Can one be tried if his name is not in chargesheet?
Yes. Not being named (“not sent-up”) in the police charge-sheet is no bar. A court may still take cognizance and issue process if materials show involvement, or it may call for further investigation and bring the person in through a supplementary charge-sheet.
Legal position under Bangladeshi law (CrPC, 1898 & practice)
- Magistrate’s power to take cognizance beyond the charge-sheet
- CrPC, s.190(1)(b)/(c): On a police report or otherwise (information/own knowledge), a Magistrate may take cognizance against any person against whom materials appear—even if the police did not include that person in the charge-sheet.
- After taking cognizance, the Magistrate may issue process (s.204 CrPC) against such an “unsent-up accused”.
- Further / supplementary investigation
- CrPC, s.173 (police report): The court may permit/ direct further investigation, upon which police can file a supplementary charge-sheet adding the omitted person.
- Committal / Sessions stage
- CrPC, s.193: Once a case is committed, the Court of Session (or Special Court under special laws) can proceed on the materials before it and may summon additional accused if the record/evidence implicates them, even though they were not named earlier.
- Naraji route (informant’s protest)
- If the police omit someone, the informant may file a naraji petition; the Magistrate can treat it as a complaint, take cognizance under s.190(1)(a), examine the complainant, and proceed against the omitted person.
- Fair-trial safeguards
- The added accused must be served process, given disclosure of materials, and afforded all CrPC protections (e.g., discharge if groundless, opportunity to cross-examine, call defence, etc.).
Takeaway
- Yes—a person can be tried even if not named in the charge-sheet.
- The court may (i) take cognizance under s.190 and issue process (s.204), (ii) order further investigation leading to a supplementary charge-sheet (s.173), or (iii) act on a naraji/complaint by the informant.
- The omission by police does not control the court’s power to proceed where the record shows prima facie involvement.
