Mobile Courts Ain [LIX of 2009] Section 6(1) read with Code of Criminal Procedure[V of 1898] Section 164 [Kamruzzaman Khan –Vs.- Ministry of Law (Spl. Original)] Author Judge: Justice Moyeenul Islam Chowdhury
Issue: 9 ALR (HCD) 309-339
Mobile Courts Ain [LIX of 2009]
Section 6(1) read with
Code of Criminal Procedure[V of 1898]
Section 164
It is well-settled that a witness can never be the Judge of any case. So the imposition of any sentence upon the accused by the Presiding Magistrate (as he also a witnes) of the Mobile Court can not be sustainable in law on that count.
The High Court Division held that the Executive Magistrates, or the District Magistrates, as the case may be, can not perform the judicial functions of the Republic and as the powers of taking cognizance of offences, convicting and sentencing the offenders under the relevant laws are all judicial powers, the question of exercise of those judicial powers by them is out of the question.
Further, it is admitted that there is no procedural safeguard of any kind of the alleged confession of an accused, let alone the question of the safeguards as embodied in Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. On top of that, the Presiding Magistrate of the Mobile Court can not try the case for the simple reason that in his presence, the offence is committed or unfolded.
Since as per Section 6(1), the offence is committed or unfolded in his presence; at the most, he can be a witness in the case on the side of the prosecution. It is well-settled that a witness can never be the Judge of any case. So the imposition of any sentence upon the accused by the Presiding Magistrate of the Mobile Court can not be sustainable in law on that count.
The above decision was decided in a case of Kamruzzaman Khan –Vs.- Ministry of Law (Spl. Original)
9 ALR (HCD) 309-339
Source: Apex Law Journal & Bangladesh Supreme Court Website.
