VÊX¡pÑ ®b­L E­š¡me


=36=

(R)      p¿¹¡e  3,026,315 ¢hp¢jõ¡q ®VÊX¡pÑ ®b­L E­š¡me

f§œ p¿¹¡e 3 (¢ae) Se  öd¤j¡œ c¤C p¿¹¡e Hj¢V¢p ¢p­j¾V Cä¡¢VÊS ¢mx J 1z ®p¡­mj¡e n¡Çj£ (15 hvpl)  Hj¢V¢p  ®hi¡­lS  ¢mx  Hl  ®nu¡l­q¡ô¡lz  hs

2z Clg¡e n¡L£h (12 hvpl)  ®R­m ®p¡m¡uj¡­el e¡­j ¢p¢V hÉ¡wL Cj¡jN”

3z p¡mj¡e ®p¢mj (6 hvpl)  n¡M¡u  10.00  mr  V¡L¡l  HL¢V  Hg¢XBl

B­R,  k¡q¡l  eðl  41504918  a¡w-

05.12.06z k¡q¡ 30.06.06 Cw a¡¢l­M Bj¡l

(q¡S£  ®j¡x  ®p¢mj)  pÇfc  ¢hhlZ£­a  fËc¢nÑa

eNc AbÑ 30,26,316/- V¡L¡ ®b­L œ²uL«az

(S)       3.2 ®h¡­ll ¢fÙ¹m 1¢V  25,000  (m¡C­p¾pL«a)

(T)       hÉ¡wL ¢qp¡h ¢hhlZ£

30.06.06 Cw fkÑ¿¹ hÉ¢š² j¡¢mL¡e¡d£e hÉhp¡ fË¢aù¡­el ¢el£r¡ fË¢a­hc­el j¡dÉ­j pLm hÉ¡wL ¢hhlZ£l hÉ¡MÉ¡ fËc¡e Ll¡ qCu¡­Rz 01.07.06 Cw Hl fl AbÑ¡v 2006- 2007  AbÑ  hvp­ll  ¢qp¡h  pÇf¡ce  J  ¢el£r¡  L¡kÑ  pÇf¡c­el  fl  q¡me¡N¡c 30.06.2007 Cw fk¿Ñ¹ hÉ¡wL ¢hhlZ£l hÉ¡MÉ¡ fËc¡e Ll¡ k¡C­hz''

which have claimed to have been owned/ possessed/ used and consumed  by  Haji  Md.  Salim,  the  convict-appellant  in  the Criminal Appeal No. 3537 of 2009.

  1. We have also carefully examined the properties owned, used and possessed by the appellant in the Criminal Appeal No. 4282 of 2013 which reads as follows:

""q¡S£ ®j¡x ®p¢mj, p¡­hL pwpc pcpÉ

a¡q¡l Ù»£ …mn¡e Bl¡ ­hN­jl ÙÛ¡hl J AÙÛ¡hl pÇf¢šl ¢qp¡h

(L) ÙÛ¡hl pÇf¢š x

 

x  pÇf¢šl

AhÙÛ¡e

f¢lj¡Z

c¢m ew

m  a¡¢lM

c¢mm j

§mÉ  Evp/j

¿¹hÉ

1  107, eh¡hf¤l  1068  ®~f¢œL p§­œ 2005-2006  Ll ®l¡X, Y¡L¡z  Ak¤a¡wn  fË¡ç  h­oÑ  pÇfc

¢hhlZ£­a  fËc¢nÑa Hhw  Ll  ¢edÑ¡lZ£

B­cn Nªq£az

Mossaddek, BO


=37=

 

x pÇf¢šl

AhÙÛ¡e

f¢lj¡Z

c¢m

ew

m  a¡¢lM

c¢mm j§

Evp/j¿¹hÉ

2  8 J 9 ew ¢S Hm 5960  1023  19/03/2005  12,800,000  BuLl BCe N¡bÑ ®me, Y¡L¡ Ak¤a¡wn  Ae¤k¡u£ Ll f¢l­n¡¢da Hhw

2005-2006 Ll

¢edÑ¡lZ£ B­c­n Nªq£az

3  146, ¢h­le­h¡p  0236  3262  28/11/2000  400,000  I

ØVÊ£V ¢jV®g¡XÑ Ak¤a¡wn

®l¡X, m¡mh¡N,

Y¡L¡

4  147-148,  0507  525  21/03/1999  1,200,000  I

¢h­le­h¡p ØVÊ£V, Ak¤a¡wn

m¡mh¡N, Y¡L¡

5  33/1,  0131.62  3981  13/11/2003  335,000  I

BN¡­eJu¡l  Ak¤a¡wn

®cEl£, m¡mh¡N,

Y¡L¡

6  33/1,  0152  3983  13/11/2003  425,000  I

BN¡­eJu¡l  Ak¤a¡wn

®cEl£, m¡mh¡N,

Y¡L¡

Mossaddek, BO


7  145/1, ¢jV®g¡XÑ 0209

®l¡X, m¡mh¡N, Ak¤a¡wn Y¡L¡

8  145, ¢h­le­h¡p  0112.75

ØVÊ£V, m¡mh¡N, Ak¤a¡wn Y¡L¡

9  51, V­ueh£  1750

p¡LѤm¡l ®l¡X, Ak¤a¡wn Y¡L¡

10  L¡jmh¡N, ®j±S¡ 150

Ql…e¡bf¤l,  ®X¢p­jm ®Ll¡e£N”, Y¡L¡

11  11, Cj¡jN”  0308

®me, Cj¡jN”,  Ak¤a¡wn Y¡L¡

12  78/1,  6.5 L¡W¡

®j±mi£h¡S¡l,

Y¡L¡

13  j¾¤p£­M¡m¡ ®j±S¡,  0163

f¡Nm¡, e¡l¡ueN” Ak¤a¡wn


3988  13/11/2003 3376  06/07/2005 3055  16/07/1998 223  12/01/1999

1855  26/05/2007

4311  15/12/2003 751  27/02/2000


365,000  I

443,000  I

80,000  I 1,000,000  BuLl BCe

Aek¡u£ Ll f¢l­n¡¢da k¡q¡ 2006-2007 Ll hvp­ll Ll

¢edÑ¡lZ£ B­c­nl A­fr¡ l¢qu¡­Rz

1,150,000  BuLl BCe Aek¡u£ Ll

f¢l­n¡¢da k¡q¡ 2006-2007 Ll hvp­ll Ll

¢edÑ¡lZ£ B­c­nl A­fr¡ l¢qu¡­Rz

6,000,000  I 23,300  I


=38=

 

x pÇf¢šl

AhÙÛ¡e

f¢lj¡Z

c¢m

ew

m  a¡¢lM

c¢mm j§

Evp/j¿¹hÉ

Mossaddek, BO


14  j¤¾p£­M¡m¡ ®j±S¡, 0375

f¡Nm¡, e¡l¡ueN” Ak¤a¡wn 15  j¾¤p£­M¡m¡ ®j±S¡,  0327

f¡Nm¡, e¡l¡ueN” Ak¤a¡wn 16  j¤¾p£­M¡m¡ ®j±S¡, 0375

f¡Nm¡, e¡l¡ueN” Ak¤a¡wn 17  j¤¾p£­M¡m¡ ®j±S¡, 0375

f¡Nm¡, e¡l¡ueN” Ak¤a¡wn 18  j¾¤p£­M¡m¡ ®j±S¡,  0163

f¡Nm¡, e¡l¡ueN” Ak¤a¡wn 19  j¤¾p£­M¡m¡ ®j±S¡, 0188

f¡Nm¡, e¡l¡ueN” Ak¤a¡wn 20  j¤¾p£­M¡m¡ ®j±S¡, 0563

f¡Nm¡, e¡l¡ueN” Ak¤a¡wn 21  j¤¾p£­M¡m¡ ®j±S¡, 0188

f¡Nm¡, e¡l¡ueN” Ak¤a¡wn 22  j¤¾p£­M¡m¡ ®j±S¡, 0292

f¡Nm¡, e¡l¡ueN” Ak¤a¡wn 23  j¤¾p£­M¡m¡ ®j±S¡, 0327

f¡Nm¡, e¡l¡ueN” Ak¤a¡wn 24  j¤¾p£­M¡m¡ ®j±S¡, 0375

f¡Nm¡, e¡l¡ueN” Ak¤a¡wn 25  j¤¾p£­M¡m¡,  0172

nÉ¡jf¤l, Y¡L¡  Ak¤a¡wn 26  j¾¤p£­M¡m¡,  0086

nÉ¡jf¤l, Y¡L¡  Ak¤a¡wn 27  j¤¾p£­M¡m¡,  0172

nÉ¡jf¤l, Y¡L¡  Ak¤a¡wn 28  j¤¾p£­M¡m¡,  0172

nÉ¡jf¤l, Y¡L¡

29  j¾¤p£­M¡m¡,  0075

nÉ¡jf¤l, Y¡L¡

30  j¤¾p£­M¡m¡,  0149

nÉ¡jf¤l, Y¡L¡

31  j¤¾p£­M¡m¡,  0149

nÉ¡jf¤l, Y¡L¡

32  j¤¾p£­M¡m¡,  0075

nÉ¡jf¤l, Y¡L¡

33  j¤¾p£­M¡m¡,  0086

nÉ¡jf¤l, Y¡L¡

34  j¤¾p£­M¡m¡,  0172

nÉ¡jf¤l, Y¡L¡

35  j¤¾p£­M¡m¡,  0058

nÉ¡jf¤l, Y¡L¡

36  j¾¤p£­M¡m¡,  0133

nÉ¡jf¤l, Y¡L¡


6225  25/01/2000 5805  24/12/1999 5803  14/12/1999

752  27/02/2000 6227  25/01/2000 5807  01/12/1999 5808  01/12/1999 5806  01/12/1999 6130  01/12/1999 5804  01/12/1999 6226  27/12/1993 7517  01/12/1999 7519  01/12/1999 7952  27/12/1999

838  22/12/2000 839  22/02/2000 7515  01/12/1999 7516  01/12/1999 7953  27/12/1999

7518  12/12/1999

7951  27/12/1999 7520  01/12/1999 7859  22/12/1999


51,700  I

46,600  I

51,700  I

51,700  I

23,300  I

20,600  I

78,000  I

21,700  I

41,600  I

46,600  I

51,700  I

28,300  I

15,000  I

30,000  I

30,000  I

12,300  I

24,600  I

24,700  I

12,000  I

14,000  BuLl BCe Aek¡u£ Ll

f¢l­n¡¢da k¡q¡ 2006-2007 Ll hvp­ll Ll

¢edÑ¡lZ£ B­c­nl A­fr¡ l¢qu¡­Rz

30,000  I 42,500  I 22,000  I


=39=

 

x pÇf¢šl

AhÙÛ¡e

f¢lj¡Z

c¢m

ew

m  a¡¢lM

c¢mm j§

Evp/j¿¹hÉ

Mossaddek, BO


37  j¾¤p£­M¡m¡,  0083

nÉ¡jf¤l, Y¡L¡

38  j¤¾p£­M¡m¡,  1694

nÉ¡jf¤l, Y¡L¡

39  j¤¾p£­M¡m¡,  1694

nÉ¡jf¤l, Y¡L¡

40  ¢h¢ôw (¢hp¢jõ¡

V¡Ju¡l), 47-48,

®jV­g¡XÑ ®l¡X,

Cj¡jN”, Y¡L¡,

1/4 Aw­nl

j¡¢mLz

41  gÓÉ¡V ew ¢p-2, 2990 hNÑ

h¡s£ ew C-27,  g¥V ®l¡X ew- 130,

…mn¡e-1,


6099  08/11/2001  16,700  I 3189  03/06/2003  520,000  I 6687  12/11/2003  520,000  I

  30,507,260  2005-2006  Ll

h­oÑ  pÇfc ¢hhlZ£­a  fËc¢nÑa Hhw  Ll  ¢edÑ¡lZ£ B­c­n Nqª£az

2,484,900  BuLl BCe Aek¡u£ Ll

f¢l­n¡¢da k¡q¡ 2006-2007 Ll hvp­ll Ll

¢edÑ¡lZ£ B­c­nl A­fr¡ l¢qu¡­Rz


(M) AÙÛ¡hl pÇf¢š x

¢m¢j­VX ®L¡Çf¡e£l ®nu¡lx   ­nu¡l jm§É  Evp/j¿¹hÉ


1z Hj¢V¢p ®hi¡­lS ¢m¢j­VX

2z Hp Hp C¢”¢eu¡¢lw Hä LeØVÊ¡Lne ¢mx


20,000  (2005-2006  Ll  h­oÑ  pÇfc

¢hhlZ£­a  fËc¢nÑa  Hhw  Ll ¢ed¡ÑlZ£  B­c­n  Nªq£az  pÇfc ¢hhlZ£l p¡¢VÑg¡CX L¢f pwkš¤²)

60, 000  I

14,950,000

20,040,000


3z Hj¢V¢p ¢p­j¾V Cä¡x ¢m¢j­VX  50,000  I 4z Hj¢V¢p ¢p¢fw m¡C¾p ¢m¢j­VX  40,000,000  I 5z j¢ce¡ ®VÊ¢Xw L¡­f¡Ñx (fË¡x)  40,000,000  I

¢m¢j­VX

6z Hj¢V¢p fËf¡¢VÑS ¢m¢j­VX  100,000  I 7z Hj¢V¢p ®L¡ô ®ØV¡­lS ¢m¢j­VX  250,000  I 8z Hj¢V¢p f¢mLe Cä¡x ¢m¢j­VX  440,000  I 9z j¢ce¡ é¥Vp ¢m¢j­VX  I

10z ®q¡­Vm BlS¤ (fË¡x) ¢m¢j­VX  I

(N)                     k¡eh¡qex

1z ®fl¡­X¡ S£f,  4,379,725  (BuLl  BCe  Ae¤k¡u£  Ll

 Y¡L¡ ®j­V¡Ê- N-14-0992  f¢l­n¡d  Ll¡  qCu¡­R  k¡q¡

2006-2007  Ll  hvp­ll  Ll ¢ed¡Ñ¡lZ£  B­cn  ¢eÇf¢šl A­fr¡u l¢qu¡­Rz)


=40=

(O)                     üZÑ AmwL¡l (jÉ¡¢lS ¢NgÚV)  200,000  (2006-2007  Ll  h­oÑ  pÇfc ¢hhlZ£­a  fËc¢nÑa  Hhw  Ll ¢ed¡ÑlZ£  B­c­n  Nªq£az  pÇfc ¢hhlZ£l p¡¢VÑg¡CX L¢f pwkš¤²)

(P)                       Bph¡hfœ (jÉ¡¢lS ¢NgÚV)  1,100,000  (2006-2007  Ll  h­oÑ  pÇfc ¢hhlZ£­a  fcË¢nÑa  k¡q¡  Ll ¢edÑ¡lZ£  B­c­nl  A­fr¡u B­Rz)

(Q)                     eNc Ab  Ñ 7,200,000  (BuLl  BCe  Ae¤k¡u£  Ll f¢l­n¡d  Ll¡  qCu¡­R  k¡q¡ 2006-2007  Ll  hvp­ll  Ll ¢ed¡Ñ¡lZ£  B­cn  ¢eÇf¢šl

A­fr¡u l¢qu¡­Rz) ''

""…mn¡e Bl¡ ®hNj (ü¡j£x q¡S£ ®j¡x ®p¢mj) Hl j¡¢mL¡e¡d£e

k¡eh¡q­el ¢hhlZx

 

œ²

x  j¡¢m­L e¡j

l k¡ehq­el

dle

k¡eh¡q­el ew

j­Xm

Be¤j¡¢eL j§mÉ

j¿¹hÉ

1

…mn¡e Bl¡ ®hNj

Li¡l iÉ¡e

Y¡L¡ ®j­V V-11-1230

Ê¡- 1996

2,50,000/-

¢eSü  j¡¢mL¡e¡d fË¢aù¡­el  f¢lhq L¡­S  hÉhq¡l  Ll q­u b¡­Lz

2

…mn¡e Bl¡ ®hNj

Li¡l iÉ¡e

Y¡L¡ ®j­V V-11-1297

Ê¡- 1996

2,50,000/-

I

3

…mn¡e Bl¡ ®hNj

Li¡l iÉ¡e

Y¡L¡ ®j­V V-11-1296

Ê¡- 1996

2,50,000/-

I

4

…mn¡e Bl¡ ®hNj

VÊ¡L

Y¡L¡ ®j V-11-2022

­VÊ¡-1 998

4,00,000/-

I

5

…mn¡e Bl¡ ®hNj

Li¡l iÉ¡e

Y¡L¡ ®j­V V-11-1229

Ê¡- 1996

2,50,000/-

I

6

…mn¡e Bl¡ ®hNj

VÊ¡L

Y¡L¡ ®j V-11-2169

­VÊ¡-1 999

4,00,000/-

I

7

…mn¡e Bl¡ ®hNj

VÊ¡L

Y¡L¡ ®j V-11-2170

­VÊ¡-1 999

4,00,000/-

I

8

…mn¡e Bl¡ ®hNj

VÊ¡L

Y¡L¡ ®j V-11-2171

­VÊ¡-1 999

4,00,000/-

I

£e e ¡

Mossaddek, BO


=41=

 

œ²

x  j¡¢m­L e¡j

l k¡ehq­el

dle

k¡eh¡q­el ew

j­Xm

Be¤j¡¢eL j§mÉ

j¿¹hÉ

9

…mn¡e Bl¡ ®hNj

Li¡l iÉ¡e

Y¡L¡ ®j­V V-11-1630

Ê¡- 1994

2,00,000/-

I

10

…mn¡e Bl¡ ®hNj

VÊ¡L

Y¡L¡ ®j e-2736

­VÊ¡-1 972

1,20,000/-

I

11

…mn¡e Bl¡ ®hNj

VÊ¡L

Y¡L¡ -e 4716

-1985

1,50,000/-

I

12

…mn¡e Bl¡ ®hNj

Li¡l iÉ¡e

Y¡L¡ ®j­V V-02-0629

Ê¡- 1994

2,00,000/-

I

13

…mn¡e Bl¡ ®hNj

VÊ¡L

Y¡L¡ ®j X-6557

­VÊ¡-1 966

1,20,000/-

I

14

…mn¡e Bl¡ ®hNj

VÊ¡L

Y¡L¡ ®j V-3396

­VÊ¡-1 973

1,25,000/-

I

15

…mn¡e Bl¡ ®hNj

VÊ¡L

QVÊN

176

Ë¡j-e-1971

1,25,000/-

I

16

…mn¡e Bl¡ ®hNj

VÊ¡L

¢p­mV- 7696

V-1981

1,50,000/-

I

ü¡x/AØfø ''

  1. We are inclined to make part of this Judgment, the above list of moveable and immovable properties owned by the appellants as per their wealth statements because we have noticed the huge volume  of  assets  described  in  the  above  statements  without stating any legal sources of income might be sufficient for an offence (our decision is in later part of this judgment), therefore, any property at Fatullah, Narayanganj is mistakenly not in the list

Mossaddek, BO


=42=

would not make any difference to the principal offences committed under the BCe, 2004z

  1. The above huge numbers of land and other properties owned by both the appellants created sufficient reasons for serving a notice under section 26(1) and (2) of the c¤eÑ£¢a cje L¢jne BCe, 2004z
  2. Upon perusal of the law itself and the notice issued by the c¤eÑ£¢a cje L¢jne on 18.02.2007 giving time of 72 (seventy two) hours to submit a statement of wealth but the present convict-appellant failed to submit any statement within the said stipulated period of time.
  3. Analysis and application of and finding on Section 26(1) and

(2) of the c¤eÑ£¢a cje L¢jne BCe, 2004:

Upon analysis of law itself of section 26 of the c¤eÑ£¢a cje L¢jne BCe, 2004 it appears to us that there are different kinds of scenarios contain under sub-sections (1) and (2). Section 26(1) of

the c¤eÑ£¢a cje L¢jne BCe, 2004 provides an authority to the Commission to pass an order in writing directing any person upon obtaining information or conducting an inquiry that he or she is owning and possessing property disproportionate to his legal source of income.

Mossaddek, BO


=43=

  1. In the instant appeals, we have seen that an Order by way of notice was issued. Section 26(2) of the c¤eÑ£¢a cje L¢jne BCe, 2004 provides two alternative situations in sub-sections (a) and (b). Section 26(2)(a) allows to impose punishment of 3 (three) years imprisonment and fine or both if any person fails to submit a statement of wealth upon receipt of an Order (Notice).
  2. In the instant appeal preferred by Haji Md. Salim, the admitted position was that he did not receive the notice dated 18.02.2007

but the prosecution claimed that his wife received the notice, however, the prosecution was under an obligation to substantive such claim, which is absent in this case, thus, the prosecution failed to adduce any evidence to prove any receipt thereof. In such event, imprisonment for 3 (three) years cannot be imposed, even if the appellant Haji Md. Salim failed to submit a wealth statement within 72 (seventy two) hours in the notice dated 18.02.2007 because a receipt of the Order (Notice) is a precondition. The alternative provision of section 26(2)(a) of the c¤eÑ£¢a cje L¢jne BCe, 2004 is that if any person submits a written wealth statement which must be sufficient to be considered false

or baseless. Here, again 3 (three) years imprisonment could not

be imposed where admittedly notice was not received and no

Mossaddek, BO


=44=

submission of a wealth statement within 72 (seventy two) hours of the notice period, as such, no question arises as to false or baseless wealth statement.

  1. Having considered the above aspects of law, a question would certainly arise as to that if the notice dated 18.02.2007 was not received how Mrs. Gulshan Ara Begum filed the Writ Petition No. 2011 of 2007 impugning the said notice issued under sections 18 and 26(1) of the c¤eÑ£¢a cje L¢jne BCe, 2004 and under Rules 15(Gha)(1) and 15(Cha)(2) of the Emergency Power Rules, 2007? To answer of this question, we have carefully examined the relevant laws, including, Article 102 of the Constitution of Bangladesh. We consider that when a person takes shelter of the High Court Division of the Supreme Court of Bangladesh by invoking constitutional rights under Article 35(4) of the Constitution and the Writ Jurisdiction, rightly or wrongly, entertained and passed a direction then the offences and punishment thereof has been waived considering the prevailing adverse situation causing serious hardship and harassment to so many individual personnels, including Her Excellency the present Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina, the beloved daughter of the Father of the Nation Bangabandhu Sheikh Mujibur Rahman who

Mossaddek, BO


=45=

eventually proved to be innocent. In the instant appeals, neither the State nor the commission raised any question in the trial Court

as to how or when the notice came to the Writ Petitioner. None of the PWs deposed thereabout, therefore, only an assumption of main ingredient of section 26(2)(a) of the Ain, 2004 is not admisable under the Evidence Act.

  1. The settled principle in Criminal Jurisprudence is that two primary elements of crime must be present for commission of an offence, which are actus reus (act or state of affairs) and mens rea (state of mind or guilty mind). A person can be convicted if the prosecution can prove that (a) an act which is forbidden by any criminal law has been caused by conduct and (b) that conduct was accompanied by a guilty mind. The appeal in our hand by Haji Md. Salim is connected with section 26 of the c¤eÑ£¢a cje L¢jne BCe, 2004 which makes a punishable criminal offence upon passing an order in writing and receipt thereof (actus reus) and intentionally fails to submit or submits a false statement (mens rea). Section 26(2)(a) of the c¤eÑ£¢a cje L¢jne BCe, 2004 contains that “...incompliance with order mentioned under sub-section (1) after receipt of the same ...,” accordingly, a cause of action of an offence begins or arises from the date of receipt of the Order

Mossaddek, BO


=46=

issued by way of notice by the Commission. Admittedly, Haji Md. Salim never received the Order or Notice, therefore, non- presence of one of the vital elements of a crime, being actus reus which creats a cause of action, thus, no offence has been committed as alleged and mentioned in the impugned judgment. 

  1. In view of the above analysis and application of section 26(1) and (2) of the c¤eÑ£¢a cje L¢jne BCe, 2004, now, we need to examine the prosecution case and impugned Judgment and Order dated 27.04.2008 passed by the learned Special Judge, Special Judge Court No. 7, Dhaka.
  2. We have carefully noticed that the prosecution failed to adduce any P. W. to testify as to service of the required notice (the Order of the Anti-Corruption Commission) upon the principal appellant Haji Md. Salim. However, the prosecution produced the Gazette Notification dated 10.04.2008 published under the Act, 1998 to surrender or to be tried in absentia.
  3. We consider that these Gazette Notification dated 10.04.2008 published under section 6(1A) of the Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1958 cannot be a relevent substitute of a required notice (order) to be issued by the Anti-Corruption Commission under

Mossaddek, BO


=47=

section 26(2) of the c¤eÑ£¢a cje L¢jne BCe, 2004 and it cannot be a basis for imprisonment of 3 (three) years.

  1. The learned Special Judge also failed to give any finding as to service of notice upon the appellants which is a main requirement

of punishment under section 26 of the c¤eÑ£¢a cje L¢jne BCe, 2004z Therefore, the trial Court misunderstood, misinterpreted and failed to apply his judicial mind by imposing 3 (three) years imprisonment to the appellant Haji Md. Salim, rather, he wrongly mixed up the distinct and independent offences under sections 26

and 27 of the c¤eÑ£¢a cje L¢jne BCe, 2004z In such point of view,

we find that the Special Judge committed an error by imposing 3 (three) years imprisonment to the appellant Haji Md. Salim, as such, the impugned Judgment and Order so far it relates to finding under section 26 of the c¤eÑ£¢a cje L¢jne BCe, 2004 is hereby set aside except the Order of confiscation of the properties. Accordingly, the Criminal Appeal No. 3537 of 2009

is allowed so far it relates to section 26 of the c¤eÑ£¢a cje L¢jne BCe, 2004z

  1. In the result, the appellant Haji Md. Salim is acquitted from the charges brought against him under section 26 of the c¤eÑ£¢a cje L¢jne BCe, 2004z The impugned Judgment and Order so far it

Mossaddek, BO


=48=

relates to punishment under section 26 of the c¤eÑ£¢a cje L¢jne BCe, 2004 for 3 (three) years imprisonment is hereby set aside. The Criminal Appeal No. 3537 of 2009 is hereby allowed regarding offence under section 26 of the BCe, 2004z

  1. However, the respondent No. 1 (the State) is hereby directed to confiscate the above mentioned movable, immovable and other properties which are part of this appeal shall remain and vested under the custody of the State and all the properties within the custody of the valid personnel of the State including the properties of the deceased convict-appellant Gulshan Ara Begum until the steps taken by any claimant as per Rule 18P Hl p¡h-l¦mp

7, 8 Hhw 9 Ah ¢c c¤eÑ£¢a cje L¢jne l¦mp, 2007z

  1. Analysis and application of and finding on the offence under section 27 of the c¤eÑ£¢a cje L¢jne BCe, 2004z

 The First Information Report and the charge sheet mentioned above, brought the specific allegations against the convict- appellant Haji Md. Salim under section 27 of the c¤eÑ£¢a cje L¢jne BCe, 2004 which is precisely the case of the Anti-Corruption Commission and the State that he acquired properties both moveable and immovable in his own name and in the names of others by way of dishonest means and disproportionate to his

Mossaddek, BO


=49=

legal known-sources of income and he failed to give any legal satisfactory explanation to defend himself by way of rebuttal for owning and possessing such properties in the trial Court.

  1. The allegations are that 86 landed properties along with structures thereon in the name of the convict-appellant Haji Md. Salim and 40 landed properties at Dhaka and Narayangonj along with house constructed buildings in the name of Mrs. Gulshan Ara Begum, the wife of Haji Md. Salim along with huge numbers of movable properties valuing total amount of Tk. 67,43,96,742/- (sixty seven crores forty three lacs ninety six thousands seven hundreds and forty two).
  2. It further appears that as per the direction of the Writ Jurisdiction to accept the wealth statement to be submitted by the convict Mrs. Gulshan Ara Begum on behalf of her husband Haji Md. Salim and the Commission received and accepted the statements of asset. On the basis of the said statements the learned trial Court being the learned Special Judge, Special Judge Court No. 07, Dhaka tried the case and convicted and sentenced as mentioned above.
  3. In view of the above factual and legal aspects of the Criminal Appeal Nos. 3537 of 2009 and 4282 of 2013, this Court has to

Mossaddek, BO


=50=

take a decision whether the learned Special Judge as the trial Court made a lawful decision for convicting and sentencing the convict-appellants within the framework of law.

  1. Regarding the offence under section 27 of the c¤eÑ£¢a cje L¢jne BCe, 2004, we have carefully examined the wealth statements submitted by the convict-appellant through invoking the Writ Jurisdiction because of the prevailing situations after proclamation of emergency, particularly, for Haji Md. Salim. In any event, the statement was submitted and accepted by the Commission and we have given details of the huge measurement

of land, to be précise 86 (eighty six) landed properties in the name of Haji Md. Salim since 1991 without giving any explanation or any information as to how he acquired those properties in his name. A serious question arises what kind of profession or legal income he was involved in since 1991 which lawfully allowed him to acquire, own and possess those huge properties described in earlier paragraphs as exhibits- 28 and 28(1). In such situation, a person requers to explain and state his lawful profession and means of acquiring properties, otherwise, law allows to presume unlawfull manner of acquiring.

Mossaddek, BO


=51=

  1. Before interpreting the provision of 27 of the c¤eÑ£¢a cje L¢jne BCe, 2004 we have to accept that the provisions contain in a legislation. The term ‘legislation’ is derived from the latin words ‘legis’ meaning law and ‘latum’ meaning to make, put or set by a competent authority of the sovereign which is the Parliament of Bangladesh by way of enacting law enforcable upon all citizens

of the country disregarding political position or social identity. Now, we intend to interpretes 27 of the c¤eÑ£¢a cje L¢jne BCe, 2004 literally because after plain reading of this law we do not find any ambiguity therein. However, there are at least four Rules for interpretation of statutes which are literal, golden rule, mischief and purposive but we have found that the literal rule of interpretaion is appropriate for section 27 of the c¤eÑ£¢a cje L¢jne BCe, 2004 for the reasons stated above. Under this rule a Judge should look primarily to the words of legislation in order to construe its meaning and should not look outside of legislation in

an attempt to find its meaning.

  1. Having taken the above jurisprudential view and after carefully reading section 27 of the c¤eÑ£¢a cje L¢jne BCe, 2004, it transpires

to us that an offence is committed if a person acquires any property by dishonest means and disproportionate to his known-

Mossaddek, BO


=52=

sources of income, a Court shall presume his guilt unless he rebuts otherwise at the trial in a Court. In the present appeals none of appellants attended in the trial Court to rebut the allegations brought against the convict-appellants under section 27 of the c¤eÑ£¢a cje L¢jne BCe, 2004 and section 109 of the Penal Code, as such, the learned Special Judge, Special Judge Court No. 07, Dhaka passed the impugned Judgment and Order on the basis of the possession and ownership of the prperties as per the statement supplied to the Anti-Corruption Commission without explaining as to what were the legal sources of income for acquiring such a huge number of properties mentioned in this judgment, which are, 86 landed properties along with the structures thereof in the name of the convicted appellant Haji Md. Salim and 40 landed properties at Dhaka and Narayangonj along with houses and constructed buildings in the name of Mrs. Gulshan Ara Begum, the wife of Haji Md. Salim.

  1. We have also noticed that both of the convict-appellants have more properties amounting to Tk. 20,00,000/- (twenty lacs), vehicles and other moveable properties without mentioning any where in the wealth statement as to the sources of income by which they acquired and purchased by deeds exhibited by P. Ws.

Mossaddek, BO


=53=

without contradicting or rebutting the allegations, therefore, it is presumed that those were acquired by way of practicing corruption or their illegal means in contravention to section 27 of the c¤eÑ£¢a cje L¢jne BCe, 2004z 

  1. In this regard, a question may arise how we have acquitted the appellant Hazi Md. Salim from the charge under section 26 of the c¤eÑ£¢a cje L¢jne BCe, 2004 earlier when a statement of assets becomes part of the offence under section 27 of the BCe, 2004z Regarding this regard, we are of the opinion that in the Criminal Jurisprudence causation rule has an important roll in a criminal case where presence of actus reus which means action or ommission. The prosecution must prove chain of causation but if chain is broken no accused can be found guilty. In the instant appeal by Haji Md. Salim, we found the failure by the prosecution to prove receipt of a required notice under section 26 of the c¤e£Ñ¢a cje L¢jne BCe, 2004 and consequent of failure to comply thereon has broken the chain of causation by entertaining and passing a direction by the Writ Jurisdiction under Articles 102 and 35(4) of the constitution of Bangladesh. On the other hand, section 27 of the c¤eÑ£¢a cje L¢jne BCe, 2004 creates an indipendent, distinct and separate offence where any issuance or

Mossaddek, BO


=54=

receipt of a notice is not required. Under section 27 of the Ain, 2004 if the commission has sufficient reason to believe as to possession of any property disproportionate to his or her legally known sources of income he or she shall be presumed to have committed an offence, unless he or she can rebut in the trial Court. The differences between sections 26 and 27 are that section 26 requires (i) the Commission upon being satisfied might pass an order for issuance of a notice to any person for declaration of assets (ii) upon receipt of the said notice to submit a true statement of assets and (iii) if he fails or submits false statement, 3 (three) years imprisonment shall be imposed. Whereas section 27 requires that (i) any person possesses or owns any movable or immovable property including cash money, (ii) the property is acquired outside or disproportionate to any legal sources of income, (iii) the person fails to defend himself in any manner by way of rebuttal in Court, (iv) the court shall presume the person’s guilt for acquiring property by dishonest means and by practicing corruption, (v) the Court can impose maximum 10 (ten) years imprisonment and (vi) no notice is needed in this section but only sufficient reason for forming a believe by the Commission is needed beside the present appeals.

Mossaddek, BO


=55=

THE COMMISSION’S ACTION AND INACTIONS:

  1. We have cauciously noticed that the Commission still does

not have capacity or courage to form such kind of belief even there are thousands of apparent corrupt persons possessing properties and money, but hardly at its own initiatives, rather, unfortunately still depends upon media coverages to form its belief for taking action under sections 26 and 27 of the Ain, 2004.

We desire to see a Commission which must be effective and active in finding out root of all corruptions within the holder of constitutional post and non-constitutional ordinary servants of the Republic. We consider that we are duty bound for eradicating corruption from Bangladesh as per the directives of the Father of

the Nation Bangabandhu Sheikh Mujibur Rahman (h‰hå¥ ®nM j¤¢Shl¤ lqj¡e) and also the commitments of the Hon’ble Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina.   

  1. The settled principle of law laid down by our Apex Court in the case of Moudud Ahmed and others -vs- State and another reported in 68 DLR (AD) 2016, page- 118 is that section 27 of

the c¤eÑ£¢a cje L¢jne BCe, 2004 is an independent and separate kind

of offence wihch is committed, as soon as, the prosecution can prove and the trial Court finds that there are many moveable and

Mossaddek, BO


=56=

immovable properties owned, possessed or acquired by way of practicing dishonest and illegal means and those are disproportionate to his known-sources of income. In this regard, we consider that the phrase “dishonest means and disproportionate to his known-sources of income” is wisely, carefully and spacificationlly drafted to mean any unlawful means of earning money or property, such as, bribery, cheating, practicing fraud, applying force or even at the cost of tears of other persons (real owners), those properties would be considered as dishonest and without any known-sources of income. The said cited decision also contains the existence of the Commission at the relevant time by Ex-Post Facto approval by amending the Ordinance.  

  1. In this case, the convict-appellants failed to mention any valid sources of income beginning earlier to the year of 1991 until the statements of assets submitted in the year of 2007 in which the convicts failed to mention any valid or legal source, such as, by way of succession, by way of lawful purchase from any valid source of income or acquiring properties by any other valid means. For the above purpose, we have carefully noticed that the convict-appellants given a huge volume of wealth statement

Mossaddek, BO


=57=

without mentioning any where that how the above huge properties were acquired, owned and enjoyed by both the convict- appellants. Failure to make any statement as to any legal sources made the appellants guilty for convicting offence under section 27 of the Ain, 2004.

  1. In view of the above discussions, we found that the appellant Haji Md. Salim has committed the offence under section 27 of the BCe, 2004 and the appellant, the wife of Haji Md. Salim, namely, Mrs. Gulshan Ara Begum has also committed offence under section 109 of the Penal Code, because, we found presence of two essential elements of crime, actus reus and means rea. Actus reus is the action and conduct for acquiring such a huge properties by both the appellants in a long course of time. Mens rea is that dishonest means and illegal manner of income earned by practicing corruption or illegally using power and deceptive intention for acquiring those properties for himself and for his wife. Section 27(2) of the c¤eÑ£¢a cje L¢jne BCe, 2004 has given an authority to a Court to persue mens rea or guilty mind unless rebutted by providing any valid sources of income. In the present appeals, there was neither any rebuttal in the trial Court nor any legal sources of income described in the wealth statements.

Mossaddek, BO


=58=

Therefore, the learned Special Judge, Special Court No. 07, Dhaka has rightly presumed that the appellants have acquired and owned the above mentioned properties without any valid known- sources of income.   

  1. In our opinion, the convict-appellant Haji Md. Salim has lawfully and validly convicted by the learned trial Court to suffer 10 (ten) years rigorous imprisonment along with fine and order of confiscation of all properties, as such, that the sentence is sustainable under law, therefore, the Criminal Appeal No. 3537 of 2009 is hereby dismissed so far it relates to the offence under section 27 of the c¤eÑ£¢a cje L¢jne BCe, 2004 and he must surrender in the Court of the learned Special Judge, Special Judge Court No. 07, Dhaka for suffering 10 (ten) years imprisonment and to pay fine. The jimmanamas (¢SÇj¡e¡j¡) in his favour are hereby cancelled and all properties shall be confiscated and be vested to the State.
  2. Death of the appellant Mrs. Gulshan Ara Begum and consequence thereof:

So far it relates to the offence under section 109 of the Penal Code, the convict-appellant, Mrs. Gulshan Ara Begum, was convicted for aidding and abetting the prinicipal offender who

Mossaddek, BO


=59=

committed the offence under section 27 of the Ain, 2004 and she was sentenced for 3 (three) years rigorous imprisonment with fine

of Tk. 1,00,000/- (one lac), in default, to suffer rigorous imprisonment 6 (six) months rigorous imprisonment more. In the Criminal Appeal No 4282 of 2013 filed by the convict-appellant Gulshan Ara Begum, we have been informed that on 30.11.2020 she died during the pendency of the appeal. In this regard, we consider that her appeal will be abated under section 431 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, accordingly, the sentence of 3 (three) years imprisonment is hereby set aside.

  1. Finding upon the confiscation of all properties of the deceased appellants:

We have stated in the earlier paragraphs that all properties in the statement of assets shall be confiscated in favour of the State after cancelling the jimmanamas (¢SÇj¡e¡j¡). In the present given event,

a  serious question would arise  as to  what  will  happen to  the properties mentioned above owned, possessed and acquired by

the appellant (now deceased) Mrs. Gulshan Ara Begum by aidding and abetting the principal offender Haji Md. Salim who has been convicted for an offence under section 27 of the c¤eÑ£¢a

Mossaddek, BO


=60=

cje L¢jne BCe, 2004 upon which a confiscating order has been passed in the impugned Judgment and Order.

  1. In this regard, the learned Advocate for the appellants submits that upon abatment of the appeal those properties would go to her successors. On the other hand, the learned Advocate for the respondent No. 2- the c¤eÑ£¢a cje L¢jne (Anti-Corruption Commission) submits that the properties will remain to be confiscated in favour of the State.
  2. In this regard, Rule 18P of the c¤eÑ£¢a cje L¢jne l¦mp, 2007 (Anti- Corruption Commission Rules, 2007) made it clearly as to the consequence of death of any convict-appellant during pendency

of the appeal which reads as follows:

“[18Pz Ahl¦ÜL«a h¡ ®œ²¡LL«a pÇf¢šl Q¤s¡¿¹ ¢eÖf¢šz (1) BC­el ag¢pmi¥š² Afl¡­dl ¢hQ¡­ll ®r­œ Bc¡ma ¢h¢d 18

H h¢ZÑa pw¢nÔÖV hÉ¢š²l pÇf¢š h¡­Su¡¢çl ¢pÜ¡­¿¹ Efe£a qC­m Ahl¦ÜL«a J ®œ²¡LL«a pÇf¢š h¡­Su¡¢çl B­cn fcË¡e L¢l­hz

(2)..............................

(3)..............................

(4)..............................

(5).........................

(6).........................

(7) HC ¢h¢dl AeÉ¡eÉ ¢hd¡­e k¡q¡ ¢LR¤C b¡L¥L e¡ ®Le, ¢h¢d 18 H

h¢ZÑa pw¢nÔÖV hÉ¢š²l ¢hl¦­Ü L¢jn­el Nª¢qa ®L¡e L¡kœÑ²j h¡ j¡jm¡ Q¥s¡¿¹

¢eÖf¢šl f§­hÑ ®Lhmj¡œ a¡q¡l jªa¥ÉS¢ea L¡l­Z f¢lQ¡¢ma ®L¡e L¡kœÑ²j

pj¡ç h¡ hå qCu¡ ®N­m a¡q¡l Ahl¦ÜLa« h¡ ®œ²¡LL«a pÇf¢š üuw¢œ²ui ¡­h

Ahj¤š² qC­h e¡z

(8)   Ef-¢h¢d (7) Hl ®r­œ Eš² hÉ¢š²l jªa¥Él HL hR­ll j­dÉ

a¡q¡l Ešl¡¢dL¡l£l Ešl¡¢dL¡l£N­Zl c¡¢MmL«a B­hc­el ®fË¢r­a

Bc¡ma L¢jne­L p¤­k¡N ¢cu¡ öe¡e£ A­¿¹ Eš² pÇf¢š BC­el ag¢pmi¥š²

Afl¡d pwOV­el j¡dÉ­j A¢SÑa eu h¡, ®rœja, Eš² hÉ¢š²l ‘¡a B­ul

Mossaddek, BO


=61=

Ev­pl p¢qa Ap‰¢afZ§Ñ eu h¢mu¡ p¿ºÖV Ahj¤š² L¢l­a f¡¢l­h, AeÉb¡u

Eš² pÇf¢š l¡­ÖVÊl Ae¤L¨­m h¡­Su¡ç ¢qp¡­h NZÉ qC­hz

(9) HC ¢h¢dl Ad£e-

(L)      h¡­Su¡çL«a pÇf¢š ®L¡e hÉ¡wL HL¡E­¾V h¡ mL¡­l l¢ra

AbÑ üZÑ, ®l±fÉ, CaÉ¡¢c j§mÉh¡e hÙº h¡ j¢Z-j¤š²¡ h¡ p’ufœ hä qC­m h¡wm¡­cn hÉ¡wL a¡q¡ l¡­ÖVÊl f­r cMm J ¢eu¿»Z NËqZ L¢l­h Hhw plL¡¢l ¢h¢d-¢hd¡e ®j¡a¡­hL flhaÑ£ hÉhØq¡fe¡ L¢l­h;

(M) h¡­Su¡çL«a AeÉ¡eÉ Øq¡hl AØq¡hl pÇf¢š ®k ®Sm¡u

Ah¢Øqa ®pC ®Sm¡ fËn¡pL l¡­ÖVÊl f­r cMm J ¢eu¿»Z NqËZ L¢l­he Hhw

plL¡¢l ¢h¢d-¢hd¡e ®j¡a¡­hL flha£Ñ hÉhØq¡fe¡ L¢l­he;

(N) ­L¡e pÇf¢š h¡­Su¡ç qC­m cg¡ (L) h¡ (M) Ae¤k¡u£ hÉhØq¡

NËq­Zl SeÉ Bc¡ma h¡wm¡­cn hÉ¡wL h¡, ®r œja, pw¢nÔÖV ®Sm¡ fnË¡p­Ll

hl¡h­l pw¢nÔÖV h¡­Su¡çL«a pÇf¢šl ¢hhlZpq B­c­nl L¢f ®flËZ

L¢l­hz]”

  1. In view of the above provisions of law, the order of confiscation shall remain operative, even after death of the any convict- appellant. Now, the question would arise as to which Court will have jurisdiction to exercise the provisions of law under Sub-Rule 18P of the c¤eÑ£¢a cje L¢jne l¦mp, 2007 (of the Anti-Corruption Commission Rules, 2007).
  2. In this regard, we consider that a Criminal Court can not have any authority or jurisdiction to give any entitlement or right upon any property because exercise of that power would be coram- non-judice as per the meaning given in the Advance Law Lexicon.
  1. “Coram -non-judice as the phrase arises from Latin proverb.”

 This phrase is particularly applied to the Court that devoid of jurisdiction in the matter. In particular, the Advance Law Lexicon

Mossaddek, BO


=62=

by P. Ram Nath Aiyar edited by Hon’ble Y. B. Chandrachur and according to Webster Dictionary the coram-non-judice have been given meaning that any matter before a Judge not competent or without jurisdiction to deal with the matter. The argument forwarded in favour of this Latin proverb that a Criminal Court would be a coram-non-judice and will have no jurisdiction to adjudicate as to who is the person entitled or released of the property which was confiscated by a Criminal Court. In the instant appeal, by the impugned judgment and order of the properties of the convict-appellant Mrs. Gulshan Ara Begum (now deceased) the properties were confiscated by a Criminal Court but that Court would be coram-non-judice to decide any entitlement of successor’s claim, if any.

  1. Accordingly, any successor or any claimant must make a claim in a competent Court by way of inheritance as per provision of Rule 18P of the c¤eÑ£¢a cje L¢jne l¦mp, 2007 (of the Anti- Corruption Commission Rules, 2007). Any claimant must go to the competent Civil Court who will have jurisdiction to deal with the matters of succession, inheritance or claim or saham (p¡q¡j) upon the properties of the deceased Gulshan Ara Begum after making the commission a necessary party in order to defend such

Mossaddek, BO


=63=

claim. In failure of any such claim of right and title upon the confiscated properties both moveable and immovable would remain confiscated in favour of the State.

  1. Our Observation Against Corruption:

Beside the above legal and factual aspects of these appeals, we observe that corruption is a mental disease which can not be curred by only corporal punishment but by identifying the areas and individuals or group of individuals addicted, facilitated and opportunistic to corruption and by listing their names, including within the Commission and Judiciary by the commission as well as by all heads of private and public offices and Courts for sending them warning letter as soon as any person is detected and disclosed. We know that it will be a difficult and risky task because an honest person may fall prey of a corrupted person but we have to start from somewhere to be a civilized and corruption free nation.

  1. In the word of Professor Sidgwick “In determining a nation’s rank in political civilization, no test is more decisive then the degree in which justice as defined by the law is actually realized in its judicial administration.” We put the above statement of Prof. Sidgwick as a part of our observation to assess ourselves as

Mossaddek, BO


=64=

to the rank of our civilization. In addition to the above, the modern States are ranked internationally as to degree of corruption. We are ashamed of our rank because of some corrupted persons who have managed to set themselves up in every sector in disguise with mental illnesses. They are powerfull, organized and syndicated, therefore, on the basis of seriousness, arrogant and protracted offenders of corruption capital punishment could be introduced.

  1. Final findings of the appeals:

We are of the opinion that so far it relates to the conviction and sentence under section 27(1) of the c¤eÑ£¢a cje L¢jne BCe, 2004 the prosecution could successfully prove its case by adducing and producing sufficient evidence as to acquiring huge measurement of immovable properties of land and stuctures thereupon and movable properties appropriately valued at Tk. 67,43,96,742-/ (sixty seven crore forty three lac ninety six thousand seven hundred and forty two) which are disproportionate to legal sources of income and/ or unlawful and dishonest means of income by the convict-appellant Haji Md. Salim and the learned trial Court committed no error of law and fact rather lawfully and validly convicted the convict-appellant Haji Md. Salim for 10

Mossaddek, BO


=65=

(ten) years rigorous imprisonment and also awarding fine of Tk. 10,00,000/- (ten lacs), in default, to suffer rigorous imprisonment

for 1 (one) year more, therefore, the appeal so far it relates to the offence of the convict-appellant Haji Md. Salim under section 27(1) of the c¤eÑ£¢a cje L¢jne BCe, 2004 is hereby dismissed and

his properties shall remain to be confiscated.

  1. On the other hand, the convict-appellant Haji Md. Salim is hereby acquitted from the charge under section 26(2) of the c¤eÑ£¢a cje L¢jne BCe, 2004 and the appeal so far it relates to the convict- appellant Haji Md. Salim is hereby allowed, therefore, 3 (three) years imprisonment is set-aside.
  2. Accordingly, the impugned judgment and order dated 27.04.2008 passed by the learened Special Judge, Special Court No. 07, Dhaka is hereby modified as per the above decisions.
  3. The Criminal Appeal No. 4282 of 2013 preferred by the convict- apppellant Mrs. Gulshan Ara Begum is abated due to her death.
  4. The convict-appellant Haji Md. Salim son of late Chan Mia Sarder in Criminal Appeal No. 3537 of 2009 is hereby directed to surrender in the Court of the learned Special Judge, Special Judge Court No. 07, Dhaka within 30 (thirty) days from the date of the receipt of this Judgment and Order.

Mossaddek, BO


=66=

  1. The learned Special Judge, Special Judge Court No. 07, Dhaka is hereby directed to withdraw the bail bond of the convict-appellant Haji Md. Salim and to issue W/A if he fails to surrender within the above stipulated period of time, in such, case to ensure his arrest by issuing W/A and maintain the realization of fine of Tk. 10,00,000/- (ten lacs) within 30 (thirty) days from the date of the receipt of this Judgment and Order.
  2. The concerned section of this Court is hereby directed to send down the Lower Court Records along with a copy of this Judgment and Order to the learned Special Judge, Special Judge Court No. 07, Dhaka to take necessary actions immediately.

A. K. M. Zahirul Huq, J:

I agree.

Mossaddek, BO