Pakistan Observer
2nd June 1960
MUJIB ACQUITTED OF CORRUPTION CHARGE
By our court correspondent
Mr. A. S. M. Rashed, Special Judge, Dacca Division yesterday (Tuesday) acquitted both Sheikh Mujibur Rahman, A former provincial Minister and the General Secretary of now defunct Awami League and his brother Sheikh Abu Naser of the Charge of corruption and Abetment of the same respectively.
In course of the 23- long typed page judgment the learned Judge observed that as to the grant of the import licence to the firm in question the prosecution referred to the evidence of Mr. Ruhul Quddus the then Director of Industries and some files of the Department. There was absolutely nothing in the evidence of Mr. Ruhul Quddus or in the official papers to show that Sheikh Mujibur Rahman as Minister in charge of the Department ever exercised his influence in securing the recommendations of the Department in favour of the firm in question or in granting the necessary import licence or the permission of the Government to set up the plant.
About two prosecution witnesses namely Mr. Mujibur Rahman Chowdhury and Anwar Ali who were declared hostile by the prosecution and who disclosed that they made false statement before the Magistrate due to police pressure, the Judge observed that he was perfectly convinced that those witnesses were gained over by the accused side and he was not inclined to believe that under the pressure of the Police of the Anti-Corruption Department they made the statements before the Magistrate (implicating Sheikh Mujibur Rahman and his brother).
Whoever might be responsible for gaining over the witnesses, observed the learned Judge, no credence can be given to the evidence given by such a witness and as a matter of fact we do not find any thing from the evidence of this witness (Mujibur Rahman Chowdhury) to support the prosecution case. The next witness Anwar Ali is also of the same category.
AL. FUND
About the allegation of payment of Rs. 1500/- to the Awami League fund the Judge observed: “In view of this evidence and also in view of the fact that the FIR does not contain any such allegation though the FIR was lodged after examining at least three of the partners including the managing partner Mr. Mujibur Rahman Chowdhury there is every reason to accept the defence suggestion that this part of the prosecution case was introduced with a view to lending additional support to the prosecution case. Whatever might be the reason for introducing the alleged story of payment, the prosecution has failed to substantiate the allegation of payment. I am, therefore, unable to give any weight to the Khata-account and I must reject the same. So the alleged payment of Rs. 1500/- towards the Awami League fund has not been proved and no adverse inference can be drawn against accused Skeikh Mujibur Rahman on such allegation. Thus I find that the prosecution has failed to establish the charge against Sheikh Mujibur Rahman.”
MUJIB’S CONTENTION
About the accused Sheikh Mujibur Rahman’s contention that the present case was brought with the motive to undermine or lower his prestige in the eye of public, the court observed that “the materials before us are not sufficient to conclude that the present case was brought with any motive to undermine or lower the prestige of Sheikh Mujibur Rahman in the eye of the public. I am, therefore, unable to accept the defence suggestion regarding the background of the present case.”
It was further observed that “except the mere fact that the accused Abu Naser is the younger brother of accused Skeikh Mujibur Rahman and he was taken as a partner of “Al-Amin Industries” by giving him three annas share without investment of any capital, there is no evidence to substantiate the allegation that his brother Sheikh Mujibur Rahman secured pecuniary benefit for him by abusing his official position as Minister in the matter of the partnership business affair. We have already seen that the prosecution has failed to substantiate the accusation against Skeikh Mujibur Rahman. In that view of the case the question of abetment of the offence by Sheikh Abu Naser does not wise (arise) at all.”
SHARE
About the giving of three annas share to the accused Sheikh Abu Naser without the investment of any capital the Court observed that the partnership deed would disclose that Abu Naser was not the only person who was taken as one of the partners without investment of any capital. Besides, Abu Naser there were Golam Hyder Chowdhury and Mujibur Rahman Chowdhury who were taken as partners without investment of any capital. It was only Haji Sekendar Ali and his son Anwar Ali who were the financing partners. Hence the contention of the learned public prosector did not hold good. Along with it the plea of accused Abu Naser should be taken into consideration. He had said in his statement recorded under Section 342 Cr. P. C. that he was in business since 1950 and he had business transaction with Mujibur Rahman Chowdhury long before his brother came to power and that the necessary import licence and the permission to set up the plant were obtained by their own efforts without having any concern with his brother Sheikh Mujibur Rahman in the matter. Thus we find that there was hardly any evidence against him.
CHARGE FAILS
Besides this, we had seen already that the main charge against the principal offender had failed. So the charge of abetment against the abettor was bound to fail automatically. I must, the learned Judge observed, therefore find that the prosecution has failed to bring home the guilt to accused Sheikh Abu Naser under the charge.
In result the learned Judge acquitted both the accused persons of the charge brought against them. Mr. Azizuddin Ahmed, Special Public Prosecutor assisted by
Mr. Moazzem Hossain, Pleader appeared for the prosecution while Mr. H. S. Suhrawardy, Mr. A. Salam Khan, Advocate Mr. M. Azam Advocate, Mr. Zahiruddin Advocate and Mr. Zillur Rahman, Pleader appeared for the defence.
সূত্র: সংবাদপত্রে বঙ্গবন্ধু দ্বিতীয় খণ্ড: ষাটের দশক ॥ প্রথম পর্ব