High Court Division :
(Criminal Revisional Jurisdiction)
Syed Mohammad
Ziaul Karim J
ANM Bashir Ullah J
Judgment
February 2nd, 2014.
Selim-bin-Hakim @ Rubel
………..Accused-Petitioner
vs
State ….. Opposite Parties
Children Act (XXXIX of 1974)
Section 6(1)
No child shall be charged with or tried for any offence together with an adult. The trial Court in violation of the specific law conducted the trial of the juvenile offenders with the adult. The excuse given by the trial Court for the joint trial that the witnesses are same cannot be considered as fair and legal. The trial Court without following the specific law in the name of saving his time cannot violate the specific provisions of law. . ….. (6)
Blast vs Bangladesh, 57 DLR 11; Kowserurnessa vs
State, 15 BLD 21 = 48 DLR 196 ref.
No one appears-For the Petitioner
Sakila Rowshan, DAG-For the State.
Judgment
ANM Bashir Ullah J: In this criminal revision, a Rule was issued calling upon the opposite party to show cause as to why the judgment and order dated 25-11-1998 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jessore in Sessions case No. 39(A) of 1995 arising out of Kotwali Police Station case No.6 dated 5-12-1994 corresponding to GR case No. 1503 of 1994 rejecting an application for separate trial of the juvenile offenders from the adult should not be set aside and/or pass such other or further order or orders as to this Court may seem fit and proper.
2. The facts leading to the issuance of the Rule, in short, is that one Monoranjan Shaha as informant lodged a First Information Report (in short, the FIR) with Kotwali Police Station, Jessore against 6-7 unknown accused alleging that 6-7 unknown dacoits committed dacoity in his house at Loan Office Para, Kotwali, Jessore and on the basis of the same Jessore Kotwali police station case No. 6 dated 5-12-1994 under section 395/397 of Penal Code was recorded. Police on completion of investigation submitted two separate charge sheets splitting up of the case. The charge sheet No. 43 dated 28-9-1995 was submitted exclusively for accused Selim Bin Hakim @ Rubel and Wahidul Hasan @ Wahiduzzman for trial of them by juvenile Court while charge sheet No. 42 was submitted for the trial of the rest accused.
Though initially Sessions case No. 39 of 1995 on the basis of the said two charge sheets was registered but later on, on 9-4-1995 splitting up the case Sessions case No. 39(A) of 1995 for the juvenile offenders Selim Bin Hakim @ Rubel and Wahidul Hasan @ Wahiduzzaman was registered. Thereafter the Sessions Case No. 39 of 1995 was running for the adult accused while the Sessions case No. 39(A) of 1995 was running for the juvenile offenders. Since the witnesses are the common for both the cases they were examined jointly for both the cases and after the recording the evidence of 16 witnesses the accused of both the cases were examined under section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. On 28-10-1998 a petition was filed in the trial Court for the separate trial of the juvenile offenders. The same was rejected but another petition was filed again on the self same ground and on 25-11-1998 the same was again turned down by the trial Court. The juvenile offenders being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the said order dated 25-11-1998 moved this Court and obtained the present Rule.
3. None appears to support the Rule.
4. On the other hand, Ms. Sakila Rowshan, the learned Deputy Attorney-General appearing for the State finds it difficult to support the order of the trial Court below.
5. On going to the materials on record it appears that two separate charge sheets were submitted in the case. One for juvenile offenders and another one for the rest accused and two Sessions cases were also registered being the Sessions case No. 39(A) of 1995 for the two juvenile offenders while the Sessions case No. 39 of 1995 for the rest accused.
6. It is evident that from the impugned order dated 25-11-1998 that though there were two separate cases but the trial of the juvenile offenders was held jointly with the adult accused.
Section 6( I) of the Children Act clearly provides that no child shall be charged with or tried with the adult and pursuant to the said provisions of law in the case of Blast vs Bangladesh, 57 DLR 11 and Kowserurnessa vs State, 15 BLD 21 = 48 DLR 196 it has been held by this Court that no child shall be charged with or tried for any offence together with an adult.
Thus it can safely be concluded that the trial Court in fragrant violation of the specific law conducted the trial of the juvenile offenders with the adult. The excuse given by the trial Court for the joint trial that the witnesses are same cannot be considered as fair and legal.
The trial Court without following the specific law in the name of saving his time cannot violate the specific provisions of law. So the impugned order is suffering from gross illegality. The same cannot be maintained at all. Thus we find merit in the Rule.
In the result, the Rule is made absolute. The Additional Sessions Judge, 2nd Court is directed to conduct the trial of both the Sessions case separately giving emphasis upon the section 6(1) of the Children Act.
(Criminal Revisional Jurisdiction)
Syed Mohammad
Ziaul Karim J
ANM Bashir Ullah J
Judgment
February 2nd, 2014.
Selim-bin-Hakim @ Rubel
………..Accused-Petitioner
vs
State ….. Opposite Parties
Children Act (XXXIX of 1974)
Section 6(1)
No child shall be charged with or tried for any offence together with an adult. The trial Court in violation of the specific law conducted the trial of the juvenile offenders with the adult. The excuse given by the trial Court for the joint trial that the witnesses are same cannot be considered as fair and legal. The trial Court without following the specific law in the name of saving his time cannot violate the specific provisions of law. . ….. (6)
Blast vs Bangladesh, 57 DLR 11; Kowserurnessa vs
State, 15 BLD 21 = 48 DLR 196 ref.
No one appears-For the Petitioner
Sakila Rowshan, DAG-For the State.
Judgment
ANM Bashir Ullah J: In this criminal revision, a Rule was issued calling upon the opposite party to show cause as to why the judgment and order dated 25-11-1998 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jessore in Sessions case No. 39(A) of 1995 arising out of Kotwali Police Station case No.6 dated 5-12-1994 corresponding to GR case No. 1503 of 1994 rejecting an application for separate trial of the juvenile offenders from the adult should not be set aside and/or pass such other or further order or orders as to this Court may seem fit and proper.
2. The facts leading to the issuance of the Rule, in short, is that one Monoranjan Shaha as informant lodged a First Information Report (in short, the FIR) with Kotwali Police Station, Jessore against 6-7 unknown accused alleging that 6-7 unknown dacoits committed dacoity in his house at Loan Office Para, Kotwali, Jessore and on the basis of the same Jessore Kotwali police station case No. 6 dated 5-12-1994 under section 395/397 of Penal Code was recorded. Police on completion of investigation submitted two separate charge sheets splitting up of the case. The charge sheet No. 43 dated 28-9-1995 was submitted exclusively for accused Selim Bin Hakim @ Rubel and Wahidul Hasan @ Wahiduzzman for trial of them by juvenile Court while charge sheet No. 42 was submitted for the trial of the rest accused.
Though initially Sessions case No. 39 of 1995 on the basis of the said two charge sheets was registered but later on, on 9-4-1995 splitting up the case Sessions case No. 39(A) of 1995 for the juvenile offenders Selim Bin Hakim @ Rubel and Wahidul Hasan @ Wahiduzzaman was registered. Thereafter the Sessions Case No. 39 of 1995 was running for the adult accused while the Sessions case No. 39(A) of 1995 was running for the juvenile offenders. Since the witnesses are the common for both the cases they were examined jointly for both the cases and after the recording the evidence of 16 witnesses the accused of both the cases were examined under section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. On 28-10-1998 a petition was filed in the trial Court for the separate trial of the juvenile offenders. The same was rejected but another petition was filed again on the self same ground and on 25-11-1998 the same was again turned down by the trial Court. The juvenile offenders being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the said order dated 25-11-1998 moved this Court and obtained the present Rule.
3. None appears to support the Rule.
4. On the other hand, Ms. Sakila Rowshan, the learned Deputy Attorney-General appearing for the State finds it difficult to support the order of the trial Court below.
5. On going to the materials on record it appears that two separate charge sheets were submitted in the case. One for juvenile offenders and another one for the rest accused and two Sessions cases were also registered being the Sessions case No. 39(A) of 1995 for the two juvenile offenders while the Sessions case No. 39 of 1995 for the rest accused.
6. It is evident that from the impugned order dated 25-11-1998 that though there were two separate cases but the trial of the juvenile offenders was held jointly with the adult accused.
Section 6( I) of the Children Act clearly provides that no child shall be charged with or tried with the adult and pursuant to the said provisions of law in the case of Blast vs Bangladesh, 57 DLR 11 and Kowserurnessa vs State, 15 BLD 21 = 48 DLR 196 it has been held by this Court that no child shall be charged with or tried for any offence together with an adult.
Thus it can safely be concluded that the trial Court in fragrant violation of the specific law conducted the trial of the juvenile offenders with the adult. The excuse given by the trial Court for the joint trial that the witnesses are same cannot be considered as fair and legal.
The trial Court without following the specific law in the name of saving his time cannot violate the specific provisions of law. So the impugned order is suffering from gross illegality. The same cannot be maintained at all. Thus we find merit in the Rule.
In the result, the Rule is made absolute. The Additional Sessions Judge, 2nd Court is directed to conduct the trial of both the Sessions case separately giving emphasis upon the section 6(1) of the Children Act.
