I • .," The D~fense c unsel further conter)ded in his final written address that ' , I "'-~Exhib~t "D" [ olice investigation: report] tendered and admitted throu h PW4 n 25/5/2017 without any objection was not properly tendeted. He ci ed part 2 of the Ad!ministration of the Criminal Justice 1\. I I Act, 15 and stated that the ab~ve law provides tha f 1 a ,suspect or Defen?ant alle, ed or ~harged with ;committing an offence established by an \ Act of t e National Assembly shall be arrested, investigated, inquir d into, tried or dealt with according to the provisions of this Act, except otherwi e provided under r he said Act. He argued that the· Exhibit "D" · [p lice investigation \report] did not show that the Defen ant was ried at the magistra~e court for binding over and proofs of evidrnce ace rdingly . Thus t~e ab_ove ontention of Defen ~e Counsel that the Charge was not investi ated or hat the lower Cou rt did not investigate the murder charge \is indeed absurd as the l.earn d Magistrate is not empowered to 1 investi ate murder cases, rather the 1aw is that where he does not have jurisdic,ion, he should conduct a re·mand proceedings pursuant to 9 2f '1 1 9 Section\ 132 ancl 133 of the Adminis~ration of Criminal Justice Law of Anamb~a State. ,.· In that (egard, t e statement of charfe filed in this action showed that the Detf ndant s arraigned firstly ~-efore magistrate court Holden qt ~tani on 12/5/2~16, remand proceed\ing taken and he was bound over af the Magistrat\ court lacks jurisdic\t ion to try murder cases and the Cf Se ~as subse~ uently adjourned to 16/7/2016. Thus the instant opjection is over~~led. . \ 1 F \ rther~ore, it ~ aS observed ;hat r)ing in respect of the photograph pi ture of the d~ceased taken by t e p~li_ce in the cou~se of their in estigation and \ another document Exh1b1~ "E" tagged warrant to b ry" was reserve~ to be incorporated during Judgment. i~h r_eg·ard to E~\r ibit "E", ~he learne d ~ounsel_ for the Defense in his 1 0 Ject1on argued tr?t the said documer t L 1 ! IS not signed by any person as ~ Sl;JIT NO. 0/49(/2016: THE STATE vs CHIBUIKE DURU Judgment delivered 19/04/2018 ol Page l 9 .