Present

Madam Justice Kashefa Hussain

Criminal Appeal No. 1717 of 2016

Md. Siddique Hossain

...... Appellant-petitioner -Versus-

The State and another

------- Respondent. Mr. A.B.M. Altaf Hossain, Advocate

.... for the appellant-petitioner Mr. Hasan M. S. Azim, Advocate

.... for the respondent No. 2 Mr. Md. Mohiuddin Dewan, D.A.G with Ms. Syeda Sabina Ahmed Molly, A.A.G

------- For the State.

Heard on: 11.05.2023, 12.07.2023, 02.08.2023 and

Judgment on 09.08.2023

This appeal is directed against the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 24.02.2016 passed by the learned Special Judge No. 3, Dhaka in Special Case No. 07 of 2010 arising out of Dhaka Metro. Special Case No. 31 of 2010 corresponding to BAC G.R. Case No. 206 of 2003 arising out Motijheel P.S. Case No. 31 dated 13.12.2003 convicting the appellant under Section 4(2)(a) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1957 and Sentenced him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for (three) years and to pay a fine of Tk. 1,00,000/-, in default, to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 3 (three) months more should not be set-aside and/or pass such other or further order orders as to this court may seem fit and proper.

The prosecution case, in short is that Nur Hossain Khan, (Task Force-3), Durniti Damon Bureau, Bangladesh as the informant on 13.12.2003 lodged FIR with Motijheel Police Station under Dhaka District alleging inter alia that the DUDAK issued a notice to the appellant under section 4(1) of Durniti Damon Ain, 1957 (Act No. 26) for submitting wealth statement within 45 days and on reply the appellant received Wealth Statement form but he did not submit the wealth statement within 45 days. Thereafter the informant lodged the above noted FIR against the appellant.

That the investigating officer after perfunctory investigation submitted charge sheet being No. 834 dated 31.12.2009 under Section 4(2) (Act No. 26) of the Durniti Damon Ain, 1957 against the appellant and others.

That the trial court examined 3 witnesses but no witness was examined from accused’s side and after closing evidence of the prosecution the accused were examined under Section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure when he pleaded not guilty.

Learned Advocate Mr. A.B.M. Altaf Hossain appeared for the convict appellant petitioner while learned advocate Mr. Hasan M. S. Azim represented the respondent No. 2 while learned Deputy Attorney General Mr. Mohiuddin Dewan along with Ms. Syeda Sabina Ahmed Molly represented the respondent No. 1.

Learned Advocate for the accused convict appellant submits that the court below upon misreading of facts came upon wrong finding and therefore the judgment is not sustainable. He submits that although it could not be proved by cogent evidence that the seal and signature does belong to the Anti Corruption Commission and the concerned ACC official respectively but however the court upon total misconception of mind wrongly convicted the appellant under Section 4(2)(a) of the Anti Corruption Act, 1957. To substantiate his arguments, he draws attention to the cross examination of the PW-4 who is the concerned official and draws upon his oral evidences He particularly draws upon the oral evidences wherefrom he submits that in the oral evidences the PW-4 stated that although the signature and the seal is not given by him but however he is not aware as to who gave the signature. He draws upon the further evidences of the PW-4 wherefrom he points out that since the c¤e£¢a cje h¤É−l¡ was abolished therefore the concerned register dated 20.10.2003 could not be preserved. He submits that the PW-4 admitted that for this reason the veracity of the seal and signature could not be ascertained.

On the issue of seal and signature he next contends that since there since a dispute arose over the signature and seal on the relevant document that is the wealth statement submitted by the appellant, it was the duty of the court to call for expert opinion to ascertain the seal and signature fol