Case Law

ATM Nazimullah Chowdhury VS State and Another (2013)

The facts of the case

In the case of ATM Nazimullah Chowdhury vs State, the accused appellant, ATM Nazimullah Chowdhury, had served as the Ambassador of Bangladesh to the UAE for two years. There were several allegations of corruption against him. By committing corruption, he made a wrongful gain of 2002209 taka. After an investigation into his corruption, it was found to be true. Abdullah Al-Zahid, the investigator, submitted a charge sheet number. 336 dated 28 August 2008 against the accused applicant under Section 409 of the Penal Code, 1860, read with Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947.

Issues of the case

Will the appellant be liable or not?
Will section 409 of Penal Code 1860 be applicable?

Decision

The High Court division decision was against the appellant.

Justification

The learned Advocate Mr. Fida M. Kamal said that the impugned order and sentence cannot be maintained in law. They mentioned that the foreign ministry approved hiring a new resident for Mangrove village at a rate of 240,000 Dirhams.

Another learned Advocate on behalf of the appellant stated that the cost of hiring a new residence in Mangrove Village is a legally incurred expense. He also noted that the provision of Rule 19 (Jha) of the Emergency Power Rule of 2007 was not followed in the letter and spirit in the matter of serving notice upon the appellant; as a result, he was not aware of the proceedings, and he failed to surrender.

On the contrary, Mr. Harunur Rashid, learned Advocate, submitted that the learned trial judge minutely followed the procedural due process in respect of the trial of the appellant in absentia and on correct assessment of evidence. An investigation supported every document presented to the court. The appellant compelled the embassy staff to pay the bill that he had incurred.

By the impugned judgment and order, the learned special judge convicted the appellant under section 409 of Penal Code 1860, read with section 5(2) of Prevention Corruption Act 1947, and sentenced him thereunder to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 5 years and to pay a fine of taka 2100000 in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a further period of 1 year in absentia.