HIGH COURT DIVISION :
(Criminal Revisional Jurisdiction)
Syed Md Ziaul Karim J Pannu @ Md Pannu
ANM Bashir Ullah J Mia & others…………
……Accused Petitioners
VS
State…………. Opposite Party.
Judgment
February 3rd, 2014
Code of Criminal Procedure (V of 1898)
Section 173 (3B)
Further Investigation-At any stage of the proceeding if it appears that further investigation is required for collection of further evidence the case can be sent for further investigation. The accused petitioners have no authority to challenge the impugned order inasmuchas by the order of further investigation, they have not been prejudiced. They without seeking their redress to the lower jurisdiction, have directly sought their redress to this court, revision is not maintainable………………… (10)
No one Appears-For the Accused Petitioners.
Sakila Rowshan, DAG with Sharmina Haque, AAG and Md Sarwardhi, AAG-For the State Opposite Party.
Judgment
Syed Md Ziaul Karim J: By this Rule the accused-petitioners have challenged the legality and propriety of the order dated 15-5-2000 passed by learned Additional District Magistrate, Gazipur allowing an application of holding further investigation in Joydebpur Police Station Case No. 34 (12) 98, corresponding to GR No. 1008 of 1998, under Sections 143, 148, 323, 325, 307, 387, 380 of the Penal Code.
2. Facts in brief are that, on 15-12-1998 informant Nasema Akhter Chowdhury lodged a First Information Report against the accused petitioners alleging that on 14-12-1998 at 7-30 PM all the accused persons conjointly committed the offence under Sections 143, 148, 307, 323, 325, 387,380 of the Penal Code.
3. The police after investigation submitted Charge-Sheet accusing the petitioners as accused under Sections 143, 148,307,323,325,387,380 of the Penal Code.
4. Eventually, the case was taken up for trial by the learned Additional District Magistrate, who by the order dated 28-3-2000 framed charge under the aforesaid Sections against the accused petitioners by rejecting an application for discharge.
5. Ultimately, on 15-5-2000 the case was sent for further investigation at the instance of being stated by the impugned order.
6. Feeling aggrieved the accused preferred the instant Revision and obtained the present Rule.
7. No one appears on behalf of the petitioner to support the Rule. In view of the facts this is an old Revision of 2000, we are inclined to take it up for disposal on merit considering the materials on record.
8. The learned Deputy Attorney-General appearing for the State Opposite party opposes the Rule, and submits that the learned Magistrate acted within the ambit of law in respect of sending the case for further investigation, inasmuchas most of the important witnesses were left out from the case.
9. In order to appreciate her submissions we have gone through the records and given our anxious consideration to her submissions.
10. On going to the materials on record it transpires that, on behalf of the state an application was filed for further investigation stating that the investigating officer left out some eye witnesses in respect of the offence. Moreso, he failed to record the statements of some important witnesses under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The learned Magistrate after considering the consequence of the prosecution case sent it for further investigation. At any stage of the proceeding if it appears that further investigation is required for collection of further evidence the case can be sent for further investigation. So, the learned Magistrate acted within his jurisdiction and sent the same for further investigation. It is pertinent to point out that the accused petitioners have no authority to challenge the impugned order inasmuchas by the order of further investigation, they have not been prejudiced. Moreso, they without seeking their redress to the lower jurisdiction, have directly sought their redress to this court, so we feel that instant Revision is not maintainable. Therefore, we failed to discover any merit in this petition. Thus the rule having no merit fails.
11. In view of foregoing narrative the Rule is discharged.
12. The order of stay granted earlier stands vacated.
(Criminal Revisional Jurisdiction)
Syed Md Ziaul Karim J Pannu @ Md Pannu
ANM Bashir Ullah J Mia & others…………
……Accused Petitioners
VS
State…………. Opposite Party.
Judgment
February 3rd, 2014
Code of Criminal Procedure (V of 1898)
Section 173 (3B)
Further Investigation-At any stage of the proceeding if it appears that further investigation is required for collection of further evidence the case can be sent for further investigation. The accused petitioners have no authority to challenge the impugned order inasmuchas by the order of further investigation, they have not been prejudiced. They without seeking their redress to the lower jurisdiction, have directly sought their redress to this court, revision is not maintainable………………… (10)
No one Appears-For the Accused Petitioners.
Sakila Rowshan, DAG with Sharmina Haque, AAG and Md Sarwardhi, AAG-For the State Opposite Party.
Judgment
Syed Md Ziaul Karim J: By this Rule the accused-petitioners have challenged the legality and propriety of the order dated 15-5-2000 passed by learned Additional District Magistrate, Gazipur allowing an application of holding further investigation in Joydebpur Police Station Case No. 34 (12) 98, corresponding to GR No. 1008 of 1998, under Sections 143, 148, 323, 325, 307, 387, 380 of the Penal Code.
2. Facts in brief are that, on 15-12-1998 informant Nasema Akhter Chowdhury lodged a First Information Report against the accused petitioners alleging that on 14-12-1998 at 7-30 PM all the accused persons conjointly committed the offence under Sections 143, 148, 307, 323, 325, 387,380 of the Penal Code.
3. The police after investigation submitted Charge-Sheet accusing the petitioners as accused under Sections 143, 148,307,323,325,387,380 of the Penal Code.
4. Eventually, the case was taken up for trial by the learned Additional District Magistrate, who by the order dated 28-3-2000 framed charge under the aforesaid Sections against the accused petitioners by rejecting an application for discharge.
5. Ultimately, on 15-5-2000 the case was sent for further investigation at the instance of being stated by the impugned order.
6. Feeling aggrieved the accused preferred the instant Revision and obtained the present Rule.
7. No one appears on behalf of the petitioner to support the Rule. In view of the facts this is an old Revision of 2000, we are inclined to take it up for disposal on merit considering the materials on record.
8. The learned Deputy Attorney-General appearing for the State Opposite party opposes the Rule, and submits that the learned Magistrate acted within the ambit of law in respect of sending the case for further investigation, inasmuchas most of the important witnesses were left out from the case.
9. In order to appreciate her submissions we have gone through the records and given our anxious consideration to her submissions.
10. On going to the materials on record it transpires that, on behalf of the state an application was filed for further investigation stating that the investigating officer left out some eye witnesses in respect of the offence. Moreso, he failed to record the statements of some important witnesses under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The learned Magistrate after considering the consequence of the prosecution case sent it for further investigation. At any stage of the proceeding if it appears that further investigation is required for collection of further evidence the case can be sent for further investigation. So, the learned Magistrate acted within his jurisdiction and sent the same for further investigation. It is pertinent to point out that the accused petitioners have no authority to challenge the impugned order inasmuchas by the order of further investigation, they have not been prejudiced. Moreso, they without seeking their redress to the lower jurisdiction, have directly sought their redress to this court, so we feel that instant Revision is not maintainable. Therefore, we failed to discover any merit in this petition. Thus the rule having no merit fails.
11. In view of foregoing narrative the Rule is discharged.
12. The order of stay granted earlier stands vacated.