Supreme Court Judgments, Summarised

by Barrister Tahmidur Rahman | Nov 3, 2026

Appellate Division

Durnity Daman Commission v Md. Mizanur Rahman and others

Civil Appeal 179/2018 · Decided 5 March 2024

Read the judgment ↓Every listing of this case Download PDF

4judges on the bench

12pages

91paragraphs

1laws considered

Summary

Investors who had deposited money with Unipay 2U obtained an ex parte money decree in Money Suit No. 06 of 2012 and, in execution, an order directing BRAC Bank to issue a pay order from the judgment debtors' account. The bank sought reconsideration, stating that the account had been frozen with the permission of the Special Judge on the application of the Anti-Corruption Commission. The executing court rejected the decree holders' application, but the High Court Division in Civil Revision No. 914 of 2015 made the Rule absolute. The Commission appealed. The Appellate Division noted that the accounts had been frozen and later confiscated in a money laundering case, with criminal appeals pending. It held that the High Court Division, knowing of the freezing and without the Commission being a party, acted arbitrarily. Claimants could seek redress under sections 15 to 19 of the Money Laundering Protirodh Ain, 2012. The Commission was directed to publish notice of the confiscated property, and the High Court order was set aside.

Issues

Q1
Whether the High Court Division could direct a judgment debtor bank to pay decretal money out of accounts frozen at the instance of the Anti-Corruption Commission and later confiscated in a money laundering case.
Q2
What remedy is available to persons claiming money in accounts frozen or confiscated under the Money Laundering Protirodh Ain, 2012.

Key points

Having noticed that the judgment debtors' accounts were frozen at the instance of the Anti-Corruption Commission, the High Court Division ought not to have passed any order regarding those accounts, and its order was arbitrary and unsustainable.
The High Court Division failed to notice that the Anti-Corruption Commission was not a party and had no chance to place its case.
Sections 15 to 19 of the Money Laundering Protirodh Ain, 2012 provide for release of frozen or attached property, confiscation, return of confiscated property and appeals by aggrieved persons.
Anyone with a claim or interest in money or property attached, frozen or confiscated by the court concerned can move the competent court, here the High Court Division, for redress.
The Anti-Corruption Commission, having not published the newspaper notice required by law, was directed to publish notice of the confiscated property within 30 days, leaving the decree holders and other claimants at liberty to approach the High Court Division.

In view of the above provisions of law if anyone has claim or interest in the money/property attached/frozen or confiscated by the Court concerned, they can move before the competent Court for their redress.

From the judgment, Justice M. Enayetur Rahim

Law considered

Money Laundering Protirodh Ain, 2012, sections 15, 16, 17, 18 and 19

The judgment

In the court’s own words.

Civil Appeal 179/2018, as published by the Supreme Court of Bangladesh. 12 pages, with paragraph numbers for citing.

Find in this judgmentPDF

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BANGLADESH

Appellate Division

PRESENT

Mr. Justice Obaidul Hassan, C.J.

Mr. Justice M. Enayetur Rahim

Mr. Justice Md. Ashfaqul Islam

Mr. Justice Md. Abu Zafor Siddique

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 179 OF 2018

1(From the judgement and order dated the 6th day of September 2016 passed by the High Court Division in Civil Revision No.914 of 2015). Durnity Daman Commission, : . . . . Appellant represented by its Chairman

-Versus-

2Md. Mizanur Rahman and : . . . Respondents others For the Appellant : Mr. Md. Khurshed Alam Khan, Senior

Advocate, instructed by Mr. Md. Zahirul

Islam, Advocate-on-Record

3For the Respondents : Mr. Aneek R. Hoque, Advocate with Mr.

Rafsan-Al-Alvi, Advocate, instructed by

Mr. Syed Mahbubar Rahman,

Advocate-on-Record

4Date of hearing : The 23th day of January and 28th day of

February, 2024

5Date of judgment : The 5th day of March, 2024

JUDGMENT

6M. Enayetur Rahim, J: This civil appeal, by leave, is directed against the judgment and order dated 06.09.2016 passed by a Division Bench of the High Court Division in Civil Revision No.914 of 2015 making the Rule absolute.

7The facts, relevant for disposal of this civil appeal, in brief, are that the present respondent Nos. 1-6 as plaintiffs instituted Money Suit No. 06 of 2012 in the Court of Joint Sessions Judge, 2nd Court, Dhaka, impleading present respondent Nos. 7-13 for realization of Tk. 55,99,23,386.00/-/-(fifty five crore, ninety nine lakh,

Page 2

three hundred and eighty six). In the plaint, it was contended that defendant No.1 and 2-5 of the suit made several advertisements in their website and seminars regarding their business activities as gold trading, money multiplication profit on any investment in the company. The plaintiffs had deposited their money in the defendants' account by deposit slips and by online transfer in the respective ID numbers of the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs deposited in the account of defendant No.1 Tk.24,44,20,929/-in good faith upon assurance of the defendants' business policy. As a cunning device to defraud the investors including the plaintiffs, defendant Nos. 1-5 showed profits online against respective IDs of the investors including the plaintiffs, but when the plaintiffs went to draw their profits, the defendants did not give any money. Thereafter, the plaintiffs went to the defendant No.1 only to find the owners and other directors of defendants’ Company but they went into hiding. Thereafter, the plaintiffs having come to know about some bank accounts of defendant No.1 on 16.02.2012 filed an application before the Chairman of Bangladesh Telecommunication Regulatory Commission (BTRC) requesting him to take effective steps. On 10.02.2012, the plaintiff respondent Nos. 1-5 went to the defendant’s office and requested to return their deposited money but the defendants bluntly refused. Then the plaintiffs on the selfsame statement of the facts filed an application under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 read with section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure for temporary injunction restraining defendants No.1-5 from withdrawing money from

Page 3

8the bank accounts and the plaintiffs also filed an application under Order XXXVIII, Rule 5 read with section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure praying for attachment of the bank accounts of defendant No.1 maintained with defendant Nos.6-8 banks before judgment.

9Upon hearing, the trial Court by order dated 28.03.2012 granted temporary injunction and allowed the application for attachment. The defendants having not entered appearance in the suit, the trial Court decreed the suit ex-parte vide judgment and order dated 26.11.2013.

10The plaintiffs as decree holders levied the decree in execution in Money Decree Execution Case No.1 of 2014 on 09.03.2014. On 31.03.2014 the decree holders filed an application in the executing Court praying for a direction upon the defendant-judgment debtor Nos. 6-8 Banks to issue pay Order/DD/Cash of the decretal amount including interest till issuance of Pay Order/DD/Cash, and also for an order of attaching bank accounts of defendant-judgment debtors No.1-5 till realization of decretal amount with interest and initially, for issuance of a direction upon defendant-judgment debtor No. 7, B R A C Bank, Elephant Road Branch, Dhaka to issue Pay Order including interest at bank rate prevailing on 23.02.2012 in favour of the decree holders from account No. 1535201690148001 maintained by defendant-judgment debtor Nos. 1-5.

11The executing Court by order dated 25.06.2014 allowed the decree holders’ application dated 31.03.2014 and directed to issue a letter upon judgment debtor No. 7, BRAC Bank Ltd. calling upon it to submit statement of

Page 4

Account No. 1535201690148001 maintained by judgment debtor Nos.1-5. Thereafter, on 10.07.2014 the statement of the account was produced before the Court. The executing Court by order No.8 dated 14.07.2014 issued an order directing judgment debtor No.7 BRAC Bank Ltd. to issue pay order of Tk. 65,65,72,154/- from the Account No. 1535201690148001 of judgment debtor No. 1-5.

12On 20.07.2014, defendant-judgment debtor No. 7, BRAC Bank Ltd., Elephant Road Branch, Dhaka filed an application in the executing Court praying for reconsideration of the order dated 14.07.2014 to issue pay order and to stay operation of the said order till further order, stating therein, inter alia, that the judgment debtor No.7 had no knowledge of the money decree execution case till receipt of the said order. The Money Laundering prevention Division of Bangladesh Bank temporarily suspended operation of the said account along with other accounts in view of enquiry and investigation by Anti- Corruption Commission. Subsequently, on the prayer of Anti-Corruption Commission, the Special Judge and Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Dhaka, by order dated 06.07.2010, accorded permission to freeze the said account along with accounts maintained with 5 others banks, and as such, the bank account in question is frozen now. Since the order according permission to freeze the account in question passed by the superior Court was not within the knowledge of the executing Court, the order dated 14.07.2014 was required to be stayed till further order.

13The decree holders filed a written objection against the said application dated 20.07.2014 filed by judgment

Page 5

debtor No.7. Thereafter, several times the hearing of the application was adjourned for producing necessary documents and paper and on 15.10.2014, after hearing both the parties, and perusing the papers submitted by both sides, the executing Court by order No. 16 held that it could not come to a conclusion as to whether the account in question has been frozen by a competent Court or Anti Corruption Commission, and in such a situation the decree holders were directed to file an affidavit in support of their claim, and 17.11.2014 was fixed for further order subject to filing of that affidavit.

14On 13.11.2014, the decree holders filed affidavit in compliance of the order dated 15.10.2014. On 17.11.2014, the matter was taken up and in view of the conflicting claim of the decree holders and judgment debtor No. 7, the executing Court ordered to send a letter to Director General (Legal and Prosecution), Anti-Corruption Commission, to let the Court know the real state of affairs fixing 22.01.2012 for receiving reply. No reply came on the said date and next date was fixed for order on 22.02.2012. On that day it was further adjourned to 09.03.2012 and the executing Court on 09.03.2015 rejected the decree holders' application.

15Being aggrieved, the plaintiffs filed Civil Revision No. 914 of 2015 before the High Court Division.

16A Division Bench of the High Court Division after hearing the Rule by the impugned judgment and order dated 06.09.2016 made the Rule absolute and thus, set aside the order dated 09.03.2015 rejecting the plaintiffs’-decree

Page 6

holders’ prayer to direct the defendant-judgment debtor to comply with the order dated 14.07.2014.

17Feeling aggrieved by the said judgment and order the Durnity Daman Commission filed Civil Petition for Leave to Appeal No.198 of 2018. Accordingly, leave was granted on 01.08.2018. Hence, this appeal.

18Mr. Md. Khushed Alam Khan, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the appellant made submissions in line with grounds upon which leave was granted. In addition, the learned Advocate submits that with regard to the Unipay 2U a money laundering case (Special Case No.2 of 2014) was pending before the Special Judge, Court No.3, Dhaka at the relevant time and in the meantime some of the defendantsjudgment debtors have been convicted by the learned Special Judge having found guilty of the offence under section 4(2) of the Money Laundering Protirodh Ain, 2012 and some of the convicted persons have filed appeal before the High Court Division. But by suppressing the fact and without impleading the Durnity Daman Commission, the plaintiffs filed the suit and obtained an ex-parte decree and as such, the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court Division is liable to be set aside. The learned Advocate also submits that in the Money Laundering Protirodh Ain, 2012 there are provisions of section 15 and 16 for releasing the attached or frozen property. Section 15 relates to releasing the attached property and section 16 deals with the provision for appeal. But without exhausting that forum and without impleading the Durnity Daman Commission the suit was filed and an ex-parte decree was obtained and in the writ petition Anti-Corruption

Page 7

Commission was also not made a party as such considering the same the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court Division is liable to be set aside.

19Mr. Aneek R Hoque, learned Advocate, appearing for the respondents makes submissions supporting the impugned judgment and order of the High Court Division.

20We have considered the submissions of the learned Advocates for the respective parties, perused the impugned judgment and order of the High Court Division as well as the judgment and order of learned District Judge and other materials as placed before us.

21In the instant case from the records and submissions made by the learned Advocates for the respective parties, the following facts are revealed:

22i) that the respondent Nos.1-6 (plaintiffs)

23obtained a decree in Money Suit No. 06 of 2012, passed by the learned Joint District Judge, Dhaka in respect of Tk. 55,99,23,386/-(fifty five crore ninety nine lakh three hundred and eighty six) against respondent Nos. 7-13 (defendants);

24ii) after obtaining the decree respondent Nos.1- 6 filed Money Execution Case No. 1 of 2014;

25iii) the executing Court ultimately refused to direct the judgment debtor Brac Bank to pay the money to the decree holders on the plea that the account of the judgment debtor was frozen by the order of the competent Court;

26iv) some of the defendants-judgment debtors were convicted by the learned Special Judge, Court No.3, Dhaka in Special Case No. 2 of 2014 having

Page 8

found guilty under section 4(2) of the Money

27Laundering Protirodh Ain, 2009 read with section 4(2)

28of the Money Laundering Protirodh Ain, 2012 and

29sentenced thereunder to suffer rigorous imprisonment

30for 12 years along with a fine of Tk.

312700,42,11,784.14 (two thousand and seven hundred

32crore, forty two lakh, eleven thousand, seven hundred

33and eighty four taka and fourteen paisa) to each

34convict and the accounts in question in respect of

35Tk. 420,14,29,663.05 (420 crore 14 lakh 29 thousand 6

36hundred and 63 and 05 paisa) were confiscated in

37favour of the State;

v) the convicted persons preferred Criminal

38Appeal being Nos.2598 of 2019 and 2528 of 2019 before

39the High Court Division against the said judgment and

40order of conviction and sentence, which are still

41pending.

42In view of the above facts, it is now admitted position that though the respondent Nos. 1-6 obtained an ex-parte decree for realization of money in Money Suit No. 6 of 2012 and eventually filed Money Execution Case No. 01 of 2014 before the learned Joint District Judge, 2nd Court, Dhaka but facts remain that the accounts of the judgment debtors-respondents were frozen and confiscated by a competent Court and a criminal appeal is pending before the High Court Division.

43The High Court Division though noticed that the accounts were frozen but in an arbitrary and unprecedented manner held that the Anti-Corruption Commission did not take proper step to place document in regard to the

Page 9

freezing of the accounts of the judgment debtors. The High Court Division has failed to take notice that in the writ petition the Anti-Corruption Commission was not made a party and they were not given a chance to place their case. When the High Court Division noticed that at the instance of the Anti-Corruption Commission the accounts of the judgment debtors were frozen, the High Court Division ought not to pass any order in regard to the freezing of the accounts. Knowing of the facts of freezing of the accounts of the judgment debtors, the High Court Division has passed the impugned judgment and order, which is arbitrary and cannot be sustainable in law.

44The victims or the decree holders as the case may be, who deposited money to the Unipay 2U they can claim their money under the Money Laundering Protirodh Ain, 2012. In that Ain, there is specific provision for the same. Section 15, 16, 17, 18, and 19 relate to the freezing/attachment of property and confiscation of the property and appeal by the aggrieved party against those orders. The above provisions of law run as follows:

45""15| Aeiæ×K…Z ev ‡µvKK…Z m¤úwË †diZ cÖ`vb|-(1) aviv 14 Gi Aaxb Av`vjZ †Kvb m¤úwË Aeiæ×KiY

46ev ‡µvK Av‡`k cÖ`vb Kwi‡j, Awfhy³ e¨w³ ev mËv e¨ZxZ Ab¨ †Kvb e¨w³ ev mËvi D³ m¤úwË‡Z †Kvb ¯^v_© _vwK‡j wZwb

47ev D³ mËv Dnv †diZ cvBevi Rb¨ Aeiæ×KiY ev †µvK Av‡`k cÖPv‡ii ZvwiL nB‡Z 30(wÎk) w`‡bi g‡a¨ Av`vj‡Z

48Av‡e`b Kwi‡Z cvwi‡eb|

49(2) Dc-aviv (1) Gi Aaxb †Kvb e¨w³ ev mËv Av`vj‡Z Av‡e`b Kwi‡j Av‡e`bc‡Î wb¤œewb©Z Z_¨vw` D‡jøL Kwi‡Z nB‡e,

h_vt-

50(K) gvwbjÛvwis ev †Kvb m¤ú„³ Aciv‡ai mwnZ D³ m¤úwËi cÖZ¨ÿ ev c‡ivÿfv‡e †Kvb mswkøóZv bvB;

51(L) Av‡e`bKvix cÖZ¨ÿ ev c‡ivÿfv‡e Awfhy³ gvwbjÛvwis ev Ab¨ †Kvb m¤ú„³ Aciv‡ai mv‡_ m¤ú„³ bb;

52(M) Av‡e`bKvix Awfhy‡³i bwgbx bb ev Awfhy‡³i c‡ÿ †Kvb `vwqZ¡ cvjb Kwi‡Z‡Qb bv;

53(N) Aeiæ×KiY ev †µvKK…Z m¤úwË‡Z Awfhy³ e¨w³ ev mËvi †Kvb ¯^Z¡, ¯^v_© ev gvwjKvbv bvB; Ges

54(O) Aeiæ×KiY ev †µvKK…Z m¤úwË‡Z Av‡e`bKvixi ¯^Z¡, ¯^v_© I gvwjKvbv iwnqv‡Q|

Page 10

(3) aviv 14 Gi Dc-aviv (5) G hvnv wKQzB _vKzK bv †Kb, GB avivi Aaxb m¤úwË †diZ cvBevi Rb¨ Av`vjZ †Kvb Av‡e`bcÖvß nB‡j Av‡e`bKvix, Z`šÍKvix ms¯’v I Awfhy³ e¨w³ ev mËv‡K ïbvbxi my‡hvM cÖ`vb Kwi‡eb Ges ïbvbx A‡šÍ cÖ‡qvRbxq KvMRvw` ch©v‡jvPbvµ‡g I ivóª KZ…©K ewY©Z m¤úwË‡Z cÖZ¨ÿ ev c‡ivÿfv‡e gvwbjÛvwis ev m¤ú„³ Aciv‡ai mv‡_ m¤ú„³Zvi MÖnY‡hvM¨ m‡›`‡ni †Kvb KviY Dc¯’vcb bv Kwi‡j, Dc-aviv (1) Gi Aaxb `vwLjK…Z Av‡e`bKvixi Av‡e`b m¤ú‡K© Av`vjZ mš‘ó nB‡j Aeiæ×KiY ev †µvK Av‡`k evwZjµ‡g m¤úwËwU, Av‡`‡k DwjøwLZ wba©vwiZ mg‡qi g‡a¨, Av‡e`bKvixi AbyK‡z j n¯ÍvšÍ‡ii Av‡`k cÖ`vb Kwi‡eb|

5516| m¤úwË Aeiæ×KiY ev †µvK Av‡`‡ki weiæ‡× Avcxj|- (1) GB AvB‡bi Aaxb Av`vjZ †Kvb m¤úwËi Aeiæ×KiY ev †µvK Av‡`k cÖ`vb Kwi‡j D³iƒc Av‡`‡ki weiæ‡× msÿzä e¨w³ ev mËv 30(wÎk) w`‡bi g‡a¨ nvB‡KvU© wefv‡M Avcxj Kwi‡Z cvwi‡eb|

56(2) Dc-aviv (1) Gi Aaxb †Kvb Avcxj `v‡qi Kiv nB‡j Avcxj Av`vjZ cÿe„›`‡K, ïbvbxi Rb¨ hyw³m½Z mgq w`qv, ïbvbx A‡šÍ †hBiƒc Dchy³ g‡b Kwi‡e †mBiƒc Av‡`k cÖ`vb Kwi‡Z cvwi‡e|

57(3) aviv 14 Gi Aaxb †Kvb m¤úwËi wel‡q Av`vjZ KZ…©K cÖ`Ë Aeiæ×KiY ev †µvK Av‡`‡ki weiæ‡× ‡Kvb msÿzä ev mËv Avcxj Kwi‡j Ges Avcxj Av`vjZ KZ„©K wfbœiƒc †Kvb Av‡`k cÖ`vb Kiv bv nB‡j Avcxj wb®úwË bv nIqv ch©šÍ D³iƒc Aeiæ×KiY ev †µvK Av‡`k Kvh©Ki _vwK‡e|

5817| m¤úwËi ev‡RqvßKiY|-(1) GB AvB‡bi Aaxb †Kvb e¨w³ ev mËv gvwbjÛvwis Aciv‡a †`vlx mve¨¯’ nB‡j Av`vjZ Aciv‡ai mwnZ cÖZ¨ÿ ev c‡ivÿfv‡e m¤ú„³ †`‡k ev †`‡ki evwn‡i Aew¯’Z †h †Kvb m¤úwË iv‡óªi AbyyK‡z j ev‡Rqvß Kwievi Av‡`k cÖ`vb Kwi‡Z cvwi‡e|

59(2) Dc-aviv (1) G hvnv wKQzB _vKzK bv †Kb GB AvB‡bi Aaxb gvwbjÛvwis Aciv‡ai mv‡_ mswkøó †Kvb AbymÜvb I Z`šÍ ev wePvi Kvh©µg PjvKvjxb mswkøó Av`vjZ cÖ‡qvRb‡ev‡a †`‡k ev †`‡ki evwn‡i Aew¯’Z †h †Kvb m¤úwË iv‡óªi AbyKz‡j ev‡Rqvß Kwievi Av‡`k cÖ`vb Kwi‡Z cvwi‡e|

60(3) GB AvB‡bi Aaxb gvwbjÛvwis Aciv‡ai Rb¨ †`vlx mve¨¯’ †Kvb e¨w³ cjvZK _vwK‡j ev Awf‡hvM `vwL‡ji ci g„Zz¨eiY Kwi‡j Av`vjZ D³ e¨w³i Aciv‡ai m¤ú„³ m¤úwËI iv‡óªi AbyK‡z j ev‡Rqvß Kwievi Av‡`k cÖ`vb Kwi‡Z cvwi‡e| e¨vL¨v|-h_vh_ Kvh© e¨e¯’v MÖnY Kiv m‡ËI †MÖdZvix c‡ivqvbv Rvixi ZvwiL nB‡Z 6 (Qq) gv‡mi g‡a¨ hw` Awfhy³ e¨w³ Av`vj‡Z AvZ¥mgc©b Kwi‡Z e¨_© nq ev D³ mg‡qi g‡a¨ Zvnv‡K †MÖdZvi Kiv bv hvq Zvnv nB‡j D³ e¨w³ GB avivi D‡Ïk¨ c~iYK‡í cjvZK ewjqv MY¨ nB‡eb|

61(4) GB avivi Aaxb Av`vjZ KZ…©K †Kvb m¤úwË ev‡Rqvß Kwievi Av‡`k cÖ`v‡bi c~‡e© wKsev gvgjv ev Awf‡hvM `v‡qi Kwievi c~‡e© hw` †Kvb e¨w³ ev mËv mij wek^vm Ges Dchy³ g~j¨ cÖ`vb mv‡c‡ÿ ev‡Rqv‡ßi Rb¨ Av‡e`bK…Z m¤úwË µq Kwiqv _v‡Kb Ges Av`vjZ‡K wZwb ev D³ mËv GB g‡g© mš‘ó Kwi‡Z mÿg nb †h, wZwb ev D³ mËv D³ m¤úwËwU gvwbjÛvwis Gi mwnZ m¤ú„³ ewjqv ÁvZ wQ‡jb bv Ges wZwb ev D³ mËv mij wek^v‡m m¤úwËwU µq KwiqvwQ‡jb, Zvnv nB‡j Av`vjZ D³ m¤cwË ev‡Rqvß Kwievi Av‡`k cÖ`vb bv Kwiqv Dnvi weµqjä A_© ivóªxq †KvlvMv‡i, Av`vjZ KZ…©K wba©vwiZ mgqmxgvi g‡a¨ Rgv †`Iqvi Rb¨ †`vlx mve¨¯’ e¨w³ ev mËv‡K wb‡`©k w`‡Z cvwi‡e|

62(5) Av`vjZ hw` gvwbjÛvwis ev m¤ú„³ Aciv‡ai mv‡_ cÖZ¨ÿ ev c‡ivÿfv‡e mswkøó m¤úwËi Ae¯’vb wba©viY ev ev‡Rqvß Kwi‡Z bv cv‡ib ev m¤úwË Ab¨ ‡Kvb fv‡e e¨env‡ii d‡j Aw¯ÍZ¡ wejyß nq, Zvnv nB‡j-

63(K) Aciv‡ai mv‡_ m¤ú„³ bq Awfhy³ e¨w³i Ggb mgg~‡j¨i m¤úwË ev‡Rqvß Kwievi Av‡`k cÖ`vb Kwi‡Z

cvwi‡e;

cvwi‡e|

Page 11

67Zdwmjmn mKj weeiY D‡jøLµ‡g miKvwi †M‡R‡U Ges Ab~b¨ 2 (`yB) wU eûj cÖPvwiZ RvZxq ˆ`wbK cwÎKvq [1(GK)wU

68evsjv I 1(GK)wU Bs‡iRx] weÁwß cÖPvi Kwi‡Z nB‡e|

69(7) GB avivi Aaxb Av`vjZ †Kvb m¤úwË ev‡Rqvß Kwievi Av‡`k cÖ`vb Kwi‡j D³ m¤úwËi gvwjKvbv iv‡óªi

70Dci b¨¯Í nB‡e Ges ev‡Rqvß Kwievi Zvwi‡L m¤úwËwU hvnvi wR¤§vq ev gvwjKvbvq _vwK‡e wZwb ev mswkøó mËv h_vkÖxNª

71m¤¢f, D³ m¤úwËi `Lj iv‡óªi eive‡i n¯ÍvšÍi Kwi‡eb|

75Av‡`k cÖ`vb Kiv hvB‡e|

7618| ev‡RqvßK…Z m¤úwË †diZ cª`vb|-(1) aviv 17 Gi Aaxb Av`vjZ †Kvb m¤úwË ev‡Rqvß Kwievi Av‡`k

79Av`vj‡Z Av‡e`b Kwi‡Z cvwi‡eb|

80(2) Dc-aviv (1) Gi Aaxb †Kvb Av‡e`bcÖvß nB‡j Av`vjZ gvgjv `v‡qiKvix, †`vlx e¨w³ ev mËv Ges

82Kwi‡Z cvwi‡e, h_vt-

(K) Aciva msNU‡bi mwnZ Av‡e`bKvixi ev ev‡RqvßK…Z m¤úwËi ev

m¤úwËi †Kvb As‡ki †Kvb ms‡køl wQj wKbv;

(M) Aciva msNU‡bi mgqKvj Ges ev‡RqvßK…Z m¤úwË Av‡e`bKvixi

gvwjKvbvq Avwmqv‡Q GBiƒc `vweK…Z mgqKvj; Ges

(N) Av`vj‡Zi wbKU cÖvmw½K we‡ewPZ Ab¨ †h †Kvb Z_¨|

8319| ev‡RqvßKiY Av‡`‡ki weiæ‡× Avcxj|-(1) GB AvB‡bi Aaxb Av`vjZ †Kvb m¤úwË ev‡Rqvß Kwievi

85(2) Dc-aviv (1) Gi Aaxb †Kvb Avcxj `v‡qi Kiv nB‡j Avcxj Av`vjZ Dfq cÿ‡K, ïbvbxi hyw³m½Z

86my‡hvM cÖ`vb Kwiqv, ïbvbx A‡šÍ †hBiƒc Dchy³ g‡b Kwi‡e †mBiƒc Av‡`k cÖ`vb Kwi‡Z cvwi‡e|Ó In view of the above provisions of law if anyone has claim or interest in the money/property attached/frozen or confiscated by the Court concerned, they can move before the competent Court for their redress. In the instant case they may move before the High Court Division for their claim as the accounts of the judgment debtors are/were confiscated, if so advised and if such application is

Page 12

filed, the High Court Division has got the authority to deal with the matter in accordance with law.

87In the instant case, it is admitted fact that Anti- Corruption Commission till date did not make any notification in the newspaper in respect of the confiscated property as required under the law. Thus the Anti-Corruption Commission is directed to publish notice in the daily newspaper in regard to the confiscated property within 30 (thirty) days from the date of receipt of this judgment and the respondent, decree holders, plaintiffs or any other claimant are at liberty to approach before the High Court Division for their respective claim if so advised.

88In view of the above, we are inclined to dispose of the appeal.

89Accordingly, the appeal is disposed of without any order as to costs.

90The judgment and order dated 06.09.2016 passed by the High Court Division in Civil Revision No. 914 of 2015 is set aside.

C. J.

91B.S./B.R./*Words-3,432*

Related summaries.

High Court DivisionCivil Revision 3343/2009Md. Joydhar Ali v Karamjan BibiRule discharged with costs High Court DivisionCivil Revision 4686/2004Bangladesh Railway v Shafiqul IslamRule made absolute; delay condoned High Court DivisionCivil Revision 689/2020Jamal Hossain v Mabiya Khatun and othersRule discharged

All judgment summaries →

Where TRW & Co can help

From the record to your case.

Our advocates appear before both divisions of the Supreme Court. These are the practice areas that handle matters like this one.

Practice areaLitigation and Disputes→Practice areaAppellate Litigation→Practice areaContract Law and Breach of Contract→

Keep reading