September 18, 2020, 1:05 pm

investigating officer

Investigating Officer does Not Require any Permission From The Court

Investigating Officer does Not Require any Permission From The Court concerned for further investigation and hence after completion of further investigation filing of supplementary charge sheet does not suffer from any illegality- Chowdhury Mohidul Haque vs ACC (Civil),67 DLR (AD) (2015)115, Section 173(3B)

Under Normal Circumstances as an investigating officer

Under normal Circumstances as an investigating Officer if on the basis of fresh evidence a supplementary charge-sheet is submitted,for example by adding name of accused person(s) who had not been included in the initial charge-sheet,there would be no questioning the legality of the supplementary charge -sheet by the investigating officer- Chowdhury Mohidul Haque vs ACC (Civil),67 DLR (AD) (2015)115, Section 173(3B)

Although the initial Charge sheet

Although the initial Charge sheet was submitted against only one accused person, upon finding prima facie evidence against him,he still remains an accused in spite of the so called “re investigation” of the case whereby the petitioner before us has been additionally named an accused, prima facie evidence having been found against him in the subsequent investigation- Chowdhury Mohidul Haque vs ACC (Civil),67 DLR (AD) (2015)115, Section 173(3B)

Sub sections (2) and (3) of section 173 have clearly spelt out

Sub sections (2) and (3) of section 173 have clearly spelt out about the further investigation and further investigation prepossesses a prior police report and that must be by one investigation agency at a time and not by two investigation agencies- State vs Secretary, Ministry of Public Administration(Criminal),67 DLR(AD)(2015) 271 , Section 173(2)(3B)

There was noo scope to hold

There was no scope to hold that the sanction of the Government was mandatory to make inquiry of th eoffence of the case as per provision of section 188 opf the code. Section 188 of the Code was not applicable to this particular case and rather it was inconsistant with the provision of section 20(1) and 32 of the Ain 2004 and section 4(4) and 6(1) of the Act 1958 – Mafruuza Sultana vs State (Criminal) ,67 DLR (AD) (2015)227, Section 188

Leave a Reply

     More News Of This Category