High Court Division
(Criminal Revisional Jurisdiction)
Syed Md Ziaul Karim J
Ashish Ranjan Das J
Hanif………….Accused-Petitioner
vs
State ……….Opposite-Party
Judgment
June 15th, 2014
Code of Criminal Procedure (V of 1898)
Section 339C(4)
In view of repeal of sub-section (4) of Section 339C of the Code followed by re-enactment of the said sub-section the new procedural law will be applicable in the 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. Sub-section (4) of Section 339C of the Code as amended by Act XLII of 1992 will be applicable to the pending case. Proceedings was not stopped and the accused was not released and in view of the Act XLII of 1992 the accused will not accure any vested right to be released as the same is procedural law having retrospective effect. …… (12)
None appears-For the Accused- Petitioner
Sakila Rowshan, DAG with Sharmina Haque, AAG
and Md Showardhi, AAG -For the State-Opposite Party
Judgment
Syed Md Ziaul Karim J : By this Rule, the accused-petitioner has challenged the proceeding of Session Case No. 72 of 1984 Opending in the Court of Sessions Judge in-Charge, Habigonj.
2. Facts in brief are that on 16-2-1978 one Fulmia as informant lodged a first information report (briefly as FIR) with Madhabpur Police Station against the petitioner and fourteen others alleging that the accused petitioner in collusion with each other did commit murder of his aunt Sarbanu.
3. After investigation Police submitted charge-sheet against the petitioner under section 302 of the Penal Code however submitted final report in favour of the rest accused.
4. Eventually the case was taken up for trial by the learned Sessions Judge, Habigonj wherein the case was pending for trial upto 10-4-1985. Afterwards the petitioner approached to the trial Court for stopping the proceedings under Section 339C of the Code of Criminal Procedure (briefly as the Code) and releasing him from the charge which was refused by the learned Sessions Judge, Habiganj.
5. Feeling aggrieved the accused petitioner preferred the instant revision and obtained the present Rule.
6. No one appears on behalf of the petitioner to support the Rule.
7. In view of the facts this is an old revision of 1995, we are inclined to take it up for disposal on merit considering the materials on record.
8. The learned Deputy Attorney General appearing for State-opposite party opposes are Rule and submits that after amendment of Section 339C of the Code the petitioner did not accrue any vested right to be released. So the instant Rule is liable to be discharged.
9. In order to appreciate her submissions we have gone through the record and given our anxious consideration to her submissions.
10. On going to the materials on record it transpires that 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. The Provisions of Section 339C of the Code will operate in respect of cases which arise after 21-08-1982.
11. The question that arises in the instant case is that during the pendency of the Criminal revision before this Court a new provision introduced by Act XLII of 1992 came into force and this being a procedural law whether it will apply to a pending case.
12. In view of repeal of sub-section (4) of Section 339C of the Code followed by re-enactment of the said sub-section the new procedural law will be applicable in the 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 Section 339C of the Code as amended by Act XLII of 1992 will be applicable to the pending case. Therefore, we hold that as proceedings was not stopped and the accused was not released and 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. Therefore, we find no merit in this Rule. Thus the Rule having no merit fails.
13. In view of foregoing narrative, the Rule is discharged. The proceedings of Session Case No. 72 of 1984 shall proceed in accordance with law.
Office is directed to send down the record at once.
(Criminal Revisional Jurisdiction)
Syed Md Ziaul Karim J
Ashish Ranjan Das J
Hanif………….Accused-Petitioner
vs
State ……….Opposite-Party
Judgment
June 15th, 2014
Code of Criminal Procedure (V of 1898)
Section 339C(4)
In view of repeal of sub-section (4) of Section 339C of the Code followed by re-enactment of the said sub-section the new procedural law will be applicable in the 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. Sub-section (4) of Section 339C of the Code as amended by Act XLII of 1992 will be applicable to the pending case. Proceedings was not stopped and the accused was not released and in view of the Act XLII of 1992 the accused will not accure any vested right to be released as the same is procedural law having retrospective effect. …… (12)
None appears-For the Accused- Petitioner
Sakila Rowshan, DAG with Sharmina Haque, AAG
and Md Showardhi, AAG -For the State-Opposite Party
Judgment
Syed Md Ziaul Karim J : By this Rule, the accused-petitioner has challenged the proceeding of Session Case No. 72 of 1984 Opending in the Court of Sessions Judge in-Charge, Habigonj.
2. Facts in brief are that on 16-2-1978 one Fulmia as informant lodged a first information report (briefly as FIR) with Madhabpur Police Station against the petitioner and fourteen others alleging that the accused petitioner in collusion with each other did commit murder of his aunt Sarbanu.
3. After investigation Police submitted charge-sheet against the petitioner under section 302 of the Penal Code however submitted final report in favour of the rest accused.
4. Eventually the case was taken up for trial by the learned Sessions Judge, Habigonj wherein the case was pending for trial upto 10-4-1985. Afterwards the petitioner approached to the trial Court for stopping the proceedings under Section 339C of the Code of Criminal Procedure (briefly as the Code) and releasing him from the charge which was refused by the learned Sessions Judge, Habiganj.
5. Feeling aggrieved the accused petitioner preferred the instant revision and obtained the present Rule.
6. No one appears on behalf of the petitioner to support the Rule.
7. In view of the facts this is an old revision of 1995, we are inclined to take it up for disposal on merit considering the materials on record.
8. The learned Deputy Attorney General appearing for State-opposite party opposes are Rule and submits that after amendment of Section 339C of the Code the petitioner did not accrue any vested right to be released. So the instant Rule is liable to be discharged.
9. In order to appreciate her submissions we have gone through the record and given our anxious consideration to her submissions.
10. On going to the materials on record it transpires that 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. The Provisions of Section 339C of the Code will operate in respect of cases which arise after 21-08-1982.
11. The question that arises in the instant case is that during the pendency of the Criminal revision before this Court a new provision introduced by Act XLII of 1992 came into force and this being a procedural law whether it will apply to a pending case.
12. In view of repeal of sub-section (4) of Section 339C of the Code followed by re-enactment of the said sub-section the new procedural law will be applicable in the 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 Section 339C of the Code as amended by Act XLII of 1992 will be applicable to the pending case. Therefore, we hold that as proceedings was not stopped and the accused was not released and 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. Therefore, we find no merit in this Rule. Thus the Rule having no merit fails.
13. In view of foregoing narrative, the Rule is discharged. The proceedings of Session Case No. 72 of 1984 shall proceed in accordance with law.
Office is directed to send down the record at once.
