Present:

Short facts for disposal of the Rule are as

follows;

The petitioner was the owner of 9.41 decimals of land acquired in L.A. Case No.04 of 2018-19 pursuant to the ‘Øq¡hl pÇf¢š A¢dNËqe J ýL¥jcMm BCe,2017’, and accordingly following the due process he obtained compensation amounting Tk.1,08,50,514.08(taka one crore eight lac fifty thousand five hundred fourteen taka and eight paisa) by two cheques; thereafter the petitioner purchased land by spending substantial portion of the said money and made fixed deposit amounting to taka 50(fifty) lac in the Social Islami Bank Ltd. Cox’s Bazar vide account Nos.0395310017181 and 0395310016461 respectively. Eventually, the petitioner somehow came to learn that something went wrong with his above bank accounts, and he visited the Branch Office of the Social Islami Bank Ltd., Cox’s Bazar. The Bank Manager, Respondent No.4 readily refused to share any information with him. Then the petitioner made a written request on 13.01.2021 to close his bank account in order to withdraw his said fixed deposits from the Bank. In reply, the Bank officials states as follows:

""c§e£Ñ¢a cje L¢jne pj¢eÄa ®Sm¡ L¡k¡Ñmu, QVÊNË¡j-02 Hl Ef pqL¡l£ f¢lQ¡mL J ac¿¹L¡l£ LjÑLa¡Ñ Se¡h ®j¡x nl£g E¢Ÿe ü¡r¢la fœ pÈ¡lL ew-05, a¡¢lMx 06/01/2021 Cw Hl j¡dÉj Eš² ¢qp¡h'' ""No Debit'' ""Ll¡l SeÉ wb‡`©kbv †`qv n‡q‡Qz''

Having being informed about the fact the petitioner inquired about the reasons for doing so,

and on 17.01.2021 also demanded a copy of the said letter in writing to the Respondent No.4. But of no avail. Under such circumstances on 19.012021 a legal notice was served upon the Bank Manager seeking disclosure of the impugned letter issued by the Anti-Corruption Commission (ACC). Further, the petitioner spontaneously made a written complaint before the Chairman of the ACC outlining the background facts that led to freeze his bank accounts by the Respondent No.3. He also made a written request on 26.01.2021 to the Deputy Director, Integrated District Office, Chattogram-2,

to provide him a copy of the impugned letter. However, he didn’t get any response from any corner.

At no point of time he notified about the reasons

for such decision.

The above facts and circumstances compelled the petitioner to file this writ petition.

At the time of issuance of the Rule the Respondent No.3 was directed to explain in writing under what authority he requested the Respondent No.4, the Bank Manager by writing the impugned letter for ‘no debit’ in respect of the bank accounts of the petitioner. Accordingly, the Respondent No.3 had appeared before this Court and furnished an written explanation stating that in course of inquiry of a case he found that the petitioner had obtained the said money by illegal means and he requested the Bank for ‘no debit’ so that the petitioner could not transfer the money. However, the said Respondent has failed to explain before the Court as to his authority to issue such a letter to the Bank on behalf of the ACC.

An affidavit-in-opposition has been filed by the Respondent No.1, ACC stating the facts of the case; however, in the affidavit-in-opposition the Respondent No.1 did not state weather it had given any instruction to the Respondent No.3 for taking the impugned action.

Heard the learned Advocates for the respective parties, perused the impugned order and the annexures to the writ petition couple with the relevant provision of Anti-Corruption Commission Act,2004 and Anti-Corruption Commission Rules, 2007. In the Rules,2007 a specific provision has been laid down to attach and freeze of the ‘crime acquired property’ by the Commission.

Rule 18 of the above Rules speaks as follow;

""18z Afl¡dmë pÇf¢š Ahl¦ÜLlZ h¡ ®œ²¡L¡cnz-(1) L¢jne La«ÑL

Nªq£a ®L¡e L¡kÑœ²jl ®k ®L¡e fk¡Ñu, k¢c L¢jnel ¢eLV k¤¢š²p‰ai¡h fËa£uj¡e qu ®k, ®L¡e hÉ¢š² BCel ag¢pmi¨š² ®L¡e Afl¡d pwOVe Kwiqv‡Qb, a¡q¡ nB‡j L¢jne Eq¡l c¡¢uaÄfË¡ç LjÑLa¡ÑL Eš² hÉ¢š²l

Afl¡dmì h¡, ®rœja, ‘¡a Bul Evpl p¢qa Ap‰¢af§ZÑ pÇf¢š, k¡q¡

Eš² hÉ¢š²l ¢eS e¡j h¡ a¡q¡l fr AeÉ ®L¡e hÉ¢š²l e¡j h¡ cMm

b¡L¥L e¡ ®Le, Ahl¦ÜLlZ (freezing) h¡, ®rœja, ®œ²¡Ll (attachment) Av‡`k Q¡¢qu¡ HM¢au¡lpÇfæ ¢p¢eul ®Øfn¡m SS Bc¡ma h¡, ®rœja, ¢hQ¡¢lL ®Øfn¡m SS Bc¡ma Bhce Ll¡l

rja¡ fËc¡e Kwi‡Z cvwi‡et

Z‡e kZ© _v‡K †h, k¢c p¤¢e¢cÑøi¡h ¢Q¢q²a h¡ pe¡š²LlZ ®k¡NÉ e¡ qJu¡l

L¡lZ h¡ AeÉ ®L¡e L¡le Efl h¢ZÑa pÇf¢š Ahl¦Ü (freezing)

h¡ ®œ²¡L (attachment) Ll¡ pñh e¡ qu, a¡q¡ nB‡j Dc‡i h¢ZÑa

hÉ¢š²l, kac§l pñh, pjj§mÉl AeÉ pÇf¢š Ahl¦ÜLlZ (freezing)

h¡, ®rœja, ®œ²¡Ll (attachment) SeÉ Dc‡i ewY©Z Av‡e`b

Ll¡l rja¡ fËc¡e Ll¡ hvB‡ez ''

(2) Ef-¢h¢d (1) Hl Ad£e rja¡fË¡ç LjÑLa¡Ñ pw¢nÓø Av`vj‡Z ¢m¢Ma Av‡e`‡b Ab¨vb¨ weei‡Yi p¢qa ¢ejÈh¢ZÑa abÉ¡¢c D‡jøK Kwi‡eb, kb¡x- (L) Ahl¦ÜLlZ h¡ ®œ²¡L Bcnl ¢e¢jš pÇf¢šl AhØq¡e, f¢lj¡Z J Be¤j¡¢eL j§mÉpq fªZÑ ¢hhlZ;

(M) pw¢nÔø hÉ¢š²l e¡j-f¢lQupq BCel af¢pmi¨š² Afl¡d pwOVe

a¡q¡l pw¢nÔøa¡ J a¡q¡l j¡dÉj Eš² pÇf¢š A¢SÑa qJu¡l h¡, ®rœja,

Eš² pÇf¢š a¡q¡l ‘¡a Bul Evpl p¢qa AmÁwZc~Y© qJu¡l c¡¢hl

mc‡ÿ k¤¢J² J fË¡b¢jL fËj¡Z¡¢c;

(N) Afl¡dmì h¡ ‘¡a Bul Evpl p¢qa Ap‘¢af§ZÑ pÇf¢šl f¢lhaÑ

AeÉ pÇf¢š Ahl¦ÜLlZ h¡ ®œ²¡Ll SeÉ Bhce Ll¡ qCm f§h¡Ñš²

pÇf¢š Ahl¦ÜLlZ h¡ ®œ²¡L Ll¡ pñh e¡ qJu¡l k¤¢š²p‰a L¡lZ;

(O) fË¡b£Ña Av‡e`b ‡gvZv‡eK Bc¡ma La«ÑL Av‡`k fËc¡e Ll¡ e¡ nB‡j

A¢ik¡N, ¢h¢dj¡m¡l Ad£e Nªq£a ®L¡e L¡kÑœ²j h¡, ®rœja, j¡jm¡ Q¥s¡¿¹ ¢eØf¢šl f§hÑC pÇf¢š¢V AeÉœ qØa¡¿¹l h¡ ®hq¡a qCh¡l BnwL¡ iwnqv‡Q

From the above provisions it is crystal clear that without the permission of the court concerned no one, even the Commission has got any power to pass any order of freezing or attachment or to impose any restrictions with regard to a property of a citizen of the country allegedly to have been acquired by illegal means i.e. ‘crime acquired property’.

Rule 18 of the Rules,2007 has clearly laid down a procedure for freezing or attachment of a property allegedly illegally acquired by a suspected person. Before freezing or attachment of any property the Commission prima-facie has to be satisfied first that the alleged property has been acquired by illegal means and then, the Commission should have authorized its officer to apply before the Senior Special Judge or the trial Judge, as the case may be for freezing or attachment of such property. And thereafter, the authorized officer, should have filed an application before the Court concerned stating the reasons for attachment or freezing the property, as the case may be with sufficient materials. Finally, the Court concerned may pass an order of attachment or freezing the property after being prima-facie satisfied that said property has been acquired by the concerned parson by illegal means.

Rules, 2007 does not give any power to an inquiry or investigating officer or any other officer of the ACC for freezing or attachment of a ‘crime acquired property’ or otherwise imposing any restriction to enjoy the same at his whim.

Mr. Shaheen Ahmed, the learned Advocate for the ACC has failed to satisfy us by citing any law in regard to the action of Respondent No.3 directing the bank for ‘no debit’ of the accounts of the petitioner.

Having considered the facts and circumstances of the present case couple with the relevant law and Rules we have no hesitation to hold that the Respondent No.3, having no authority issued the impugned letter to the Bank, which is illegal, arbitrary, without jurisdiction and colourable exercise of power.

Thus, we find merit in the Rule. Accordingly, the Rule is made absolute.

The impugned memo No.05 dated 06.01.2021 issued by the Respondent No.3, Annexure-D directing the Bank Manager to freeze petitioner’s bank accounts maintained with the Social Islami Bank Ltd. (SIBL), is hereby declared to have been issued without lawful authority and is of no legal effect.

However, this judgment will not debar the ACC to take any action with regard the two property in question in accordance with law, if prima facie it has been found that same is the ‘crime acquired property’.

There is no order as to cost.

Md. Mostafizur Rahman, J:

I agree.

I.Sarwar/B.O

দায়বর্জন বিবৃতি (DISCLAIMER)