High Court Division · Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction
Abdul Kuddus Khan v The State and another
Criminal Appeal 9039/2023 · Decided 10 June 2026
Following an Anti-Corruption Commission inquiry, two private persons were alleged to have used a forged 1969 gift deed to seek mutation in 2018 of 33 decimals of government khas land in Boalmari, Faridpur. The appellant, then acting Union Land Assistant Officer, submitted a report favouring mutation. The Special Judge, Faridpur convicted him under section 409 of the Penal Code read with section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 and sentenced him to five years' rigorous imprisonment and a fine, while acquitting the mutation assistant. On appeal, the High Court Division found that the certified copy of the deed related to entirely different parties and land, and that under the Handbook for AC (Land) the appellant had a duty to verify ownership and the deed's genuineness, which he did not perform. Parity did not apply because the co-accused's role was clerical. The conviction was affirmed, but the sentence was reduced to the period undergone and the fine to Tk. 1,000.
- Q1
Whether a Union Land Assistant Officer who recommended mutation of government khas land on a forged deed without verification was guilty of criminal breach of trust and criminal misconduct.
- Q2
Whether the appellant was entitled to acquittal on parity with an acquitted co-accused mutation assistant.
- Q3
Whether conviction under both section 409 of the Penal Code and section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act amounted to double jeopardy.
- A Union Land Assistant Officer has a duty under the Handbook for AC (Land) to verify independently the original ownership, the genuineness of the deed, any government claim, possession and payment of land development tax before reporting on mutation.
- Submitting a report favouring mutation of khas land without any independent verification, while knowing the land was recorded as government land, was active commission with dishonest intention.
- The principle of parity does not apply where the roles and statutory duties of the accused differ, so the acquittal of a co-accused with a clerical role did not entitle the verifying officer to acquittal.
- Non-impleadment of certain persons does not vitiate the FIR or the trial so long as the core allegations against the appellant are made out.
- Conviction under section 409 of the Penal Code and section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 for the same facts is not double jeopardy, as the offences have distinct ingredients.
The appellant performed none of these duties. He submitted a false report without any independent verification. His act was not one of omission but of active commission with dishonest intention.
In the court’s own words.
Criminal Appeal 9039/2023, as published by the Supreme Court of Bangladesh. 24 pages, with paragraph numbers for citing.
1IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BANGLADESH
HIGH COURT DIVISION
2(CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION)
Present:
Mr. Justice Md. Bashir Ullah
Criminal Appeal No. 9039 of 2023
In the matter of:
An Appeal under Section 10(1)(a) of the
Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1958.
And
In the matter of:
Abdul Kuddus Khan
… Appellant
-Versus-
The State and another
… Respondents
Mr. Md. Shah Alam Sarker, Advocate
… For the Appellant
Mr. Bivuti Tarofder, Advocate
… For the Respondent No. 2.
Mr. Md. Shafiquil Islam, D.A.G with
Ms. Farhana Abedin, A.A.G with
Mr. Hemayth Uddin, A.A.G and
Mr. K. M. Saiful Islam, A.A.G
… For the State
Heard on: 22.01.2026, 26.04.2026,
28.04.2026, 04.05.2026 and 14.05.2026
Judgment on: 10.06.2026.
3This appeal, preferred under Section 10(1)(a) of the Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1958 is directed against the judgment and order dated 16.08.2023 passed by the learned
Special Judge (Senior District & Sessions Judge), Special Judge Court, Faridpur in Special Case No. 09 of 2022, corresponding to Dudak Integrated District Office, Faridpur Case No. 01 dated 28.01.2020, convicting the appellant under Section 409 of the Penal Code, 1860-read with Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 and sentencing him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a period of 05(five) years with a fine of Tk. 10,000/- (ten thousand), in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a period of 03(three) months. The appellant was, however, acquitted of the charges under section 468, 471 and 109 of the Penal Code.
4The facts relevant for disposal of the appeal, in short, are that one Md. Abu Sayed, Assistant Director, the Anti- Corruption Commission, Faridpur, lodged a First Information Report (FIR) stating inter alia that during an enquiry under Memo No. E/R 35/2018, conducted by the Anti-Corruption Commission, Integrated District Office, Faridpur, it was revealed that one Nishikanta Karmakar was the owner of 33 decimals of land appertaining to S.A. Khatian No. 217 and Plot No. 347 under Surjadia Mouza, Police Station Boalmari,
District Faridpur. Subsequently, the said Nishikanta Karmakar left for India without leaving any heir in Bangladesh and at the time of B.S. record, the said property was recorded under khas Khatian No. 1/1 in the name of the Deputy Commissioner, Faridpur on behalf of the Government of Bangladesh, corresponding to BS Plot No. 411.
5On 15.04.2018, accused Minoz Saha and Gobinda Saha submitted an application before the Assistant Commissioner (Land), Boalmari seeking mutation of the land in their names for payment of land development tax. Despite having full knowledge that the land appertaining to BS Plot No. 411 and khas Khatian No. BS 1/1, which is government khas land was recorded in the name of the Deputy Commissioner, Faridpur, on behalf of the Government of Bangladesh, accused Md. Abdul Kuddus Khan concealed the said fact and submitted a report in favour of mutation. Accused Palash Sheikh, acting as Mutation Assistant, examined the papers, signed the proposal and placed the same before the Assistant Commissioner (Land).
6The accused Minoz Saha and Gobinda Saha, though possessing no right, title or interest in the said government land, in collusion with each other and with dishonest intention, created a forged deed being Deed No. 6025 dated 20.12.1969 of Boalmari Sub-Registry Office, falsely showing Nishikanta Karmakar as donor and themselves as donees/transferees in respect of the said 33 decimals of government land. Thereafter, with the assistance and cooperation of the accused Md. Abdul Kuddus Khan, the then acting Union Land Assistant Officer of Parameshwardi Union Land Office, and accused Palash Sheikh, Vested Property(VP)/Mutation Assistant of Upazila Land Office, Boalmari, the said forged deed was submitted before the Assistant Commissioner (Land), Boalmari Upazila Land Office, Faridpur, and through Mutation Case No. A.C.(L) IX-P-1-2316/2017-18 and U.L.O. No. IX-P-1-159/2017-18, an attempt was made to mutate and record the said 33 decimals of land under Plot No. 411 in proposed Khatian No. 1/1(61), thereby attempting to misappropriate government property.
7Upon requisition by the Anti-Corruption Commission, the District Registrar, Faridpur, had issued a certified copy of
registered Deed No. 6025 of 1969. The supplied certified copy disclosed that the actual deed bearing No. 6025 dated 20.12.1969 pertained to entirely different persons and property showing Mariam Bibi as transferee and several others as transferors in respect of 27 decimals of land situated at Mouza Tongrail. Consequently, the deed submitted by accused Minoz Saha and Gobinda Saha before the Land Office was found to be false and forged.
8Both accused Md. Abdul Kuddus Khan and Palash Sheikh, instead of verifying the genuineness of the deed from the concerned Sub-Registry Office, intentionally facilitated the use of the forged deed, thereby assisting in the attempt to misappropriate government land. Thus, all the accused persons, in furtherance of their common intention and in collusion with each other, committed offences punishable under Sections 409/420/467/468/471/109 of the Penal Code read with Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947.
9Upon closure of the investigation, the Investigating Officer, Sardar Abul Bashar submitted charge sheet No. 04, dated 20.07.2022, under Sections 409/420/467/468/471 and
109 of the Penal Code read with section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 against 3 accused-persons.
10The case record was transmitted to the learned Special Judge, Faridpur and registered as Special Case No. 09 of 2022. The charge was framed on 10.01.2023 under Sections 409/468/471 and 109 of the Penal Code read with Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947, while the accusedpersons pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried when the same was readout and explained to the accused. The prosecution examined 07 witnesses, while the defence examined none. The accused-persons were examined under Section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and once again they pleaded innocence.
11The learned Special Judge after completion of the evidence, and on perusal of the same and upon hearing the parties convicted the accused under Section 409 of Penal Code with Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a period of 05(five) years and to pay a fine of Taka 10,000/- (ten thousand) in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a period of
03(three) months and acquitted him of the charges under Sections 468/471 and 109 of the Penal Code and also convicted Minoj Saha under Section 468 and 471 of the Penal Code and sentenced 07(seven) years simple imprisonment and to pay a fine of Taka 50,000/- and acquitted Palash Sheikh of the charges levelled against him.
12Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the judgment and order of conviction and sentence, the convict preferred this appeal before this Court.
13Mr. Md. Shah Alam Sarker, the learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant, contends that the FIR is defective as the copy writer, composer, and certified copy issuer of the alleged deed were not made accused in this case; as such, the conviction and sentence are not tenable in the eye of law.
14The learned Advocate contends that the AC land did not direct the appellant whether to verify the deed was forged or genuine, as the deed was produced from the Sub-Registrar’s office with official seal and signature.
15He submits that the Upazila Land Office, Boalmari, Faridpur sent a copy to compare the said deed with registrar volume and sub-registrar that the said deed was not in the volume and after finding the report, the appellant proposed to the A.C. Land to cancel the Mutation Case on 13.03.2019, by this it is presumed that appellant has no power to see the same, whether it was in volume or not but the Court without consider the same convicted him, thus the conviction and sentence is not tenable in eye of law.
16He next submits the suit land falls under ‘Kha’ list of Vested Property (VP) land and the concerned V.P. officer, namely Palash Sheikh issued a report on 22.03.2018, which runs as under:
। ।
17! " ,$ % &% , % -( ) * +,- & . * .*, 0, .* / 2 & * .* 340, .* 4
1833. ( 67) 7 7 9 2% : 33. 7 7 2 ; & ।
19But this accused was acquitted by the trial Court, who stood on the same footing with the appellant. Since co-accused
Palash Sheikh having been acquitted, the appellant is also entitled to acquittal on the principle of parity.
20He further submits that the Government released the ‘Kha’ listed property in the year 2013 and thus the appellant merely acted upon that legal position. He also contends that accused Md. Kuddus Khan and Polash Sheikh went to investigate the said land then they found the possession of the accused Minoz Saha, and about possession of the said land, the I.O. stated in cross-examination that Minoz Saha possessed the said land.
21He next submits that the Union Assistant Officer has no power to finalise or order to make ‘Namjari Jamabag’, he can only submit the documents filed by an applicant, and he has no duty to verify the genuineness of documents, but the trial Court, without considering the same, convicted him.
22The learned Advocate further contends that the trial Court convicted the appellant under Section 409 of the Penal Code and Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 for the same alleged act, which amounts to double jeopardy, which is legally impermissible.
23The learned Advocate submits that the Anti-Corruption Commission did not prove that the appellant is a beneficiary of the disputed land and deed, so, conviction is not tenable in the eye of law.
24The learned Advocate finally prays for allowing the appeal.
25Per contra, Mr. Bivuti Tarofder, the learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the respondent No. 2, contends that the alleged deed is dated 20.12.1969, but it was produced for mutation in 2018, after a lapse of 50 years but the appellant forwarded the proposal for mutation without verifying and ascertaining the genuineness of the deeds which is suspicious and thus committing criminal misconduct.
26He next submits that the allegations against the appellant are proved by documentary evidence like Exhibit 11(9).
27He next contends that the testimony of PW2 confirms that the official copy of Deed No. 6025 of 1969 shows entirely different parties and property.
28He next contends that the original recorded owner, Nishi Kanta Karmakar had migrated to India before 1969 and left no
heirs in Bangladesh. He could not have executed any deed in 1969. Therefore, the foundation of the mutation application is fraudulent.
29Mr. Tarofder contends that the accused Minoj Saha applied for mutation in 2018 based on the alleged deed executed in 1969, a gap of approximately 50 years. This delay is not merely suspicious but also absurd and gives an inference of fabrication.
30He next argues that if the accused had genuinely acquired title under a valid deed, in the ordinary course of action, he would seek mutation within a reasonable time, certainly within a few years, not half a century.
31He further argues that no land development tax was paid for this land by Minoj Saha and Gobindo Saha for 50 years. The government record shows no payment was made by them. This is impossible for a genuine owner to remain in possession without paying the land development tax for such a long time.
32He further submits that during the mutation proceedings, the accused Minoj Saha and Gobindo Saha submitted their NID card (Exhibit No. 3(3), 11(10) and 11(11)) and
documents. These documents established that in 1969, the year of the alleged deed, Minoj Saha was approximately 9 (nine) years old and Gobindo Saha was approximately 2 (two) years old. A deed executed in favour of a 9-year-old child and a 2year-old infant is void ab initio for want of capacity to be part of a contract.
33Mr. Tarofder submits that the Union Land Assistant Officer, Abdul Kuddus Khan was entrusted with the duty to determine the original ownership of the property in question under the guideline No. ‘Gha’. 1.2. ‘Dha’ of the Handbook for AC (Land) prepared by the Land Reform Board, Ministry of Land but he did not verify the ownership of the applicants and submitted a report without any independent verification, amounting to criminal misconduct.
34He further submits that the role of the appellant (statutory verifying authority) is fundamentally different from the role of Palash Sheikh (no statutory duty) as such the acquittal of Palash Sheikh does not entitle the appellant to parity. Palash Sheikh had only a clerical role, whereas the appellant had a statutory verifying role.
35Learned Advocate contends that the impugned judgment and order of conviction do not suffer from any illegality or infirmity. He finally prays for dismissal of the appeal.
36I have considered the submissions of the learned Advocates for both sides, perused the evidence on record, the impugned judgment and order passed by the trial Court and the other materials on record.
37For the proper adjudication of the matter and analysis of the facts on record of the evidence of the prosecution is being reviewed as follows:
38PW1, Md. Abu Sayed, Deputy Director, Anti-Corruption Commission, Head Office, Dhaka, deposed that the inquiry revealed that 33 decimals of land under S.A. Plot No. 347, S.A. Khatian No. 217 of Surjadia Mouza, belonged to one Nishikanta Karmakar. Since the owner migrated to India, leaving no legal heirs, the property was recorded as Government khas land.
39Accused Minoz Saha and Gobinda Saha forged Deed No. 6025, dated 20.12.1969. Abdul Kuddush Khan concealed government records and recommended the mutation. Accused
Palash Sheikh (Mutation Assistant) marked the file as ‘verified’ without checking. Following the inquiry, he submitted an inquiry report. He proved the First Information Report (FIR) as Exhibit 2.
40In cross-examination, he denied the suggestion that the inquiry was flawed or that Deed No. 6025 was genuine.
41PW2, Md. Yousuf Miah, Sub Registrar, Setakundu, Chattogram, testified that pursuant to ACC’s requisition dated 26.02.2019, he supplied the certified copy (4 pages) of Deed No. 6025 of 1969. He proved the same as Exhibit 4 Series. He stated that the executants of the original deed were Siddheswar Biswas and others, while the recipient was Mariam Bibi.
42In cross-examination, he reaffirmed that the certified copy was accurately generated from the official volume book record.
43PW3, Md. Golam Nabi Biswash, Office Assistant, Sub Registry Office, Gopalganj, confirmed that the photocopy of Deed No. 6025 accurately matched the original volume book record.
44PW4, Ms. Israt Jahan Zerin, Senior Assistant Secretary, Cabinet Division, Dhaka, deposed that she transmitted a 14page comprehensive land report to ACC vide Memo No. 242 dated 14.02.2019, which confirmed government ownership. She proved the report as Exhibit 8 series. In cross-examination, she admitted that the data sent was compiled from the records provided by the Boalmari Upazila Land Office and the District Record Room.
45PW5, Md. Kamal Mollah, Office Assistant, Deputy Commissioner Officer, Faridpur deposed that the ACC official prepared a seizure list for those items and returned them to his custody under a Zimmanama.
46He proved the seizure list as Exhibit 9, and his signature as Exhibit 9/1. He also proved the Zimmanama dated 17/02/2022 as Exhibit 10.
47In cross-examination, he stated that the Anti-Corruption Commission office seized the papers from him.
48PW6, Md. Abdus Salam, Upper Division Assistant, Anti- Corruption Office, Faridpur deposed that during his posting at
ACC Faridpur, he witnessed the recovery and seizure of evidence.
49PW7, Sarder Abul Bashar, Assistant Director, the investigating officer stated that he visited the place of occurrence. He submitted charge sheet No. 04 dated 20.07.2022. He executed the formal seizures of records from the Boalmari Land Office and District Registry Office. His investigation corroborated that the land originally belonged to Nishikanta Karmakar, and subsequently the land became Government khas land upon his migration to India, and was fraudulently mutated by Minoz Saha and Gobinda Saha using a forged Deed No. 6025.
50He stated that accused Abdul Kuddus Khan willfully failed to conduct a physical inspection and provided a fraudulent report to facilitate the mutation. The evidence unerringly establishes that Deed No. 6025 of 1969, as presented for mutation, was a forged document. The appellant, as Union Land officer was duty bound to verify the geniunness of the deed and the ownership status of the land. His failure to do so, and his active submission of a report favouring mutation
seems to be clear indicia of forgery (including the 50 year delay, minority of the alleged transferees, and government record) which constitutes criminal misconduct.
51In cross-examination, he categorically denied that the investigation was biased or improper, asserting that the schedule of the land was verified to be government property. He proved the sanction letter as Exhibit 12.
52Upon scrutiny of the evidence on record, it appears that Minoj Saha and Gobinda Saha created forged deed No. 6025, dated 20.12.1969 and thereafter on 15.04.2018 they submitted an application before the Assistant Commissioner (Land), Boalmari seeking mutation of the land in their names for payment of land development tax. On 18.03.2018, the Assistant Commissioner (Land) directed the Upazila Land Assistant Officer, namely Abdul Kuddus Khan to submit a report after reviewing the deed-documents and physical possession of the land. Accordingly, the appellant submitted a report as under:
(a) ( % ?- . .* Q§s¡¿¹l©−f
@ 7 & :।
53(b) < – A B fÐaÉfÑZ & 7! C 3* D ! ! ‘2’ ( % ?- AB 2 >< – E । (c) F G? % & C < !7 2 4 H- / / 3 I. 2 3. . . 4J.J3. KJ. -K J L M 6 K
54-7 % / 2 & O – >& ‘2’ ag¢pmi¥š² A B < – A B fÐaÉfÑZ & 7! C 3 – >& P P< – % E & :। (d) @ PQ %% j§−m @ R & 9 2% : । S % B >& & C। (e) @ P – 2 ‘ ’ ag¢pmi¥š² 9 , < !; ?M ,
55TU, >& (, B , >& V i¥š², * @ W % AB । C
56% 7 9 X ‘2’ % i¥š² ।
57% 7 X JD K YW 43 Z ¢m¢fhÜ :। C / 2 & i¥š² ।
(f) @ P – % [ –
@ & &।
58Despite having full knowledge that the land appertaining to BS Plot No. 411 and khas Khatian No. BS 1/1 which is government khas land recorded in the name of the Deputy Commissioner, Faridpur on behalf of the Government of Bangladesh, accused Md. Abdul Kuddus Khan concealed the fact and submitted the above-mentioned report in favour of mutation.
59The Land Reform Board, Ministry of Land published a Handbook for AC (Land) wherein the role and responsibilities of a Union Land Assistant Officer have been described in Guideline No. O.1.2.Y (gha. 1.2. dha). The guideline is as follows:
“C$ & F – – !-
@ ( @ @ %
9 @R & :, 2 % :,
@M % * qÙ¹¡¿¹l @ Z&
C = , ] P- : ,
& % A`U ,
M : * a & bc
@d @ ? । @
@d / 7P % @d 2 & C$ & F
– – ]e @ P
7 (F ) @ ? । …”
60The appellant, Abdul Kuddus Khan, was the Union Land Assistant Officer. His role and responsibilities were expressly defined above. He was responsible to independently verify the original ownership of the property in question; examine whether the deed was valid, registered, and genuine and confirm whether the land was subject to any government claim and to ascertain physical possession and payment of land development tax. The appellant, under the aforesaid Handbook, had the clear duty to verify the original ownership and genuineness of the deed.
61The appellant performed none of these duties. He submitted a false report without any independent verification. His act was not one of omission but of active commission with dishonest intention.
62Despite this glaring and fatal defect, the convict appellant Abdul Kuddus Khan, in collusion with the private accused and recommended mutation in their favour.
63The passage of 50 years without any claim, mutation, tax payment, or possession gives rise to suspicion of fabrication and forgery and proves that the mutation application was nothing but a fraudulent means of land grabbing.
64The trial Court, upon careful evaluation of the evidence and the applicable legal framework, found that Palash Sheikh had no statutory duty under the relevant guidelines (Handbook for AC Land) to verify the deed or report on the mutation application. His role was primarily clerical or ancillary. Consequently, even though he submitted a report, he could not be held criminally liable for failure to perform a duty that did not legally rest upon his office. The trial Court therefore acquitted him.
65The principle of parity does not apply where the roles and statutory duties are different. The appellant was the verifying authority under the Handbook for AC (Land), Palash
Sheikh performed a clerical role. The trial Court's acquittal of Palash Sheikh does not entitle the appellant to acquittal.
66The learned Advocate for the appellant contended that the FIR is defective as the copy writer, composer, and certified copy issuer of the alleged deed were not made accused in this case; as such, the conviction and sentence is not tenable in the eye of law. However, this Court finds no substance in the contention. Because non-impleadment of certain persons does not vitiate the FIR or the trial, so long as the core allegations against the appellant are made out.
67The conviction under Section 409 of the Penal Code (criminal breach of trust by public servant) and Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act (criminal misconduct) does not amount to double jeopardy, as the offences are distinct in ingredients and the same set of facts may constitute both. There is no bar to conviction under both provisions.
68It transpires that the convict-appellant is not a habitual offender and there is nothing on record to suggest that he has any previous criminal antecedent and the appellant is about 60 years old.
69Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the evidence on record, this Court is of the view that the ends of justice would be best served if the sentence of the substantive terms of imprisonment is reduced to the period already undergone by the appellant and the fine while maintaining the conviction.
70Accordingly, the conviction of the appellant under Section 409 of the Penal Code, 1860 read with Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 is hereby affirmed. However, the sentence is modified. The sentence of rigorous imprisonment for 05 (five) years is reduced to the period already undergone by the appellant and the fine of Taka 10,000/- (ten thousand) is reduced to Taka 1,000/-(one thousand), in default of payment the appellant shall suffer simple imprisonment for a period of 01(one) month.
71In the result, the appeal is dismissed with modification of sentence indicated above.
72The judgment and order dated 16.08.2023 passed by the learned Special Judge (Senior District & Sessions Judge), Special Judge Court, Faridpur in Special Case No. 09 of 2022
is hereby affirmed in respect of conviction and modified in respect of sentence and fine as above.
73The convict-appellant is released from his bail bond.
74Let a copy of the judgment with the Lower Court Records (LCR) be transmitted to the Court concerned forthwith.
(Md. Bashir Ullah, J)
75[ Md. Sabuj Akan Assistant Bench Officer.
Related summaries.
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.
- Supreme Court practice in BangladeshSlips, mentioning, cause lists and appearances→
- Case JourneysHow a case moves through the courts, step by step→
- Limitation and appeal deadline calculatorKnow your last day to file→
- Curative petitions in BangladeshFinality, article 104 and the case for reform→
- Constitution guideEvery article and amendment, animated→
- Bangladesh legal glossaryBangla and English legal terms, explained→
