Morning news
13th September 1960
PRISON TERM AND FINE FOR MUJIB
(By Our Staff Reporter)
Sheikh Mujibur Rahman, a former provincial Minister and General Secretary of the defunct Awami League, was yesterday sentenced to serve simple imprisonment for two years and also to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000 in default, simple imprisonment for six months more on a charge of committing criminal misconduct by abusing his official powers and position by obtaining pecuniary benefit for his “friend” Kazi Abu Nasser.
The co-accused, Kabi (Kazi) Abu Nasser, Managing Agent of M/S. Coal Mining & Trading Company (Pak) Ltd. whom the prosecution described as an intimate friend of Sheikh Mujibur Rahman, was also found guilty and awarded the same sentence for actively abetting Sheikh Mujibur Rahman in the commission of the offence.
The sentences were passed by Mr. A. Moudud, District and ex-efficio senior Special Judge, Dacca. The Judge granted ad-interim bails to both the accused pending their appeals before the High Court.
Observing that during the tenure of his office Sheikh Mujibur Rahman was responsible for passing the East Pakistan AntiCorruption Act (Act xxvi) of 1957 and bringing the same on the Statute Book and that “it is unfortunate that Mr. Rahman also succumbed to the same malady’, the Judge held that “Mr. Rahman’s was not a rough-and ready decision in the interest of the State and the public as he wanted the court to believe, while passing the impugned orders.”
“On the other hand,” the Judge observed, “I am convinced that the granting of permission to manufacture soft coke from hard coal was seized upon as a subtle device to grant the agency of importing soft coke to the accused Nasser and his firm by cancelling that of M/s. Hasan Ahmad Ltd., and this is the reason why even no formal application was asked for from the said agency.” The circumstances under which all such orders were passed leave no manner of doubt in my mind that the accused Abu Nasser was the main actor, wirepulling from behind, instigating and abetting the accused Mr. Rahman to pass the impugned orders in favour of his firm.”
Dealing with the evidence on record, the Judge held that “Mr. Rahman was determined to cancel the agency of M/s. Hasan Ahmad Ltd., and to appoint M/s. Coal Mining & Trading Company as the agent on that very date. There is no indication in the record that Mr. Rahman had received any complaint personally against Hasan Ahmad Ltd., that its appointment was made illegally and that the interests of the State and public demanded such cancellation.”
With regard to the defence plea that Nawabzada Hasan Ali was an uncle of Mr. Mohammad Ali of Bogra, who was the then prime Minister of Pakistan and that the agency was granted to M/s. Hasan Ahmad as an act of favour from some directive, the Judge observed: “I say that there is nothing on record to imagine that the then Prime Minister Mr. Mohammad Ali had any influential directive for granting the agency to M/S. Hasan Ahmad”.
Then in respact of the defence argument that M/S. Hasan Ahmad had no past experience in coal business at the time of their appointment as the agent, the Judge observed that “I am far from thinking that past experience only could be the sole criterian for the appointment, in as much as that would hamper the growth of healthy competition in business and industrialisation of the country and would certainly create a vested interest in favour of those already in the line. In the present case we find clear evidence that there was a tender notice calling for tenders for the agency on 3.1.55, and that in pursuance of the procedural rule as stated by PW4, Mr. Moyed Khan that ‘in all cases of contract and supplies to the Government of over Rs. 2,500 it is compulsory to call for tenders’. But when the agency of Hasan Ahmad was cancelled by the accused Mr. Rahman on April 7, 1957 and M/s. Coal Mining &Trading Company was appointed by him in their stead no tenders were called for and there was not even a show for a fair deal.”
“I am not satisfied,” the Judge held, “as to the manner in which such cancellation and appointment were made abruptly by the accused Mr. Rahman. Even if it be conceded for the sake of argument that the appointment of Hasan Ahmad was an act of favouritism it could not be righted by an act of another favouritism in the manner as has been done. I do not think it a sound principle of natural justice that because Peter has something in his possession illegally obtained therefore Paul would be entitled to rob it with impunity for the benefit of Richard.”
Discussing the part played by accused Kazi Nasser as charged by prosecution, the judge observed that “There is evidence on record that the accused Abu Nasser did not even apply for and on behalf of his firm M/s. Coal Mining & Trading Company.” The Judge further observed that “the fact that the accused Nasser was after this agency from the very beginning has been already clearly illustrated. He was an applicant for the agency in pursuance of the notice dated January 8, 1955, but he was unsuccessful; he did not rest there but he approached the successful agent M/s Hasan Ahmad Ltd., through its Managing Director Nawabzada Hasan Ali suggesting to do the act and share the commission, but his proposal was turnd down. His such activity necessarily proves that he was in search of an opportunity to grab the agency whenever an occasion arises. And the occasion did arise when Mr. Rahman took over as the Minister-in-charge of Commerce, Labour and Industries Departmnts.”
“Having a critical appreciation of all such circumstances | have got no hesitation to hold that the accused Abu Nasser had instigated and abetted the accused Mr. Rahman to grant him the agency by dint of his position as a Minister of the Department. … all this best illustrates that Mr. Rahman did so illegally by abusing his such position as public servant and that was at the instigation and abetment of the other accused Abu Nasser.” With regard to the intimacy between the two accused, the Judge held that evidence of prosecution witnesses Khorshed Alam and Rahim Nawaz Chowdhury, both of Narayanganj, “substantiates that the accused Sheikh Mujibur Rahman had previous intimacy with the accused Abu Nasser, and this necessarily proves the instigation and active abetment on the part of the accused Abu Nasser to the accused Mr. Rahman to grant him the favours.”
Referring to a “third act of concession” granted by Sheikh Mujibur Rahman to the accused Abu Nasser and his firm by granting the latter lease for mining peat in Gopalganj SubDivision of Faridpur District, the Judge remarked that although the matter was not covered by the sanction order of the Provincial Government nor did it form a part of the indictments against the accused, but “no court can shut the eyes to such a broad fact which best illustrates what went on between the accused in or about that time and speaks volumes regarding their conduct.”
The prosecution case in brief was that by a Notification in January, 1955, tenders were invited for appointment of agents for procuring and handling soft coke/coal from India. In pursuance to this notification M/s. Hasan Ahmad Ltd. and M/s. Coal Mining Trading company including 19 others applied for the tenders. Nawabzada Hasan Ali was the Managing Director of M/s. Hasan Ahmad Ltd. while the accused Abu Naser was the Managing Agent of M/S. Coal Mining Trading Company. Subsequently M/S. Hasan Ahmad was appointed as the agent on the recommendations of a Tender Committee. But after Sheikh Mujibur Rahman took over his office, the accused Abu Nasser approached him for the benefit of his firm and by his act of abetment accused Mujibur Rahman had abruptly and arbitrarily passed orders cancelling the agency of Hasan Ahmad and appointing Coal Mining company on the same date and that he did it inspite of serious objections raised by the Secretary of the Department concerned and also without calling for a fresh tender and he did so in flagrant violation of the financial rules and office procedure. The prosecution also charged that Nasser got the agency without submitting any application nor did he quote any rates therefore.
in fact, ind. Moreovericence desp
The prosecution further alleged that Sheikh Mujibur Rahman had also granted a licence to the firm of the other accused Abu Nasser for setting up a soft coke plant at Darsana. But, in fact, the prosecution stated, no such plant was ever established. Moreover, it was stated, Sheikh Mujibur Rahman granted the licence despite the objections of the departmental secretary. Thus Skeikh Mujibur Rahman, as a public servant, committed an offence of criminal misconduct punishable u/s. 5(2) of Act 11 of 1947 and Abu Nasser abetted him, the prosecution charged the two.
The defence, however, pleaded not guilty to all the charges. Both Sheikh Mujibur Rahman and Abu Nasser denied of having any intimacy or friendship between them. Sheikh Mujibur Rahman stated that he had never visited the office or residence of Abu Nasser as deposed by the prosecution witnesses.
The defence further pleaded that there was sufficient ground for cancelling the agency of M/s Hasan Ahmad. It was also put forward by the defence that M/s. Coal Mining company got the agency on the merit of their case, they had sufficient experience to do the business efficiently. While M/s. Hasan Ahmad had none, the defence stated Sheikh Mujibur Rahman also pleaded that there were innumerable complaints against the agency of M/s Hasan Ahmad. As regards the charge of unjustifiably granting licence to the accusd Nasser for setting up a plant at Darsana the defence pleaded that the proposal came form the Industries directorate and that the Minister merely accepted the same.
সূত্র: সংবাদপত্রে বঙ্গবন্ধু দ্বিতীয় খণ্ড: ষাটের দশক ॥ প্রথম পর্ব