Pakistan Observer
27th May1960
Mujib Denies Charges: Hearing Concludes
By Our Court Correspondent
The hearing of the corruption case brought against former provincial Commerce, Labour & Industries minister Sheikh Mujibur Rahman and his brother Sheikh Abu Naser concluded yesterday (Wednesday) before Mr. A. S. M. Rashed, special judge, Dacca division.
The Judgement of the Case has, however been reserved till Tuesday May 31, 1960. The prosecution case is that the Director of Commerce, Labour and Industries Department, Government of East Pakistan, invited in March, 1957, applications for permission to set up new industries in East Pakistan.
Now in pursuance of the Notification, M/S. Mujibur Rahman Chowdhury and three others, partners of a firm styled as “AlAmin industries” submitted an application for a licence to establish a Calendering Industry at Satihati under Tangail Police Station in Mymensingh district.
But as they were not getting the licence in usual course they contacted, it was stated, Sheikh Abu Naser; younger brother of Skeikh Mujibur Rahman the then Minister of Commerce, Labour and Industries. Abu Nasser, it was stated gave them the understanding that the permission would be given only if three annas share of the whole business was allotted to him without any capital investment. Accordingly a partnership deed was registered with the Registrar, Joint Stock Companies East Pakistan on April 3, 1957 Sheikh Mujibar Rahman granted the permission on June 3, 1957, to set up the proposed industry on obtaining the recommendation of the then Director of Industries, East Pakistan. Thus it was stated, an import licence for Rs. 2,36,000 was issued to the business partners in violation of the established rules and office business and precedence in respect of new industries, and thereby Sheikh Mujibar Rahman as Minster C. L. & I. obtained pecuniary advantage for his younger brother which amounted to an offence of criminal misconduct punishable under Section 5(2) of Act II of 1947. Sheikh Abu Nasser abetted Sheikh Mujibar Rahman in the commission of the offence.
The further prosecution case is that during the investigation of the case it transpired that the partners of Al-Amin Industries paid Rs. 1,50 to Sheikh Mujibar Rahman through his younger brother Sheikh Abu Nasser between February 6, 1957 and February 14, 1957. The money was stated to have been taken either for Sheikh Mujibar Rahman himself or for the Awami League party of which he was the General Secretary.
The day’s hearing of the case began with the Crossexamination of Investigating Officer Mr. Mehrab Ali Inspector, Bureau of Ani-Corruption by Mr. H. S. Suhrawardy.
NO FORCE APPLIED
In reply to a question the witness stated that when he seized the articles from Anwar Ali in the Anti-corruption Office Mr. Mujibar Rahman Chowdhury and Mr. Golam Hyder Chowdhury were not present there. The witness, however, stated that it was not a fact that he forced Anwar Ali to make the entires in the Account Khata.
About the examination of Mr. Ruhul Quddus the witness said that he examined him only once and that in the office of the Bureau of Anti-Corruption. The witness was not present when he was examined before the Advocate General, nor he could say if Mr. Quddus was at all examined before the Advocate General.
He further stated that it was not a fact that statements of Mr. Mujibur Rahman Chowdhury and Mr. Anwar Ali were recorded by a Magistrate under Section 164 Cr. P. C. for the fact that they were unwilling to depose in future.
About the delay in submitting the Charge-Sheet the witness said that the Charge-Sheet was delayed for observing some formalities and also he was engaged in other work. In reply to another question the witness stated that the matter of paying Rs. 1500/- to Awami League fund was not mentioned in the FIR. It transpired during his investigation. The Cross-examination being over, the Court read out the charges with reference to the evidence to the accused persons to enable them to make their statement under Section 342 Cr. P. C.
NO KNOWLEDGE
In reply, Sheikh Mujibar Rahman stated that no doubt he was a Minister during the relevant period but he did not know anything about the charges. He had no knowledge that his brother Sheikh Abu Nasser had any transaction with Messrs “Al-Amin Industries.”
He also said that he took no pecuniary advantage for his brother or anybody else. He did not even know Anwar Ali. The whole case was false and was a result of concoction, he added “whenever we have demanded Justice’ for East Bengal, we have been made accused in false cases in order to lower our position before the public, he concluded.
Accused Abu Naser contended that he had no take (talk) with his brother about Al-Amin Industry affairs. He had business relation with Mujibur Rahman Chowdhury since 1954-55 and he had been falsely implicated in the case.
After the Examination of the accused persons was over, Mr. H. S. Suhrawardy submitted to the Court that he would not argue on the points of jurisdiction of the Court to try the present case and the validity of the Government sanction in respect of the case. The facts of the case were enough for the acquittal of he accused persons, said Mr. Suhrawardy.
SNACTION VALID
The Special Public Prosecutor thereafter submitted before the Court that the Court had jurisdiction to try the case as a Minister is a public servant according to the law of the land. He also submitted that the Government sanction was quite valid in law.
Resuming the arguments of the Case Mr. Azizuddin Ahmed, Special Public Prosecutor, submitted that the forwarding letter of Al-Amin Industry was signed by all four partners except Sheikh Abu Naser. The partnership deed shows that he was subsequently taken in as a three annas’ partner without the investment of any capital. It clearly showed that he was taken as a partner only for the fact that he would manage the permission from his brother Sheikh Mujibar Rahman who was Minister at that time.
Mr. Azizuddin Ahmed further contended that prosecution witness Anwar Ali had stated that he wrote the account book himself where it had been mentioned that a sum of Rs. 1500/- was paid to Awami League fund.
He further said that though being gained over by the prosecution, the witness said that they did it on the pressure of the Police. Yet they did not inform this fact to any other authority Civil or Military. This thing would show that they had been gained over.
During the arguments of Mr. Azizuddin Ahmed the Court said to him that Sheikh Abu Naser had said that he had secured the licence without the knowledge of the Minister (Sk. Mujibar Rahman), was then the Minister liable for the offence?
NO DIRECT EVIDENCE
“There is no direct evidence on this point”, submitted Mr. Azizuddin Ahmad.
In reply to another question from the Court Mr. Azizuddin Ahmed agreed that there was no direct oral evidence to show that the sum of Rs. 1500/- mentioned in the note book of Al-Amin Industries written by Anwar Ali was actually paid to Sheikh Mujibar Rahman. The entry in the ‘Khata’ did not show that the payment was made to Sheikh Mujibar Rahman, admitted the prosecution Counsel.
Concluding his arguments Mr. Azizuddin Ahmed said that although there was documentary evidence in this case, the witnesses qualified that they did it under pressure. Now it was upto the Court to take a decision in the matter.
DEFENCE ARGUMENT
Resuming his one-hour-long arguments in the case Mr. H. S. Suhrawardy said that the Government notification inviting tenders for setting up new industries was issued on March 30, 1957. Before this nobody knew whether any foreign exchange will be available. Messrs Al-Amin Industries applied in the year 1956. So for want of foreign exchange nothing could be done. It was only in March, 1957 that the foreign exchange would be available and the Government notification was issued. There were 32 items specified in the list. So until the notification was published nobody knew that cloth Calendering will be given foreign exchange.
The petitions were to be submitted within April 7, 1957. It shows complete urgency to settle up the matter.
There were about 1000 old and 5000 new applications. Three officers sat together and prepared a list which was sent to the Secretariat.
The documents about the cash allocation and I.C.A. grant were sent to the Minister for information only. The Minister wrongly approved it.
The recommendations were made on merits which goes unchallenged. Mr. Quddus the then Director of Industries had already made recommendation and sent the information to the Minister.
Mr. Suhrawardy said that there is no personal malice between the Investigating Officer Mehrab Ali and Sheikh Mujibar Rahman but the poor man had to do it.
As to why the witnesses did not disclose the police pressure elsewhere, Mr. Suhrawardy said that the only place where they could speak up their mind was the Court. Where else could they go to tell that they had been coerced. The public know what is the power of the Police and Government. To the difference between the F.J.R. and Charge-Sheet the attention of the Court was drawn by Mr. H. S. Suhrawardy.
FRESH MANUFACTURE
There is no mention in the F.I.R. about the payment of Rs. 1500/- to Mr. Mujibur Rahman Chowdhury and the knowledge of Sheikh Mujibur Rahman about the amount. But in Charge Sheet the matter has been brought in.
Mr. Jalil lodged the ejahar after thorough inquiry. He took possession of important papers. He examined Mujibur Rahman Chowdhury and Anwar Ali. If they had actually paid Rs. 1500/- would they not have mentioned it? This addition is a subsequent manufacture. On the F.I.R. and Charge Sheet we could get an acquittal said Mr. Suhrawardy.
He further submitted that the word “further transpired” used in the Charge Sheet (about the payment of Rs. 1500/- for Awami League fund) means it did not transpire earlier.
It may be recalled that the hearing of the case began on May, 19. In all 16 prosecution witnesses have been examined in this case. Of them two were declared hostile. Three more witnesses were withdrawn as they were, according to the prosecution gained over, by the accused party.
The date of the judgment of the case has been fixed for May 31, 1960.
Mr. H. S. Suhrawardy and Mr. S. Salam, M. Azam Zahiruddin, T. Hussain Advocates, Mr. Korban Ali and Zillur Rahman, Pleaders appeard for the defence, which (while) Mr. Azizuddin Ahmed, Special Public Prosecutor and Mr. Mozzem Hussain; Pleader appeared for the State.
সূত্র: সংবাদপত্রে বঙ্গবন্ধু দ্বিতীয় খণ্ড: ষাটের দশক ॥ প্রথম পর্ব