Pakistan Observer
30th October 1967
AROUND THE COURTS
Prosecution arguments in Mujib’s appeal
(By Our Court Correspondent)
Arguing for the Government on Saturday before Mr. Kaisar Ali, Additional Sessions Judge Dacca, in order of his 15 months’ imprisonment for alleged prejudicial speech at Paltan Maidan on March 20, 1966, Mr. Abdul Alim, Public Prosecutor said that the charge against Sheikh Mujib under Section 41(6) of the DPR was akin to that of sedition under Section 124-A of the Penal Code and he explained the terms “disaffection,” “hatred” and “contempt,” the alleged prejudices done or likely to do by the speech of the accused to the Government with reference to the interpretations by an Indian Judge, Mr. Strachey and as further profounded by the former Chief Justice of Dacca High Court. Mr. I. H. Chowdhury (Defence arguments were reported on Sunday’s issue of this paper).
Accordingly, Mr. Alim argued, “disaffection” would comprehend every possible bad feeling to the Government, “hatred” stood for aversion desiring to injure it, and “contempt” was an opinion here the object of criticism. Here the government, was of vile, despicable or worthless character.
Mr. Alim then contended that the case against Sheikh Mujib was a serious one, for the speech was an all imputation against the Government, holding it responsible for all misfortunes suffered by the people and not a fair criticism of its measures and policies.
Mr. Alim went on to say that Sheikh Mujib never accepted the present regime and he constantly tries to rouse the people against it by creating hatred amongst them against the Government and that the speech under reference contained that very spirit.
He said the Six-Point programme of the accused which had been accepted by no political party, “not even by my friend Mr. Zahiruddin” (objection by the latter) created agitations here and there in the Province.
Urging the Court to consider the time and circumstances under which the speech was delivered, Mr. Alim said that the political atmosphere was then tense and the students were agitating.
The Public Prosecutor claimed that witnesses had deposed about their feelings of hatred against the Government on hearing the speech and as such his case was well proved.
Mr. Ali quoted extracts of words and lines from the speech in support of his contention that the tendency of it was absolutely prejudicial.
He interpreted Sheikh Mujib’s appeal to the public for a fight (“sangram”) for realisation of their rights as exciting them for destructive acts.
According to him, Sheikh Mujib’s example while demanding Provincial Autonomy, that two Provinces of Russia can even send respective representative to the UN was a very dangerous example.
Sheikh Mujib’s claims for keeping accounts of foreign exchange earnings by the Provinces, vesting in them the power of collecting taxes, and his statement that East Pakistan did no like to be a “bazar” and people of East Pakistan had been “sucked” for 18 years showed the tendency of a secessionist he argued.
Supporting President Ayub’s statement as quoted in the accused’s speech that he wanted to secede the Public Prosecutor asserted : “Yes, you want to secede.”
সূত্র: সংবাদপত্রে বঙ্গবন্ধু তৃতীয় খণ্ড: ষাটের দশক॥ দ্বিতীয় পর্ব