Akmal Hossain Vs. The State, (Syed Md. Ziaul Karim, J.)

Case No: Criminal Revision No. 142 of 1992

Judge: Syed Md. Ziaul Karim, J And Sheikh Md. Zakir Hossain, J.

Court: High Court Division,

Advocate: Mrs. Sakila Rowshan, D.A.G. with Mrs. Sharmina Haque, A.A.G and Mr. Md. Shorowardhi, A.A.G.,

Citation: 2019(1) LNJ

Case Year: 2014

Appellant: Akmal Hossain

Respondent: The State

Subject: Code of Criminal Procedure

Delivery Date: 2019-11-27

HIGH COURT DIVISION

(CRIMINAL REVISIONAL JURISDICTION)

Syed Md. Ziaul Karim, J

And

Sheikh Md. Zakir Hossain, J.

 

Judgment on

20.10.2014

}

}

}

}

}

Akmal Hossain

. . . Accused-Petitioner

-Versus-

The State

. . . Opposite party

Code of Criminal Procedure (V of 1898)

Section 339 C and Section 339C (4)

Provisions in Section 24 of the Ordinance XXIV of 1982, introducing a new Section 339C in the Code making Provision for trial of a case within certain time shall be subject to the transitory Provisions i.e. sub-section (c) of Section 35 of the said Ordinance. Sub-section (4) of Section 339C of the Code followed by reenactment of the said sub-section the new procedural law will be applicable in pending cases, although instituted when the old provision was in force and the pending cases are to be governed by the new procedure under the amended law. So, Sub-section (4) of the Section 339C of the Code as amended by Act XLII of 1992 will be applicable to the pending cases. In view of the Act XLII of 1992 the accused petitioner will not accrue any vested right to be released as the same is procedural law having retrospective effect. . . . (11 and 12)

No one appears,

. . . For the accused-petitioner

Mrs. Sakila Rowshan, D.A.G. with

Mrs. Sharmina Haque, A.A.G and

Mr. Md. Shorowardhi, A.A.G.

. . . For the State-Opposite party

JUDGMENT

Syed Md. Ziaul Karim, J: By this Rule, the accused-petitioner has challenged the legality and propriety of the order dated 15-01-1992 passed by learned Divisional Special Judge, Rajshahi Division, Rajshahi, rejecting an application filed under section 339C of the Code of Criminal Procedure (briefly as the Code), in Special Case no. 01 of 1990(Pabna).

2.             Facts in brief are that the accused-petitioner was put on trial in the Court of Divisional Special Judge, Rajshahi in Special Case no. 01 of 1990 under Sections 409, 420 of the Penal Code and section 5(2) of Act II of 1947.

3.             It appears that the learned Judge received the case for trial on 22-09-1990 fixing 26-09-1990 for appearance of the accused, who ultimately appeared on 29-10-1990.

4.             Meanwhile prosecution by examining thirteen witnesses closed the prosecution case. Then the accused was examined under section 342 of the Code and argument on behalf of prosecution was heard. At the later stage the accused filed an application under section 339C of the Code for stopping the proceedings and releasing him from the case.

5.             After hearing the learned Judge rejected the same holding that the stipulated period 270 days for concluding trial was not elapsed.

6.             Feeling aggrieved the accused petitioner preferred the instant revision and obtained the present Rule.

7.             No one appears on behalf of the petitioner to support the Rule.

8.             In view of the facts this is an old revision of 1992, we are inclined to take it up for disposal on merit considering the materials on record.

 



Criminal Revision No. 142 of 1992