The Appellate Division of the Supreme Court has expunged its earlier order and observations delivered in a verdict saying the Anti-Corruption Commission (ACC) cannot issue repeated notice upon any person for submitting a wealth statement and this is a malafide act of the organization.
A four-member bench of the Appellate Division headed by Chief Justice Hasan Foez Siddique made the decision after hearing a review petition filed by the ACC.
The apex court delivered the reviewed decision on June 30 in 2022, while the full text of the verdict was released on the SC website on Wednesday.
According to the verdict, three successive notices have been served upon one Md Ashraful Haque, of them, two notices were issued by the same officer of the Commission.
Having received the last notice Mr Ashraful challenged the same before the High Court Division by filing a writ petition. A Division Bench of the High Court Division initially issued a rule and after hearing the rule the HC discharged it by its judgment on June 13 in 2013.
Against the HC judgment, the writ petitioner filed a civil petition for leave to appeal before Appellate Division and after hearing the apex court on November 24 in 2016 disposed of the same with observations.
In its observation, the apex court said, “If the Commission is not satisfied with the wealth statement, there is provision for the filing case against the writ petitioner, but the Commission cannot issue repeated notice upon any person for submitting a wealth statement. This is a malafide act on the part of the Durnity Daman Commission.”
“We direct the Chairman of Durnity Daman Commission to take legal action against the officers who intentionally issue such notices. The judgment of the High Court Division is quashed.”
Feeling aggrieved by the above findings and observations, the ACC filed the review petition. After hearing the review petition, the apex court has expunged its earlier order and observations passed in its earlier verdict.
The apex court said, “So, it is clear that the notice has been issued upon the writ petitioner for the purpose of proper and effective inquiry and the writ petitioner was asked to submit or provide the documents in support of his wealth statement submitted before the commission in pursuant to the notice under section 26 of the Act, 2004….”
Earlier, in disposing the leave petition this Division did not take into consideration the above provisions of law and Rules and thus, came to an erroneous decision, which is apparent on the face of the record.”
Lawyer Khurshid Alam Khan appearing for the ACC submitted that the issuance of notice for gathering information regarding the wealth statements is necessary for conducting the inquiry or investigation, and as such, issuance of successive notices do not mean harassment.
bikashju@gmail.com