RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS THE AGARTALA CONSPIRACY CASE VOL – 3
Compilation and foreword by Sheikh Hasina
বিশেষ দ্রষ্টব্যঃ কপিরাইট সমস্যা যাতে না হয় সেকারণে সকল লেখা শুধুমাত্র ‘only Readable’, ‘non-downloadable’ ও ‘non-clickable’ রাখা হয়েছে। সংগ্রামের নোটবুকের সকল নথি-পত্রিকা-দলিল-সংকলন-বই থেকে নেয়া তথ্য-ছবি-ভিডিও শুধুমাত্র গবেষণার কাজে ব্যবহার্য। বাংলাদেশের স্বাধীনতা সংগ্রাম ও মুক্তিযুদ্ধ গবেষণার জন্য সংগ্রামের নোটবুক একটি অলাভজনক অবাণিজ্যিক স্বেচ্ছাশ্রমে গড়া প্রচেষ্টা।
DEPOSITION OF P.W. 239, MR. ABDUL MAJID
QURAISHI ON SOLEMN AFFIRMATION:
My name is Abdul Majid Quraishi, son of Dr. Mohammad Abdullah, aged 46 years, I am a Govt. Examiner of Question Documents., Intelligence Burau, Rawalpindi.
TO MR. T. H. KHAN:
I hold a Master’s Degree in Science, namely, the Chemistry. I specially studied the science of hard-writings and identification of writings from the year 1948 on my own and then in 1951. I went to U.K. and worked in the Nottingham Wakefield Science Laboratory, New Scotland Yard for 9 weeks. In the year 1961, I went to U.S.A. and worked in the Postal Identification Laboratory in Washington, Bureau of Investigation and Identification in Sacramento and in the Police Laboratory, Los Angeles, for about 16 weeks. In the year 1954, I obtained a Diploma in the subject of Examination and Questioned Writings by correspondence from the Institute of Applied Science, the U.S.A. Since the year 1961, I am a Member of the International Association of Identification, U.S.A. I have been functioning as their Vice-President from the year 1966. I have been examining cases of questioned documents from the year 1962 and by now have examined several thousands of documents and have appeared as Expert Witness in many Courts.
I received in this case some questioned documents as well as specimen writings from the Spl. Supdt. of police, CID, East Pakistan, Dacca, for comparison and opinion. The documents were both in English and in Bengali. I only examined the documents which were
Page: 1
written in English. I handed over the Bengali documents to Mr. Abdul Kadir for examination. I examined the English documents in the Hand-writing Bureau CID office, DACCA. The questioned documents which I received were marked by, as Q1 to Q204. I also marked the specimen writings as Sl to S202. These documents were received by me on the 13th of April, 1968. Later I received further documents from the Spl. S.P., CID, Dacca on the 6th of November, 1968 for examination. On this occasion, I only received specimen writings which were marked by me as S203 to $216. On the 23rd of November, 1968 I received further documents from the S.S.P, C.D.I, Dacca and these were marked by me as S220 to $240, being specimen writings. Some questioned documents were also received by me. They were already marked as P.W.3/68 to P.W. P.W.3/73 in the diary and P.W.3/66, P.W. 3/74 and P.W. 3/75 in the diary P.W. 3/67. I also received some routine and standard writings which I mark as R19. The original marking on it was R21. I had also received some routine documents marked as Rl to R19 (a).
After examination I handed over my report to Inspector, M. Israel of the Investigation Team at Dacca on the 21st of April, 1968. There was no forwarding letter from me along with my report addressed to Mr. A. Khaleque, S.S.P., S.B. The report prepared by Mr. A. Kadir with regard to the Bengali documents was also added to my report and I handed it over to Mr. Israil. When Mr. A. Kadir had given me his report which was signed by him, I just countersigned it.
The questioned writings marked by me as Q21 to Q31 in the diary Ext. P.W. 3/14 were compared by me with the specimen and standard writings of Lt. Commander Moazzem Hossain marked as S7, S31 to S44 and R7 to R16. I first examined inters the documents Q21 and Q31 and in my opinion, they agreed both in general and in unconscious individual characteristics and habit of writing including the execution and arrangement of different letters and words with some natural variations only. Consequently, the above-mentioned writings in Q21 to Q31 are in my opinion written by the same hand. Then these writings were compared with the request specimens and
Page: 2
standard specimens of Lt. Commander Moazzem Hossain which were marked as R7 to R16 and 532 to S44. I observed that they also exhibited fundamentally similar combinations of writing habit tendencies and general characteristics including general features of hand-writing without any fundamental divergence in basic characteristics except a little variation within the limits of natural variation exhibited by the said specimens. As a result of my overall examination, I am of the opinion that the body writings on the documents marked as Q21 to 031 in the diary Ext. P.W. 3/14 has been written by the same person who wrote the specimens i.e. R7 to R16, S7, S32 to S44. Amongst the agreements the major and important characteristics observed by me are as follows:
(1) Highly individual habit of occasionally abbreviating the formation of the letter ‘n’ extensively in the formation of wedge only as in the words ‘collecting’ (Q21), ‘Chinese’ (Q22), ‘Cantonment’ (Q26), ‘Enlisted’ (Q27), ‘no,’ (Q28), Name’, ‘Security’ (Q29), ‘Nationalistic’ (Q30), and ‘Cabinet’ (Q31).
The same habit is similarly shown in the specimen writings in the words ‘continued’ (S7), neutralised’ (S139 and S143), ‘country, unique’ in (S143), etc.
(2) Unconscious habit of wrongly spelling the word the ‘neutralise’ with ‘w’ instead of ‘u’. This habit is similarly shown by questioned writings Q/30 and specimen writings S/39. 143.
(3) Highly peculiar habit of missing occasionally one upright stroke of small ‘m’ in the medial place which appears like ‘n’ in the words such as ‘crime’ (Q/23), ‘Cantonment’ (Q/26). This habit is shown by the specimens in the words ‘crime’ (S/142) and ‘ambush’ (S/143).
(4) Highly individual and unconscious habit of putting a short dash under capital ‘M’ while writing M.P.As., M.N.As. etc. as is clear in Q/23 and specimens S/141 and 133.
(5) Peculiar habit of generally writing the letter ‘j’ as capital letter predominantly with continuous loop impulse as in the words Jail, (Q/23) ‘Judges’, ‘Jessore’ (Q/26). The same habit is shown by the specimens S/138 and 142 in ‘Jail’ and in ‘Jessore’ in S/139, 143.
Page: 3
(6) Individual habit of sometimes writing the initial letter small ‘u’ with spur and eyelet impulse in the second stroke as in clear in the words ‘units’ (Q28, 29) and ‘unrest’ (Q/29). This habit is also shown by the specimens in the words ‘Union’ (S/7), ‘unites (S/134. 143).
(7) Habit of writing the word “firsť with digits as abbreviated ‘1st, without notation underneath. The abbreviated ‘st’ is added prominently at a higher alignment. This habit is similarly exhibited in questioned Q/25 and specimens S/143,139 etc.
(8) Predominant tendency of writing the word ‘to’ through an angular return from the base of the letter ‘t’ as in the questioned writings Q/22, 28, 29 and S-7, 136, 139, R-10, etc.
(9) Peculiar habit of writing the word ‘will’ with an extended size of the letter ‘i’ which is linked with ‘w’ through a returning impulse. The size of the letters ‘I’ is rather reduced which makes the tops of the three. letters “IIl’ almost parallel. This habit is shown similarly in Q/29 and S144.
(10) The habit of forming a continuous link between two small letters ‘r’ and ‘i’, especially in the words “district (Q/23, S/141), industries’ (Q/23 Q/24 and S/135,138,140). This combination of ‘r’ and “i’ appears like the letter ‘n’ which is similarly exhibited by the questioned and specimen writings.
(11) Highly peculiar habit of putting sometimes ‘dash’ or ‘comma’ at the end of a paragraph instead of ‘full stop’, which is also frequently added. This habit is shown similarly by the questioned writings Q/23, 24, 29, as well as specimen writings S/133, 138, and/139.
(12) Highly peculiar habit of occasionally abbreviating the formation of terminal ‘g’ extensively as in the words ‘collecting’ (Q/21), ‘anything ‘(Q/22), ‘housing’ (Q/26). The same tendency is shown by the specimens in the words ‘following’ S/141, ‘flying’, ‘collecting’ (S/142). It is, however, observed that as a normal habit the loop of terminal letter ‘g’ is generally abbreviated as against initial or medial ‘g’ wherein the loop is generally formed.
Page: 4
(13) The peculiar habit of writing the notation of ‘apostrophe s’ in the form of vertical stroke as in the words M.P.As, S.Ps, etc. in Q/23, 24 and S/138,141.
(14) Peculiar tendency of occasionally raising of to impulses of terminal ‘n’ which reads like ‘
w as in the words ‘location’ (Q/25). ‘production’, ‘preparation’ (Q/30), ‘Chosan (Q/29) and in the specimen words ‘question’ S/7, ‘preparation’ (S/139), “qualification’ (S/133).
(15) Almost fixed habit of embellishing the staff of letter ‘d’ in the word ‘production’ by a loop impulse for connection it through the same link as shown in the questioned writings marked Q/30 and specimen writings S/132, 135, 141. It has also been observed that as a normal habit the medium letter ‘d’ in the words such as ‘industry’, ‘residential’ etc. is generally written with a normal staff.
(16) Peculiar way of writing the word ‘offices’ wherein the first three letters are generally linked from the top through the continuous stroke. There is a tendency of forming a lower loop of the letter ‘f on the wrong side with clock-wise returning impulse. This habit is similarly shown by Q/25, 24, 30, and specimens S/142, 133.
(17) Predominant tendency of linking capital ‘N’ from its top with the letter that follows in words such as ‘New’ (Q/26 & S/135, 144). ‘Name’ (S/142).
(18) Peculiar habit of commencing the staff of capital ‘p’ with a downward impulse usually, as in the words ‘Promise’ (Q/22), ‘post’ (Q/25), ‘Pakistan’ (Q/28). A similar tendency is shown by the specimen writings in the words “Pakistan’ (S/7), ‘Production’ (S/135), (Preparation ‘(S/134), etc.
(19) Peculiar habit of writing the word ‘and’ with flat ‘a’ wherein the letter ‘n’ has the impulse of generally the letter ‘u’ and the terminal ‘d’ is either normal or its staff is curved. This habit is similarly shown by the questioned writings Q/21, 23, 24, etc. and the specimens S/143,142,139 etc. It has been observed that there is a little tendency of writing this word under notation form, i.e. to say under the ‘Greek’ form.
(20) Almost fixed habit of writing small it with the letter that follows from its base. This habit is similarly present in oath the questioned
Page: 5
and specimen writings as in the words ‘bosses’ Q24), ‘Mujibur’ (Q/21), ‘Possible’ (Q/29 & 30) and by (S/7) ‘bosses, (S/132), ‘possible “Mujibur’ (S/134), etc.
(21) The habit of generally writing the word ‘List’ with a pen lift after ‘i’. There is a predominant tendency of linking the terminal letter ‘S’ and ‘t’. This habit is similarly shown by Q/23, 24, 25, 26, etc. and S/138, 139, 142, 145.
(22) Highly peculiar habit of writing the combination of terminal letter ‘y’ and ‘y’ with a return impulse from the base of ‘y’ as against loop impulse which is normally observed in this letter. This habit is especially manifested while writing the words ‘railways’ as in Q/24 & S/138, 140, 144 as against normal ‘y’ in the words ‘railway’.
(23) The general tendency of sometimes linking the words such as ‘of’, and ‘the’ in Q/25, S/138, 143.
(24) Predomination habit of linking the capital ‘B’ from its base especially in the word “Dacca’ (Q/25, 26, 29, ‘Date’ (Q/28 and S/134,).143,144).
(25) Almost fixed off underscoring the ‘captions’ in body writing. This habit is similarly shown by the questioned and specimen writings.
(26) Peculiar tendency of using capital letters for common words in the body writing such as ‘Industries’, ‘Jail’ etc. In Q/23, 30, and S/135 142, etc.
(27) The habit of writing capital ‘T’ in script (Q/22) as well as copy book form (Q/21) as in the word ‘Immediate’. Same habit is shown in specimen writings for this word in S/132, 133, 141.
(28) Predominant tendency of adding curved staff in the terminal ‘d’ in the words ‘expected’ (Q/23), ‘gathered’ (Q/27), ‘detailed’ (Q/28), ‘required’ (Q/29). The same tendency is shown by the specimen writings in the words ‘expected’ (S/142, 133). ‘completed’, ‘retired’ (S/135), ‘food’ S/141), etc.
(29) Predominant habit of writing words with capital ‘E’ in ‘Greek’ form such as ‘Employment'(Q/21), ‘Engineer’ (Q/25), ‘Effort’ (Q/29), ‘Eskaton’ (Q/26). The same habit is shown in the specimens by the words’ Engineer (Electronic (S/133, 138, 141), ‘Efforts’ (S/132). On the
Page: 6
contrary, Capital ‘E’ in block letters writing is generally written in script form as in Q/22 and S/138.
(30) Peculiar habit of writing occasionally small letter ‘P’ with a loop impulse in the upper portion of its staff. It generally linked through a continuous circular impulse from its round portion as in the words “company’ (Q/23), ‘Employment’ (Q/21), ‘groups’ Q/23, ‘supply’ (Q/29), ‘plain’ (Q/31). The same habit is shown by the specimen writings in the words ‘spokesman’ (S/7) ‘transport’ (S/133, 134, 138), ‘pamphlet’ (S/135).
(31) Peculiar habit of predominantly writing the word ‘of with a continuous impulse and a cross bar. There is a tendency of sometimes forming the base loop of ‘f on its wrong side. This habit is shown by the questioned writings Q/22, 23, 24, 25, 28, 29, etc. and specimens S/135, 132, 138 and 139. It has been observed that the terminal letter ‘f in the word ‘if is generally written with both the loop impulses as in Q/29, 30 and S/134, 139, 142, 144, etc.
(32) Highly predominant habit of writing the Greek type of initial small ‘r’ with prominent initial spur as in the words ‘report’ (Q/28), ‘ required’ (Q/29), ‘research’ (Q/30), ‘residential’ (Q/23). The same habit is exhibited by the specimen writings in the words ‘railways’ (S/135), ‘recruiting’ (S/134), ‘residential’ (S/132). It has been observed that the script type of ‘r’ without a terminal spur is generally written.
(33) Predominant tendency of linking the initial letter ‘t’ and ‘h’. through the cross bar in a continuous form except in the word ‘the’ where this habit is not usually shown. The linking habit is shown in the words “their’ (Q/23, 24, 25, 26, 28, 29 ), ‘than’ (Q/29), etc. Similarly the same habit is shown by the specimen writings in the words ‘their’ (S/132, 141, 138, 142, 144).
(34) Individual habit of writing the combination of letters ‘t’ and ‘i’ through a continuous impulse of the cross bar with predominant tendency of lifting the pen after ‘i’ in the words such as ‘location’ (Q/25), ‘information’, Production’ (S/141), ‘nationalistic’ ‘station’, (S/135) etc.
(35) Peculiar habit of writing the word ‘with’ having curve impulse for the letter “i’ which is generally not linked but the terminal ‘th’ is linked. This habit is shown by Q/23, 24, 25, 30 and S/135, 138, 141.
Page: 7
(36) Peculiar habit of writing the word ‘word’ in the body writing with continuous linking impulse. This habit is similarly shown by Q/22 and S/141.
(37) Almost fixed habit of writing in an upright form with generous inter spacing both in letters and words without extensive abbreviations.
(38) Habit of leaving sufficient space between the consecutive paragraphs.
(39) Habit of leaving a margin on either side of paper as well as between the serial numbers and the start of each paragraph.
(40) Swift writing in legible form and with hand movement and a tendency of hiatus.
(41) Forceful writing with prominent pen pressure and smooth shading.
(42) Forceful and clear digit writing with a tendency of putting a dot at the end of serial numbers
Some of the natural variations observed between questioned and specimen writing in the identified documents are explained below:
(a) The formation of letter ‘s’ in the words ‘list’ of questioned writings, is mostly in script form as against normal ‘s’ in the specimen. This is due to the fact that the writer has variable habit for this letter, as evident from the words ‘officers’ and ‘offices’ (Q/25, and Q/25), ‘directors’ ‘bosses’ (Q/23), ‘selected’ ‘service’ (Q/30). The same variation is shown by the specimens as in the words ‘arms’ ‘was’ (S/7), ‘senior’. It is thus clear that the use of two forms of the letter ‘s’ is a natural variation of the writer.
(b) Initial small letter ‘m’ in the questioned writings is mostly written without a starting curve as in the words ‘most’ (Q/24). ‘man’ (Q/29): but the word “minded’ has a complete starting curve of ‘m’. The same variation is shown by the specimen writings in the words ‘meeting’ (S/141). ‘monthlies’ S/139), “made’ (S/141), ‘made’ (S/134), ‘may (S/132).
Therefore, it is clear that no fixed habit of writings initial ‘m’ with the initial curve or not exists both in questioned and specimen writings.
Page: 8
(c) Terminal letter ‘t’ in the questioned writings have a tendency of the continuous cross bar of a separate one as in the words ‘contact’ (Q/22), ‘select’, ‘port’. ‘it’ (Q/31), ‘amongst’ (Q/29). The same variable tendency is shown by the specimens in the words ‘start’, ‘at’ (S/134), ‘start’, ‘airport’ (S/139).
(d) The word ‘with’ has also variable linking habit for terminal ‘t’ and ‘h’ similarly shown by the questioned and specimen writings.
(e) The base loop of the letter ‘y’ is either added prominently or abbreviated in the questioned writings as in the words ‘Company’ (Q/23), ‘my’ (Q/21), and ‘country’ (Q/25), ‘Scruting’ (Q/29). The same tendency is shown by the standard specimen writings as in the words ‘authority’ or ‘temporary’ (R/10) and ‘duty’ (R/7). This variation is also a natural variation.
(f) The questioned writings show that the word ‘for’ is written by using capital as well as small ‘f as in Q/21 and Q/30. The same habit is shown by the standard specimen in R/15.
(g) Habit of writing ‘T’ in script as well as normal form, is evident from questioned writings at Q/27. The same variation is shown by the standard specimen at R/9 and R/11.
It is evident from the above explanation that slight variations in a pictorial form wherever on served are within the limits of natural variation similarly shown by the repeated writings of Lt. Commander M. Hossain. None of the variations observed are of fundamentally opposing nature to indicate two different hands.
In view of the above mentioned facts and as a result of my overall examination, I am of the opinion that the questioned body writings on the documents marked Q21 to Q31 in the Diary Ext. P.W. 3/40, have been written by the same person who wrote the specimens marked R7 to R16, S7, S132 to $144.
During the examination photographic analysis charts were prepared for the purpose of illustrating the above mentioned similarities in characteristics and the natural variations. The photographs of the documents were prepared by the photographed expert of the C.I.D. document Department directly under my supervision. Mr. A. Wadud is a
Page: 9
photographic expert. The charts of the questioned documents prepared under my supervision are produced now. (They are marked Ext. P.W. 239/1, P.W.239/2). These are the charts prepared for the specimen documents, now marked Ext. P.W. 239/3, P.W.239/4 and 239/5. The enlargements of the routine documents R7 to R16 are now marked Ext. P.W.239/6.
The document already marked Ext. P.W. 2/31 was marked by me as Q/21. The document already marked Ext. P.W. 3/22 was marked by me as Q22. The documents already marked Ext. P.W. 3/23 was marked by me as Q23. The next page of this exhibit was marked by me as Q24. The next page of that was marked by me as Q25. The page thereafter was marked by me as Q26. The document already marked Ext. P.W. 3/15 was marked by me as Q27. The reverse of this page dated 28th August was marked by me as Q28. The page thereafter with the heading 30th August was marked by me as Q30. The reverse of this page was marked by me as Q29. The page thereafter with the heading “31st August’ was marked by me as Q31. In the Diary already marked Ext. P.W. 169/19 the page with the title “January 3′ was marked by me as S132. The page thereafter with the heading January’ 4′ was marked by me as S133. The page thereafter with the heading “January 5′ was marked by me as S134. The page thereafter with the heading “January 6′ was marked by me as S135. The page thereafter with the heading ‘January 7′ was marked by me as S136. The page subsequent to that with the heading “January 9′ was marked by me as S137. The page thereafter with the heading ‘January 10’ was marked by me as S138. The page with the heading ‘January 11’ was marked by me as S139. The page thereafter with the heading ‘January 12′ was marked by me as S140. Then the page with the heading ‘January 15’ was marked by me as S141. The page thereafter with the heading ‘January 16’ was marked by me as S142. The page thereafter with the heading ‘January 17’ was marked by me as S143. The page thereafter with the heading ‘January 18’ was marked by me As S144. The document already marked Ext.TZ/1 was marked by me as S7. The document already marked Ext. P.W. 146/4 was marked by me as R7. The document already marked Ext. P.W. 146/5 was marked by me as R8. The document
Page: 10
already marked Ext. P.W.14676 was marked by me as R10. The document already marked Ext. P.W.146/7 was marked by me as R11. The document already marked Ext. P.W.146/8 was marked by me as R9. The document already marked Ext. P.W. 146/9 was marked by me as R12. The document already marked Ext. P.W. 146/10 was marked by me as R13. So also the document already marked Ext. P.W. 146/11 was marked by me as R14. The document already marked Ext. P.W. 146/12 was marked by me as R15. And the document already marked Ext. P.W. 146/13 was marked by me as R16.
The signatures marked by me as Q20 and Q20(a) in the T.A. Bill form when examined inter se, agree, both in general and unconscious type of individual habits and characteristics of writings so far as execution and arrangements of different letters are concerned with some natural variations only. Consequently, both the said signatures were written by the same person.
The comparison of standard signatures of Lt. Commander Mr. Hussain marked by me as ‘R’ RI to R6 to and his request specimens marked as ‘S’, with the said questioned signatures reveal that the two standard and questioned signatures, exhibit similar combination of writing habits without any fundamental divergences in basic characteristics except a little variation which remains within the limits of natural variation exhibited by the said standard signatures.
As the result of my examination, I am of the opinion that the questioned signatures marked Q20 and Q20(a) have been written by the same person who wrote the standard and the request specimen signatures.
Amongst the agreements, major and important characteristics observed are given below which are similarly exhibited by the questioned and standard specimens:
1) Highly individual way of writing initial capital ‘M’ of the signatures. Like an embellished small letter ‘m’ having the impulses of letter ‘was in Q20, Q20(a), R2 and R2(a).
2) Peculiar habit of writing the initial letter ‘m’ with eyelet impulses or stubbed staff. There is a tendency of keeping the height of the first
Page: 11
stroke a little higher than the subsequent strokes as in Q20 R2, R5, Q20 (a), R2(a), R6.
3) Highly individual way of making an embellished link between the first letter ‘M’ and the capital letter ‘H’ of the word ‘Hussain’. The ornamental link has a twist towards the left generally followed by a loop at the top of the vertical stroke of the letter ‘H’ as in Q20, R2, Q20(a), R2(a) and R6.
4) Peculiar habit of embellishing the capital letter ‘H’ whose initial start has a smooth bending tendency with a terminal spur towards the left at its toe. The second staff of the capital ‘H’ is also added with prominent pressure as in Q20, R2, R3, R5(a), Q20(a), R6, R2 (a) and R4(a).
5) The predominant habit of putting a curved stroke or a dot, unconsciously at the end of the signature near its terminal point as in Q20, R2, R5, R5(a), Q20(a) and R6.
6) Predominant habit of writing the combination of terminal letters ‘in’ in the word ‘Hussain’ with the impulses of the letter ‘w’ as in Q20, R2, and R5. It has been observed that there is a tendency of sometimes extensively abbreviating its terminal portion in the form of curved stroke only as in Q20 (a), R3(a ) and R(5)
7) Peculiar habit of linking capital letter ‘H’ with the subsequent letter ‘u’ through a continuous stroke of the cross-bar as in Q20, R2, R5, R1 and Q20(a) and R6, and R3(a), etc.
8) Almost fixed habit of execution capital ‘H’ in embellished size as in Q20, Q20(a), R5, R2, R6 and R4(a).
9) Habit of writing ‘SS’ in the linked form generally through a retraced link. The formation of these letters has a tendency of smooth oval impulses as in Q20, R2 Q20 (a), R2 (a), etc.
10) Habit of the writing of letter ‘a’ with a short shoulder followed by a terminal curve which is generally linked with a subsequent portion of the signatures as in Q20, R2, Q20 (a) and R3 (a).
14) Habit of writing the letter ‘u’ with abbreviated and curved upstroke which make it appear like letter ‘a’ with an open oval as in Q20, R2, R6, (Q20(a), R2(a) and R6. There is a tendency of abbreviating extensively the second stroke of the letter ‘u’ as shown in Q20(a) and R6.
Page: 12
12) Habit of generally missing the ‘i’ dot from its proper place in the word ‘Hussain’.
13) Habit of generally putting a forceful under signature line beyond the initial letter ‘M’ of the signature. The under signature line has an upward slant with the stubbed end as in Q20, R2, R(a), etc. The signatures are sometimes written without any under the signature line as in Q20 (a), R5 (b), R5(c), etc.
14) Writing with arm-movement and prominent pen pressure with increased shading of the curves and downward strokes.
15) There is a general agreement between questioned and specimen signatures so far as slant, proportion, interspacing, linking tendencies; execution of letter and their alignment is concerned.
16) Absence of erratic alignment so far as a baseline is concerned.
17) Absence of the habit of putting dot or dash in between the two portions of the signatures i.e. after capital letter ‘M’ which is normally present in most of the signatures of any writings.
18) The writer is not very particular in adding dates underneath the signatures which is also a normal feature with many writers.
Some of the natural variations between the questioned signatures and the standard signatures are explained below:
a) In Q20, the first vertical stroke of ‘H’ is finished early whereas the second vertical stroke went further below. But the Q20 (a) both the vertical strokes comes near the baseline almost equality. This type of variation is also found in the standard signatures vide R2 and R3 respectively.
b) In Q20 (a) there is no clear commencing curve of the letter but a similar tendency is also shown by the standard signature marked R2(a).
c) In Q20 (a) the letter ‘M’ is not connected ornamentally with the subsequent capital letter ‘H’. It can be seen that the tendency of linking ‘M’ with ‘H’ is clearly visible but the writer failed to complete the linking curve due to the presence of revenue stamp at the starting edge of which the line has stopped. This has also occurred in the standard signatures executed similarly on the revenues stamp as R6.
Page: 13
d) The second stroke of capital ‘H’ in Q20 is a clear vertical stroke without any commencing curve from the right side as present in Q20(a). Both these habits are similarly exhibited by the standard signatures vide R2 and R3(a).
e) There is a slight variation in the terminal perion of the signature in Q20 and Q20(a) but a similar amount of variation is also clear in some of the standard signatures vide R5(a) respectively. It has been observed that slight variations wherever exhibited are either within the limits of natural variations or caused for some other reasons. But none of the variations are of fundamentally opposing nature to indicate two different hands. In view of the above mentioned facts and as a result of my overall examination I am of the opinion that the questioned signatures marked Q20 and Q20(a) have been written by the hand of the same person who wrote the signatures in R2 to R6. I got photographic made under my direct supervision by the Photographic expert of the C.I.D., Dacca. The photographic enlargements of the questioned and specimen signatures are now marked Ext. P.W.239/7. The various characteristics have been illustrated by arrows on those charts. The signatures appearing on the documents already marked Ext. P.W. 146/5 was marked by me as 220 and Q20(a). The signatures appearing on the subsequent page of the document already marked Ext. P.W. 146/3 was marked by me as R1. The other signatures of this page were marked by me as R1(a). The signatures appearing on the second page of the documents already marked as Ext. P.W.146/4 were marked by me as R2 and R2(a). The signatures appearing on the second page of the document already marked Ext. P.W. 146/6 were marked by me as R4 and R4(a). The signatures appearing on the second page of the document already marked Ext. P.W. 146/7 were marked by me as R5 and R5(a). The signature appearing on the Revenue Stamp on the second page of the document already marked as Ext. P.W. 146/10 was marked by me as R6.
The body writings on the diary pages were marked by me as Q11 to Q18. When examining interest they agree both in general and unconscious individual characteristics and habits with some natural variations only. Consequently, in my opinion, the writings on the above
Page: 14
mentioned identified documents Q11 to Q18 have been written by the same hand.
The comparison of the standard specimens marked as R17. R17(a), R17(b), R17(c) and R17(d) and request specimens of M.A. Reza on the papers marked S4, S94 to $118 with the above mentioned questioned writings revealed that the questioned and the specimen writings exhibited fundamentally similar combinations of writing habits, tendencies and characteristics without any fundamental divergences in basis characteristics except a little variation within the limits of natural variation normally shown by the said specimen writings of M.A. Reza. As a result of this comparison and our overall observation I am of the opinion, that the questioned writings on the documents marked Q11 to Q18 have been written by the same person who wrote the standard specimens marked R.17, R17(a) R17(b), R17(c) and R17(d), S4 and 595 to S118. My reasons for the above opinion including the major important characteristics are given below:
1) Highly peculiar habit of writing the combination of the letters ‘e’ and ‘r’ in a peculiarly abbreviated form as in the words ‘father'(All) ‘everybody’ (Q14), ‘certain’ (Q14(a) ‘peration’ Q17, etc. The same habit is exhibited by the standard and request specimen writings as in the words ‘father’, ‘everybody’ S117 and S113, ‘I certain’ (S95 and S99), ‘operations. (898), and “letter’, ‘personally’, ‘paper'(R17 (d).)
2) Individual habit of generally writing small letter ‘d’ in an outstanding manner (size) which looks like capital ‘C’, many a time at initial position as well as in the body writing as in the words ‘came’ (Q/13), ‘come’, closed’ (Q/14), ‘car’, ‘cross’ (Q/15(b), ‘came’ (Q/18). This habit is also exhibited similarly with the same frequency in the specimen as in the words ‘come’ (S/117), ‘closed’ (S/110 and S/114), ‘cross’ (S/116) ‘collection’ (R/117(b), ‘cold’ (S/4).
3) Highly unconscious habit of writing sometimes the name of ‘Moazzem’ with the terminal letter ‘n’ instead of ‘m’ as in Q/12, S/118 and S/98, etc.
4) Highly peculiar way of writing the word ‘picture’ (Q/14) with the like impulse after the letter ‘p’ and extensive abbreviation of the letters after ‘t’. The same habit is shown by this word in S/113, S/101.
Page: 15
5) Peculiar habit of writing the word ‘left’ with abbreviated eye-let of ‘e’ as in Q/15, S/99 and S/103.
6) Highly peculiar habit of sometimes writing the word ‘meet’ with capital ‘M’ whose second staff is prominently curved and the terminal ‘t’ has the tendency of a continuous cross-bar appears as in Q12, Q18, S106, S114, S118 and 198, etc.
7) Occasionally the highly peculiar habit of embellishing the crossbar of the letter “t” (Q13) in the words ‘today’ and in the words ‘beautiful’ (Q151a) and time (Q17). This individual tendency is also shown in the specimen writings similarly as in the words ‘materials’ (R17 (d) and ‘time’ (S98 and 399 etc.)
8) Highly peculiar habit of generally writing the word ‘for’ in which terminal letters ‘o’ and ‘r’ are abbreviated extensively and the lower loop of ‘f is sometime added on its wrong side as in Q13, 214, 215, Q17. This tendency is also exhibited similarly by the specimens S95, 197, S98, and S117.
9) The peculiar habit of generally abbreviating medial letter ‘a’ in the word ‘was’ which has a wedge like impulse only. This habit is similarly shown by Q13, Q14 and S101, 5106 and S114.
10) Habit of abbreviating the formation of terminal letters ‘ing’ in which letter ‘g’ has no lower loop usually. This habit is shown similarly by the questioned writing in the words ‘charming’ (Q13), ‘meeting’ (Q14), ‘evening’ (Q17). The same habit is shown by the specimen writings as in the words ‘evening’ (S116), ‘meeting’ (S117) and ‘charming ‘(S102).
(11) Habit of writing notational as well as the normal word ‘and’. The notational “and” has peculiarity with an occasional tendency of embellishing its terminal stroke with an effort to link the capital letters on its flanks as in the word (O & ‘m.’, ‘S. &E.’ etc. The same habit is exhibited similarly by the specimen writings (S114, S118, 890) and the questioned writings.
12) There is a predominant tendency of abbreviating the cutting type of loop impulse of the initial letter “i’. This habit is shown by questioned writings the words ‘lift’, ‘long’ (Q15(b), in the word “in-law” (Q15), in
Page: 16
the words ‘long’, ‘late”, Q17 and in specimen writing the words ‘lift (899), ‘long’ (S89) 599, S102, 5106 and 5108 etc.
13) The predominant habit of writing abbreviated titles in the capital letters in the body writing without in-between dots generally such as USIS (Q11), NIPA (A12), DC(Q18). The same habit is shown by the specimens NIPA (S114, S118), USIS (S108) and R17(b) and R17(d). The in-between dots the occasionally added and this habit is also shown by both the sets of writings as in the words ‘chawk’, ‘U.C.’ (Q13) and A.M.’, ‘D.P.’ (R17(d) and DIT (995).
14. The peculiar tendency of embellishing the initial upward spur of the letter “q” which occasionally extends below the baseline of writing as in the word ‘at’ (Q11), accepted Q12(a) and Q13. The same tendency is shown by the specimen writings in the letter “a’ (S114). “after” (S116) and “ascribed “(S4).
Page: 17
SPECIAL TRIBUNAL
Record of Proceedings
PRESENT.
Mr. Justice S.A. Rahman, H.Pk., Member.
Mr. Justice M. R. Khan, S.Pk., Member.
Mr. Justice Maksum-ul-Hakim, Member.
For the Prosecution —As before.
For the Defence —As before.
Accused present —As before.
Witness on oath —As before.
DEPOSITION OF P.W. 239, MR. ABDUL MAJID QUARISHI CONTINUED:
(15) Peculiar habit of abbreviating the terminal letter ‘n’ of the word ‘in’. The ‘i’ dot is also added generally away on the right side. This habit is shown by specimens and questioned writings i.e. Q11, Q14 (a), Q15(b) and Q17, S103, S106, S108 and S4.
(16) The habit of writing the word ‘with’ having the smooth and following type of link between ‘w’ and ‘i’ with a tendency of abbreviating the loop formation of terminal letter ‘h’. The cross-bar of the letter ‘t’ is generally added away on the right side in the form of a short ‘tick-stroke’. This habit is shown similarly by Q11, 15(a), 15(b), Q18 and 599, S117.
(17) Highly peculiar but occasional habit of writing the initial letter ‘r’ in an outstanding manner without terminal spur, thereby giving it a
Page: 18
shape of letter ‘v’. There is a tendency of sometimes making an eyelet return from its base.
This habit is similarly shown by the questioned writings in the words “ready’ Q14 (a) ‘raining’ Q15(a) ‘reached'(Q15, Q15a), ‘rather’ Q18 and the specimens in the word ‘recorded’ S4 ‘reached’ (S116, S108, and S103), “result’ S103, ready’ S99, etc.
(18) Peculiar habit of writing the word ‘the’ in the body writing with a predominant tendency of abbreviating its terminal letter ‘h’ and ‘e’. The cross-bar of ‘t is generally placed on the right side of the staff in a trick form. This habit is shown similarly by questioned writings (Q12, 14, 15(b) 18) and specimen (S96, 97, 196, 114, 116).
(19) Highly peculiar habit of generally writing the word ‘of with abbreviated ‘O’ which is linked through a continuous stroke with the point of ‘f which has no upper loop. This habit “i’ similarly shown by questioned Q11, 15(b), 18) and specimens (S 108, 116 and 97).
(20) Variable habit of forming the letter ‘d’ in three forms : (i) normal shape with a predominant tendency of ‘llop/retrace’ impulse in its staff, (ii) The second having curved staff with anti-clockwise impulse of flying nature, (ii) The third habit is to form this letter in an embellished shape of ‘delate which is generally made in medial position for linking it through continuous smooth curve impulse. All the three habits are exhibited in a fundamentally similar manner by the questioned and specimen writings as in the word ‘bride'(Q15 (b), S99), “supposed'(Q14, S116) and ‘everybody’ (Q12, S113).
(21) Habit of writing letter ‘b’ in two forms generally it is written in copy-book form with the predominant tendency of adding an initial spur. But there is an occasional tendency of writing this letter in ‘script’ form also as in the words ‘everybody’, no ‘neighbour’, ‘Mujibur Rahman’ (Q12), ‘absent’, ‘been’ (Q13), ‘but’ (Q14). Both the habits are manifested in a fundamentally similar manner in the specimen writings as evident from the words ‘everybody’, ‘neighbour’, (S113), ‘been’, ‘break-fast’ (S116), ‘Mujibur Rahman’ (S118).
Page: 19
(22) Predominant tendency of sometimes writing the terminal stroke of initial letter ‘m’ at an upward alignment. This letter is also occasionally started with prominent initial stroke as in the questioned words ‘my’ (Q12), ‘many’ (Q15)b). The same habit is shown by the standard specimen in the words ‘my’ (R17, c and d), S118, marked (S117), ‘met’ (S116), ‘marriage’ (S116)…
(23) Peculiar habit of linking letter ‘K’ from its top with the preceding letter as in the words ‘talk’. (Q11, 17), ‘taken’ (Q12), ‘chawk’ (Q13), “Zika’ (Q14 (a), “Ulka’ Q(15),. This habit is also showing similarly by the standard specimens in the words ‘make’ (R17 (b), ‘talk’ S108, 116, ‘marked’ S97, Make S99.
(24) Peculiar but occasional habit of forming the lower 100 of letter ‘f on the wrong side as against usual habit of writing it in normal form. This occasional habit is shown both in the questioned and standard specimens as in the words ‘unfortunately’ Q11, ‘information’ (14, ‘mofazal, Q13 and ‘information’ R17(d), “unfortunately’ 597 & S108, ‘information’ S101 and S117).
(25) Highly peculiar habit of generally writing the word ‘to’ with ending spur of letter ‘O’ instead of separate cross-bar of ‘t’. This habit is shown similarly in the questioned (Q11, 14, 14(a) and the specimens (S4, 108, 113) and (R17 (d)).
(26) Highly peculiar habit of occasionally abbreviating complete closed oval formation of medial ‘O’ specially when followed by letters ‘s’ and ‘r’ as in the words ‘closed’ Q13 supposed ‘information’ Q14, “almost? Q17 and ‘closed’ (S98, 118, 114), ‘supposed’ S116, “unfortunately’ $108, ‘post’ R17 c. This habit is manifested with the same impulses in both the sets of writings i.e. questioned and specimens.
(27) Habit of forming capital ‘D’ in copy-book form normally, but there is a predominant tendency of embellishing this letter with eyelet formation at its top or bottom as in the words ‘Director’ (Q12), Dr.’& ‘DIT’ (Q14(a)) as well as in specimen writings ‘Director ‘(S114), ‘Dr.’ & DIT (S99).
(28) Predominant habit of writing the second portion of capital ‘R’ with a smooth and embellished curve having a tendency of linking it with
Page: 20
the letter that follows as in the words ‘Rahman’, ‘Fahim’, etc. This habit is similarly shown by the questioned writings marked (Q11, 12, 13, 16(b), 17), as well as specimens (S116.117 & 98 ).
(29) There are two habits of forming the terminal letter ‘Y’. Predominantly it is written with the loop which has a flying type of terminal curve, cutting the base-staff. Certain occasions, the lower loop of this letter is completely missed. Both the habits are found similarly in the questioned writings (QLL to (17), specimens writings (S4, R17, S116 & S117, etc.).
(30) Predominant habit of linking capital ‘A’ through its cross-bar as in the words ‘Azher’ (Q13,14) and (597,117)
(31) Habit of linking the second staff of capital ‘H’ through continuous returning impulse as in the word ‘had’ (Q11, 15(a), 18) of questioned writings as well as standard specimens ‘Haque’ (R17(b), ‘had’ (S108), etc.
(32) Habit of writings with hand and arm-movement with a tendency of extending linking strokes through smooth curves especially in the letters ‘a’, ‘s’, H. This habit is similarly present in the questioned and specimen writings.
(33) Habit of writing swiftly as evident from attributing terminal letters as well as occasionally inter-linking the words.
(34) Habit of writing with prominent pen-pressure which is generally reduced at upward strokes and smooth extended links. This is manifested in a fundamentally similar manner by questioned and specimen writings.
(35) Connected writing with a tendency of embellishments and abbreviation in a characteristic way making it illegible at certain places. This habit is showing in fundamentally similar manner by questioned and specimen writings.
(36) Habit sometimes writing without much care to start with capital letter after completing each sentence, in a care-free type of body writing in the diary concerned as in (Q12), (898).
(37) Not particular about leaving sufficient margin on either side of the body writing in a diary.
Page: 21
(38) Normal habit of writing horizontally on the paper line without erratic alignments.
The three signatures at the bottom of the diary page marked Q17 when compared with similar signatures in the routine and request specimens marked R17 (a), 53, 53(a) and S4, S128 to $131, they show similar combination of writing habits without any fundamental divergence, in basic characteristic except a little variation which remains within the limits of natural variations exhibited by the said specimen signatures. The writing characteristics and habits of M.A. Reza mentioned above are also manifested by the said questioned signatures in fundamental similar manner as explained below:
(a) They show Individual habit of abbreviating the terminal ‘a’ in ‘Reza’ which sometimes assumes the form of a short hook only. Moreover, there is no pen-lift in the word ‘Reza’, whereas a tendency of adding ‘m’ and ‘a’ separately does exist as shown in the signatures. The impulse of capital ‘R’ and ‘M’ are the same as shown in the body writing. There is almost a fixed habit of adding two dots in the signatures. Further, the letter that follows capital ‘R’ is extensively abbreviated some tines to the extent of a wedge’ impulse only. The crown of the letter ‘z’ is also abbreviated whereas its loop is generally completed with full impulse. The links in the signatures are smooth and curved. All these characters are shown in a fundamentally similar manner by the questioned and specimen signatures.
Some of the natural variations observed in the questioned and standard specimens writings mentioned above are explained below:
(a) Apart from the habit of linking normally the letter ‘9’ through a continuous stroke, there is a tendency of making an eyelet type of linking impulse as in the words ‘not’ (Q11), ‘M’ ‘Moazem’ (Q12), “on’ (Q15). This tendency of forming of eyelet linking impulse in ‘o’ is similarly shown by the specimens as in the words ‘down’ (S4), ‘one’ (R17) “shown’ (S110).
(b) There is an occasional tendency of curving the last upright stroke of the terminal letter ‘W’ as in the words ‘saw.’ (Q12), ‘new’ (Q14), along with the normal formation of terminal ‘W’ Same tendency is also
Page: 22
exhibited by the standard specimen as in the word ‘now’ (R17(b) and normal ‘w’ in the word ‘few’ (R17(b).
(c) In the questioned writings the writer is not very particular in using copy-book form of small letter ‘s’ in the words invariably. Many a time ‘script’ from of letter ‘s’ is used as in the words ‘cross’, ‘see’ ‘script’, ‘Discussions’ ‘Showed’, ‘saw’, etc. But this variable habit is also shown in the standard writing as in the words ‘papers’, ‘reprints’ (R17(d), ‘advisors’ ‘decision’ R17(d), (a) and (b), ‘Study’, ‘Since’ R18(b). The linking habit of initially small letter ‘s’ in the word ‘see’ is also similarly exhibited by the two sets of writings.
(d) The formation and linking habit of letter ‘p’ is variable with three major tendencies. It is written either with a loop retrace type of impulse in the staff followed by a continuous linking impulse through its round portion as in the words ‘important’, ‘picture’ (Q14), or copybook form of letter ‘p’ without any linking tendency as in the word ‘partially’ (Q14). The third tendency is that occasionally the staff of the letter ‘p’ is linked near its point by the preceding letter as in the word ‘script’ (Q12). All the three habits are also shown by the specimens with fundamentally similar tendency as in the words ‘preparing’, ‘prayer’ (R17 (b), ‘paper, ‘speaker’ (R17 (d), ‘script (S118), ‘partially’ (S113), ‘supposed’ (S116).
It is evident from the above explanation that slight pictorial variations whenever observed are with the limits of natural variations similarly shown by the standard writing M.A. Reza. None of the variations are of fundamentally opposing nature to indicate two different hands.
In view of the above mentioned facts and as a result of my overall examination, I am of the opinion, that the questioned body writings and signatures marked on the documents Q11 to Q18 in the said diary have been written by the same person who wrote the standard specimens marked R17 (a), b), (c), (d), S4, and S95 to S118.
Photographic analysis charts were got prepared by the photographic expert in the C.I.D. Laboratory, East Pakistan, Dacca which I produce in the Court. These are the enlargements of the questioned documents Q11 to Q16 and Q18, which are now marked as Ext .P.W.239/8. The second
Page: 23
chart containing the enlargements of Q12 to 93, 295, 297, 0101, 0102 are now marked as Ext. P.W. 239/9. The enlargements of the questioned documents Q102, Q13, Q106(a), Q107, Q114 are now marked as Ext. P.W. 239/10, the enlargements of questioned documents Q15, 15(a), 16, 17 and 121 are now marked as Ext. P.W.239/11. The specimen enlargements as $108, 116, 112, 113, 109 & 117 are now marked as Ext. P.W. 239/12. The specimens writing enlargements of S4, 98, 102, 110,106,114,118 are now marked as Ext. P.W. 239/13. The enlargements of the specimen writings of $104, 107,111,115 are now marked as Ext. P.W 239/14. The enlargements of the specimens of S97, S105, S100 and S101 are now marked As Ext. P.W. 239/15. The enlargements of S95, 96, 999 & S103 are now marked as Ext. P.W. 239/16. The enlargements of the routine writings of R17 (a), R17 (b), (c) and (d) are now marked as Ext. P.W. 239/17. The enlargements of the signatures of the specimens Q17(a) to S127(a) and Q17 are now marked as Ext. P.W.239/18.
In the diary already marked Ext. P.W. 27/2 at the page bearing the date 13th and 14th March, 1979, I have marked the document as Q/11. The page bearing the dates 5th and 6th May, 1967 was marked by me as Q/12. The page bearing the dates 2nd and 3rd June, 1967 was marked by me as Q13. The page bearing the dates June, 1967 was marked by me as Q14. The page bearing the dates 10th and 11th July, 1967 was marked by me as Q/15. The page bearing the dates 12th and 13th July, 1967 was marked by me as Q/15a. The page bearing the dates 21st and 22nd July, 1967 was marked by me as Q/16. The page bearing the dates 14’h and 15th August, 1967 was marked by me as Q/17 and the page bearing the date 16th and 17th August, 1967 was marked by me as Q/17a. The page bearing the dates 4th and 5th October, 1967 was marked by me as Q/18.
The document already marked Ext. P.W. 205/19 was marked by me as S/4. In the diary already marked Ext. P.W.169/15, the page bearing the date 16th February, was marked by me as S/95. The page bearing the date 22nd February was marked by me as S/96; the next page as S/97; the following page as S/98. The page bearing the date 8th March was marked by me as S/99, the next page as S/100; the following page as S/101 and
Page: 24
the next page S/102. The page bearing the date 22nd March was marked by me as S/103, the following page as S/104 and the next page as S/105 and the page next to that as S/109. The page bearing the date 5″ April was marked by me as S/107; the next page as S/108; the following page as S/109; the page after that as S/110. The page bearing the date 14″” April was marked by me as S/111; the next page as S/112; the following page as S/113. The page bearing the date 19th April was marked by me as S/114. The page bearing the date 31st May was marked by me as S/115; the next page as S/116; the following page as S/117 and the page after that as S/118.
The document already marked Ext. P.W 162/3 was marked by me as R/17a. The second page of the document Ext. P.W.162/4 was marked by me as R/17b. The first page of that document is marked as R/17d. The document already marked P.W.162/5 was marked by me as R/17c.
In the document already marked Ext. P.W.95/1 on the last page I marked the signature of M.A. Reza as R/53; while the same signature on the first page of the document was marked by me as R/53a. The signature on the document already marked Ext. P.W.169/18 of M.A. Reza was marked by me as S/128, the signature on the next page of that document as S/129; on the following page as S/130 and on the next page as S/131.
I also examined the body writing and the signature on the photocopy marked Q/59 with the standard specimen writings of Mr. K.M.S. Rahman on the documents marked S/9 then S/51 to 93, R/55, 56 and R/44,45,46 and observed that the combination of major characteristics and tendencies exhibited by the standard specimen writings are also present in fundamentally similar manner in the questioned writings on the photocopy marked Q/39 without any fundamental divergence in basic characteristics except a little variation within the limits of natural variations normally exhibited by the said standard specimens.
The following prominent characteristics shown similarly by the questioned and standard specimens are detailed below:
(1) Individual habit of extensively abbreviating the letter ‘r’ in the form of curve impulse only as in the words ‘dear’, ‘regards’, ‘certain’, ‘entirely’, ‘bearing’ etc. of Q/39. This habit is shown by the standard as
Page: 25
well as request specimens in the words ‘regards’ S/91, ‘over’, “your ‘Djakarta’, ‘Secretariat’ R/55, ‘everybody’ R/56, ‘Cream’ S/9.
2. Highly peculiar habit of terminating the letter small ‘q’ with a short horizontal impulse as in the words ‘Siddiq’ ‘quite’ in Q/39. This tendency is similarly shown by the standard and request specimens as in the words request (R/55), ‘Siddiq’ (S/91 lines 12 and 8), respectively.
3. Peculiar habit of commencing the initial letter ‘y’ with the prominent upward spur as in the words ‘you’ Q/39. This habit is similarly shown by the specimen in the word ‘you’ R/55 line 12.
4. Highly peculiar habit of writing the word “to’ with embellished terminal impulse of ‘o’ which forms the crossbar of ‘t’ as in ‘to’, 2 (3rd and 7th lines of Q/39). This habit is similarly shown by the standards specimens in R/55 in lines 14 and 12 respectively. The tendency of starting the letter ‘t’ with an initial spur is also exhibited similarly.
5. Peculiar habit of terminating the letter ‘j’ with an incomplete base loop in the word ‘
Mujibur’ (line 2 of Q/39). The link between the letters ‘y’ and ‘j’ is also peculiar. This habit is similarly shown by the standard specimen in the word ‘Djakarta’ (line 6 of R/55) and “Mujibur’ (line 3 of S/91).
6. Peculiar habit of extensively abbreviating the upper staff of letter ‘p’ which is lined from its oval as in the words ‘accept’, ‘problem’ (Q/39 lines 9 and 5). This habit is similarly shown by the standards specimens R/55 in the words ‘present’ (line 12), ‘April’ (line 11).
7. The habit of commencing the letter ‘i’ with an upward spur as in the words ‘s’ ‘it’, ‘in’ etc. Q/39. This habit is similarly shown by the standard specimens in the words ‘it’ and ‘in’ (line 14,15 of R/45), ‘inner’ (S/9 line i) and ‘it’, ‘in’, ‘Its’ (S/91, lines 3, 5, 8, 9,).
8. Peculiar habit of writing the terminal letter ‘r’ with the impulse of ‘w’ as in the words ‘Mujibur’ in Q/39. This habit is similarly shown by the specimen S/91 in line 3.
9. Peculiar tendency of sometimes linking ‘w’ and ‘i’ through a continuous curve impulse as shown in the word ‘will’ (line 8 of Q/39). Complete form letter ‘i’ is abbreviated. This habit is similarly shown by the standard specimen R/55 in the word ‘wife’ (line 14).
Page: 26
10. The habit of writing a capital letter ‘T’ as in the word ‘the in script form with a tendency of starting ‘h’ independently. The letter ‘h’ has an initial spur generally. The same habit is shown by the specimen S/91 in the word ‘they’ (line) 4 and the word ‘the’ in R/56 (lines 13 and 14 ‘Three’ line 12 in S/9.
11. Predominant tendency of missing the loop impulse of letter ‘h’ whose link is extended as in the word of Q/39 ‘Rahman’ (line 2), ‘this’ (lines 5 and 7), ‘hearing’ line 10, ‘three’ ‘line’ 14. The same tendency is shown by the standard writings R/55 in the word ‘Rahman’ line 15, ‘has’ (line 10), “handed line 6 and in S/9, ‘shaver’ (line 1), ‘shaving’ line 15.
12. Peculiar tendency of occasionally writing the lower loop of letter ‘f in the forms of extended ‘vo impulse as shown in the words ‘different’ of Q/39(line 6). This tendency is shown by the word ‘following’ of 11/56 (line 1).
13. Peculiar tendency of sometimes putting the cross bar of the letter ‘t’ near its point as in the questioned words of Q/39, ‘with’ (line 4), ‘difficult (line 6) ‘interest (line 8), ‘definite’ (line 11). The same tendency is similarly shown by the standard specimen R/55, in the word the (lines 7, 8, 9, 11) as well as in S/91 in the word ‘definite'(line 15), R/56 ‘cutter’ (line 7), ‘complete (line 11) and S/9, ‘brilliantine’ (line 9) and ‘note’ (line 19).
14. Predominant tendency of reducing the size of the base loop of terminal ‘y’ which is kept low as in the questioned words of Q/39 ‘my’ (lines 2 and 8) ‘Highly’ (line 5), ‘entirely’ (line 8), accordingly (Line 11). The same habit is shown by the standard specimens R/55 in the words ‘pay’ (lines 8 and 9), ‘personally’ (line 12) ‘kindly’ (line 13), ‘my’ (line 14). The same tendency is shown in R/55 in the words ‘history'(line 12), ‘everybody’ (line 13).
15. The habit of writing the letter capital ‘T’ with a prominent crown generally as in the writings Q/39(lines 6 and 8). Similar tendency is shown by the standard specimens R/55 in lines 6, 11 and 12.
16) Habit of writing the digit ’17’ prominently in size as in Q36 in date-writing. This habit is similarly shown by R55, (lines 10 and 19), S9 (line 13) and S91.
Page: 27
17) Habit of putting a dot of the end of date-writing which is usually written with oblique strokes as in Q39 and R55, R56 and 89.
18) Predominant tendency of linking digit ‘6’ generally through a trail link as in Q39, S9, and R56.
19) Digits ‘2’ and ‘3’ are generally written without eyelet impulses as in Q39, R56, 591.
20) Habit of writing with an upright slant and occasional tendency of bending a little towards the left side.
21) Generous interspacing between the words.
22) Tendency of going a little upward while reaching the extreme and of the horizontal line. Similar tendency exhibited on the left hand vertical margin which also moves a little towards the right hand side as the body writing reaches the bottom end. These habits are similarly shown by Q39, R56 and 89.
The questioned signatures on the photo copy marked Q39 when compared with similar type of standard signatures on the documents marked R44 to R46, R45, R56 and 59 show that the combination of unconscious handwriting characteristics and tendencies exhibited by the standard specimens are also shown in fundamentally similar manner by the questioned signatures on Q39 without any fundamental divergences in basic characteristics except a little variation by the said specimen signatures.
Prominent similarities observed are as follows: • a) Highly individual habit of writing the terminal portion of the signatures in a peculiar abbreviated form wherein not a single letter of his name (S. Rahman) is legible, clearly.
b) Highly individual habit of writing capital letter ‘K’ in the signatures with two perpendicular strokes only. The second stroke is linked through generally a returning impulse from its base to give it a shape of capital ‘H’.
c) Highly peculiar habit of writing the entire signatures without any pen-lift after the second staff of capital ‘K’. The signature is written with continuous and smooth linking impulses.
Page: 28
d) Almost individual habit of placing generally three dots below the signature in a row with sufficient gaps.
f) Habit of extending the first three linking strokes between ‘K’ m. m. and the upright staff that follows. There is tendency of curve impulse in the said linking strokes.
g) Predominant tendency of terminating the signature with a short flying type of downward stroke.
h) Habit of writing two small ‘m, m’ after ‘K’ with flat impulses of ‘w’ without any tendency of enlargement the size of vertical strokes.
i) A predominant tendency of adding a prominent vertical stroke after second ‘m’ which is followed by short impulse only, when the signature is extended.
J) Habit of adding date under the signature in a prominent manner.
k) Habit of adding prominent oblique strokes while writing the date whose digits are also clear.
1) There is a predominant tendency of adding the second vertical stroke of the initial letter ‘K’ at a little higher alignment. The base line tends to move up near the end of the signatures.
m) The proportion, slant, execution of letters and their arrangements in the questioned signature generally agree with the pattern of standard signature.
n) Absence of the habit of adding under-signature line.
There is a little variation observed between the questioned signatures and the standard signatures, in the number of impulses which are executed after the last letter ‘m’. Which is clear. In the questioned signatures, there are three clear vertical points, which are followed by a trailing impulse before the terminal point. The same tendency is however shown in the standard signatures marked R56 and R44.
b) The date written under the questioned signatures is completed near about the extreme end of the signature. Although it is generally not a fixed habit, yet similar tendency is also shown by me the standard signature at S9.
Page: 29
It is evident from the above mentioned facts that slight variation wherever observed in the signatures are within the limits of natural variation only, similarly shown by the above mentioned six standard signatures of K.M.S. Rahman.
During the examination it was observed that the request specimens given by K.M.S. Rahman on the documents marked 891 to S93 are in disguised form as evident from the pictorial differences between the specimen and standard body writings on R55, R56 and 89. A few unconscious habits, however, have been incorporated in this writing also as explained in the discussions regarding the character of the body writing above. As the questioned writing present on photocopy and the standard specimen do not contain all the common words so certain amount of variations on the body writing is still visible which cannot be explained very clearly but this variation is not of fundamental nature to clearly indicate the questioned writings by a different hand other than the one who wrote the said specimen.
In view of the above mentioned facts and as a result of overall examination, I am of the opinion that the questioned body writing and the signatures on the original document whose photocopy is marked Q39 appear to have been written by the person who wrote the standard specimen marked R44 to R46, R55, R56, S9 and 591 to $93.
During the examination photographic analysis charts were got prepared from the photographic Experts of the C.I.D. Photo Section, Dacca which I produce below.
The enlargements of Q39, R55, 56, 591, 91(a), and S9 are on one chart now marked Ext. P.W. 239/19. The chart now marked Ext. P.W. 239/20 contains the enlargements of signature Q39, R44, R45, R46, S55, R56 and 59. On these charts, I have illustrated the characteristics mentioned above by arrows. The photocopy which I examined and marked as Q39 is now marked for identification as Ext. P.W.239/21.
The documents R55, R56 and 99 on which I based my opinion are now marked for identification as Exts.P.W.239/22, 239/23 and 239/24. The last page of the documents already marked Ext. P.W. 169/39 was
Page: 30
marked by me as $89. The page preceding that as S91 (a), the page previous to that as S90 and the one before that as S91. The signature on the document already marked Ext. P.W.148/44 was marked by me as R43, that on the next page was marked by me as R44.
The signature already marked Ext. P.W. 171/1 was marked by me as R45. The signature already marked Ext. P.W 171/2 was marked by me as R46.
I also examined the body writings in the ‘Rupali Diary’ on the pages marked Q1 are compared it with the request specimens of M.A. Samad on the diary pages marked S78 to S87. The questioned body writings when examined inter se agree both in general and unconscious, individual characteristics and habits of writing including the execution and arrangements of different letters and words with some natural variations only. I am of the opinion that the above mentioned questioned writings have been written by the same hand.
The comparison of the request specimens of M.A. Samad with the above mentioned questioned writings reveal that the two sets of writings i.e. questioned and specimen writings, exhibit fundamentally similar combination of writing habits, tenders and characteristics without any fundamental divergences in basic characteristics except a little variation within the limits of natural variation normally shown by the repeated request specimens of M.A. Samad.
Amongst the agreements, major and important characteristics are given below:
1) Highly peculiar habit of embellishing the size of the lower loop of letter ‘y’ extensively, especially in the abbreviated word ‘conveyance’. There is a tendency of abrupt return from the base of its loop. The terminal impulse is curved prominently. This habit is similarly shown by Q1 as S78 and 581.
2) Individual habit of writing the word ‘for’ wherein the cutting impulse of letter ‘f is embellished with a tendency of crossing the staff before an angular returning impulse to give its a shape of triangular stroke. The letter ‘f in ‘for’ is continuously linked with the letter ‘o’ that
Page: 31
follows. The upper loop of initial ‘f is also missed. This habit is similarly shown in Q1, 581 and 582.
3) Highly peculiar habit of writing the word “shirts’ wherein ‘i’ dot is embellished in the form of a “tick’ & stroke and placed at a higher position. This habit is similarly shown by Q1, 587, S84 and 580.
4) Almost fixed habit of using capital letters predominantly in writing ‘account’ details even for normal words such as ‘meals’ ‘entertainments’, ‘candle’, ‘could’ etc. This habit is similarly shown by Q1 and specimens where capital letters are used even in the body writing in $85 and 584.
5) Fixed habit of writing the word ‘rupees’ in abbreviated form only (Rs) and that too without any dot at its end shown as clear from Q1 and specimens 586, S87, etc. Where (Rs) is written as such even in the body writing.
6) Peculiar habit of abbreviating the word ‘conveyance’ as ‘convey’ wherein the letter ‘v’ is generally not linked with ‘e’ that follows. This habit is similarly shown by Q1 and S78 and S82.
7) Habit of writing capital ‘T’ generally with the prominent crown but abbreviated base impulse. Capital ‘T’ is linked through a returning impulse if it is linked as in the words ‘ticket’, ‘tiffin’, ‘trucks’ of Q1 and S81, S82 and 583.
8) Habit of writing Greek formation of the capital letter ‘E’ which is started with a prominent upward impulse as well as the prominent medial wedge. There is a tendency of adding anti-clockwise circular impulse at base of capital ‘E’. This habit is similarly shown by Q1 (13 July) and 579 and 581.
9) Pressman tendency of embellishing the base loop of letter ‘g’ as in ‘Bunglaw’ in Q1(12 July) and S82 and S83.
10) Habit of writing the ‘amount’ with oblique strokes. There is a tendency of linking the obliques stroke with the preceding digits through a return stroke or eyelet impulse. The oblique strokes are extended downward sufficiently below the baseline. This habit is similarly shown by questioned writings and specimens.
Page: 32
11) Highly peculiar tendency of writing the abbreviated word ‘etc’ with a loop impulse in the staff of ‘t’. The cross bar of ‘t’ is sometimes added at a lower position for connecting it, through a continuous stroke with ‘e’ that follows. Normally no dot is added at the end of this word also. This habit is similarly shown by Q1, S82 and 878.
12) Habit of writing capital ‘R in Rs.’ either in two strokes or in one continuous stroke with a predominant tendency of putting an eyelet return impulse after the crown formation. This habit is similarly shown by the Q1 and specimens.
13) Predominant tendency of adding cross-bar of letter ‘t’ away from its staff as in the word ‘started’, ‘tickets’, ‘shirts’, etc. (Q1), (S81 and 582).
(14) Predominant tendency of writing Greek type of ‘r’ prominently in its medial position or its initial position as in the words ‘shirts’, ‘started’ but the terminal ‘r’ is usually written in script form without ending spur. These two habits are similarly present in Q1 and 878, S81, S82.
(15) Capital ‘M’ is not normally linked with the letter that follows. It has a peculiar tendency of eyelet return impulse sometimes which is added at the point of second staff as in the word ‘meals’ of (Q1, (11th July) and S79. This tendency is however absent at certain places as in (12th July) of Q1 but the same habit is also shown in S82.
(16) Digits 2, 3, 4, 5 are generally written forcibly. The digit ‘O’ is also written with a full impulse of a closed oval. There is a tendency of writing ’00’ with the impulse of ‘w’as in Q1, (14th July), S82, 585, etc.
(17) Habit of generally adding cross-bar of capital ‘H’ with an eyelet impulse. The first staff of ‘H’ is sometimes terminated with an upward spur as in the word ‘Hav’ of Q1, S78 and 579.
(18) Occasional tendency of writing the letter ‘n’ with the impulse of ‘u’ as in the word ‘candle’ of Q1 (12th July) and S78.
(19) Capital letter ‘B’ is sometimes written with a downward start and a retrace impulse followed by its terminal portion. There is a tendency of linking capital ‘B’ from its base as in the words ‘Bazar’, ‘boy’ of Q1 and S80 & 82.
Page: 33
(20) Predominant tendency of linking digit 3 from its base as in 30, 39, etc. This habit is shown similarly in Q1 and 581 and 584.
(21) Tendency of writing the amounts in digits near the extreme end of the diary paper.
(22) Habit of leaving a margin on the left side of the page but not particular about leaving a margin on the right hand side.
(23) Forceful writing with smooth ‘shading’ throughout. Pen-pressure is somewhat released in the upward linking stroke especially between ‘r’ and ‘s’ in the linked word ‘Rs.)
(24) Tendency of moving towards left-hand side vertically as the writing reaches the extreme bottom of the diary page. This habit is similarly shown by Q1, (14″ July) and 581, 82.
(25) Average inter-spacing of letters in the words as well as the words itself.
There are little variations observed in the question writings and the request specimens especially in the letter ‘F’ of the word ‘Feni’ which has been embellished abnormally. This habit is not visible to the same extent in the request specimens which may be an abnormal feature of the writer. This abnormal feature has not been, perhaps intentionally exhibited by the writer in the request specimens. Any-how, in my opinion, the terminal portion of this word i.e. ‘eni’ has similar impulses in both the sets of writings.
In view of the marked similarity in the entire combination of characteristics, this divergence of abnormal nature of capital ‘F’ can be termed as an accidental or abnormal habit. Anyhow, slight variations wherever observed are either within the limits of natural variation or caused intentionally while giving the request specimens. But none of the variations are of such fundamentally opposing nature to indicate writings of two different hands.
In view of the above mentioned facts and as a result of my overall examination, I am of the opinion that the questioned writings marked Q1 in the Rupali Diary have been written by the hand of the same person
Page: 34
who has been written by the hand of the same person who wrote specimens on the pages marked S78 to $87.
During the examination photographic analysis charts were prepared by the photographic expert of the Photo Section of the CID, Dacca, or illustration purposes.
This is the chart containing photographic enlargements of 117, 187 188, 193 and 95, now marked as Ext. P.W. 239/25. This is the chart containing photographic enlargements of S78 to S81 now marked as Ext. P.W. 239/ 26. This is the chart containing photographic enlargements of S82 to 589 now marked as Ext. P.W.239/27.
The characteristics mentioned above are illustrated by arrow marks in this chart.
In the diary already marked Ext. P.W. 45/6 the page with the dates 11th July, 12th July, 13th July and 14th July, 1967 was marked by me as Q1.
The page having the date 31st May, 1967 of the diary already marked as Ext. P.W. 169/1 was marked by me as S78. The next page bearing the date 1st June, 1967 especially was marked by me as $79. The page bearing the date 5th June, 1967 was marked by me as S80. This page already marked as Ext. P.W. 169/5. The page bearing the dale 9th June, 1967 of this diary was marked by me as $81. The page bearing the dates 13th and 14th June 1967 was marked by me as S82. This page was already marked as Ext. P.W. 169/6. The page already marked as Ext P.W. 169/7 was marked by me as $83. The page already marked Ext. P.W. 169/8 was marked by me as S84. The page already marked as Ext. P.W. 169/9 was marked by me as 585, and the page already marked as Ext. P.W.169/10 was marked by me as $89. The page already marked as Ext. P.W. 169/11 was marked by me as S87.
I also examined the signatures of M.A. Samad on the registers marked Q40 to 046 and compared them with the signatures of M.A. Samad on the diary pages marked S78 to S82 and 884 and the routine signatures on the certificates on discharges marked R57. The examination of the request specimens and the standard signatures
Page: 35
reveal the following major characteristics and tendencies commonly shown by them:
(1) Highly individual habit of writing capital ‘S’ in the signature whose upper portion is embellished through a continuous anti-clockwise loop impulse with a prominent pressure on the downward staff. The lower curve of ‘S’ is extensively abbreviated as against embellished upper curve R57, S78 to 584.
(2) Highly peculiar habit of writing the signature in the linked form with a little tendency of pen-lift after Capital ‘S’ occasionally as shown in S78.
(3) Individual habit of the inter-possing small letter ‘a’ in between capital ‘M’ & ‘S’ in linked form of the signatures M.A. Samad as evident from all the specimens signatures.
(4) Highly peculiar habit of commercial capital ‘M’ with embellished initial stroke, (R57, S78, 79), etc. The terminal staff usually is linked through a curved impulse with the letter ‘a’ that follows.
(5) Individual habit of adding prominent ‘w’ like impulses between the two ‘a’ in the word ‘Samad’ instead of normal ‘m’ with downward ‘arches’. The medial ‘m’ is generally linked on either sides (R57, S78, S80, S81).
(6) Predominant tendency of terminating the signature with a downward impulse at the toe of letter ‘d’ which occasionally has loop impulse in its staff 39, 81, 82, 84.
(7) Peculiar habit of linking small ‘a’ after capital ‘M’ through a continuous anti-clockwise round impulse, thereby embellishing, its oval. There is a tendency of adding the “shoulder’ of ‘a’ before its to impulse R57, S78, 79, 80, 82, 84.
(8) Peculiar habit of adding two in-between dots of the signatures ‘M.A. Samad’ below it. There is an individual but occasional habit of embellishing the under dots in the form of ‘tick (-)’stroke as evident in S78, 80, 84.
(9) Predominant tendency of writing the signatures with generous interspacing between the first three capital letters, which is generally reduced in the terminal letters R57, S78, 84.
Page: 36
(10) Habit of writing both the small ‘a’ in ‘Samad’ with the short size of their ovals as compared to the enlarged size of the oval of ‘a’ following capital ‘M’.
(11) Forceful writing with prominent pen-pressure which is comparatively reduced on the upward linked strokes.
12. The habit of adding a dot at the end of the signature which is many a time missed as in S/84, S/87.
13. The habit of writing the signature without any erratic alignment.
14. The habit of writing signature with a good line quality and legible letters without any tendency of extensively abbreviation in them.
15. The habit of maintaining the general proportion and the slant of the signature without any erratic variation.
The combination of the above-mentioned characteristics are similarly shown by the questioned signatures marked Q/40, 42, 43, 44 and 46 with a little variation which is limited to the extent of natural variation as shown by the standard specimen signatures mentioned above. Some of the important variations observed in the questioned signatures explained below:
(a) Capital ‘M’ of questioned signatures marked Q/43, 44, 46 have been embellished by oval impulse whereas Q/40 and 42 have a slanting stroke only. The tendency of making an embellished oval impulse is clearly present in R.57 though not to the same extent as shown by Q/43, 44 and 46. There is only one standard specimen signature of the year 1961 available whereas the questioned signatures belonged to the year 1966 due to which variation in the extent of oval formation can be taken as a natural development with the lapse of time. This view is further supported by the requested specimen of the year 1968, (S/78 to 84) wherein the oval impulse has been replaced by the vertical stroke only. It is, therefore, evident that the natural variation shown by the standard specimen is from the oval impulse to the vertical embellishing impulse which covers equally slanting stroke shown by Q/40 and 42. Further, in certain cases, a person may adopt some pictorial change in the initial letter of signature and so in my opinion this variation is not a fundamental divergence.
Page: 37
(b) All the questioned signature shows the presence of two under dots except in Q/42 which has been executed on a revenue stamp. Moreover, the tendency of missing under dots is shown by the standard specimens R/57 also. Consequently this variation also falls within the limits of natural variation so far as the signatures of M.A. Samad are convened.
(c) The variation in line quality shown by Q/40, 42 is due to the fact that the signatures have been made on revenue stamp.
It is, therefore, evident from the above explanation that a slight variation whenever on served is either within the limits of natural variation of caused due to some other reasons; but none of the variations are of the fundamentally negative nature to indicate two different hands.
In view of the above mentioned facts and as a result of my overall examination I am of the opinion that the questioned signatures marked 40, 42, 43, 44 and 46 have been written by the hand of the person who wrote the signatures marked R/57 and S/78 to 84 and 87. No definite opinion can be expressed by me regarding the identification of questioned signatures marked Q/41 and 45 on technical grounds.
During the examination photographic analysis charts were got prepared from the photographic expert of the CID, Dacca produces these charts. This is the chart containing Q/40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45 and 46 as well as S/78, 79, 80, 81, 82, 84, 87 and also of R/57. (This chart is now marked Ext. P.W. 239/28). The characteristics have been shown by arrow marks on this chart. All the charts I have produced in Court were prepared directly under my supervision and direction. The signature on the page of a register which was already marked Ext. P.W. 54/5 was marked by me as Q/43. In the register already marked Ext. P.W. 43/2 there is a signature at the page with the heading ‘Employees Master Roll’ for the month of September 1966. This signature on the revenue stamp at the top of the page was marked by me as Q/42.
On the second page of the register already marked Ext. P.W. 43/4 the signature which was already marked Ext. P.W. 54/5 was marked by me as Q/43. The signature on the page dated 12.5.66 in the register already
Page: 38
marked Ext. P.W. 43/4 was marked by me as Q/44. On the page in the register already marked Ext. P.W. 54/7 the signature was marked by me as Q/45 in the register already marked Ext. P.W. 43/4. The signature in the same register already marked Ext. P.W 54/8 was marked by me as Q/46. The signature in the register already marked Ext. P.W. 54/12 on the revenue stamp was marked by me Q/40. The signature on page 5 of the document already marked Ext. P.W.45/7 was marked by me R/57.
I also examined the questioned body writing on a sheet of paper marked by me as S/32 and Q/32(a).
The questioned writings were compared with the request specimens of Lt. commander Moazzem Hossain on the documents marked S/150, S/151 and S/152. It was observed that the combination of handwriting, characteristics and the tendencies exhibited by Q/32 and Q/32(a) are not completely present in fundamentally similar manner in the said specimens. There are, however, a few prominent characteristics similarly shown by the questioned and specimen writings, but they are not sufficient for a definite opinion. In the absence of a similar type of standard writing on Lt. Commander Moazzem Hossain containing common words, it is not possible to express any definite opinion on the said questioned writings. The first page of the document already marked Ext. P.W. 33/8 was marked by me as Q/32. The reverse of this page was marked by me as Q/32(a). The second page of the document already marked Ext. P.W. 169/20 was marked by me as S/150). The page thereafter was marked by me as S/151 and the page after that was marked by me as S/152.
Page: 39
SPECIAL TRIBUNAL
Record of Proceedings
13.1.1969.
Mr. Justice S.A. Rahman, H. PK., Chairman.
Mr. Justice M. R. Khan, S. Pk., Member.
Mr. Justice Maksum-ul-Hakim, Member.
For the Prosecution —As before.
For the Defence —As before.
Accused present —As before.
Witness on oath —As before.
DEPOSITION OF P.W. 239 MR. ABDUL MAJID QURAISHI) CONTINUED:
I also examined the questioned writings on the documents marked Q33 and +33(a) and comparing it with the request specimens of Lft. Commander Moazzem Hossain on the documents marked S195 to $197. It was observed that the combination of handwriting characteristics and tendencies exhibited by the said specimens are not completely shown by the writings on the documents Q33(a) in fundamentally similar manner. There are basic divergences in the execution and arrangements of letters in the two sets of writings such as combination of capital ‘I’ I ‘C’ and ‘B’ abbreviation, of letter ‘n’, habit of using notational ‘and’, prominent crossbar of ‘t’, spellings of certain names and words, underscoring habits Roman digits, writings, formation of letter ‘f and other general features.
Page: 40
In view of sufficient divergences of fundamental nature, I am of the opinion that the questioned writings marked Q33 and Q33 (a) have not been written by the hand of the person who wrote the specimens marked S165 to 167.
Photographic charts prepared under my supervision by the photographic expert of the C.I.D. Photo Section, Dacca is submitted herewith. These are enlargements of Q33, Q33(a) and of S165 and S166 and this chart are now marked Ext. P.W. 239/30. The document already marked Ext. P.W. 33/13 was marked by me as Q33 and on the reversal marked it as Q33(a). The first page of the three leaves of the documents already marked Ext. P.W 169/22 was marked by me as S165 and its following page as S166 and the page thereafter as $167.
I also examined the questioned writings on the document marked Q34, which include a few words and some captions. The request specimen writings of Lt. Commander Moazzem Hossain in the documents marked S157 to S160 have been written carefully as against careless scribbling on the questioned documents mentioned above. Consequently, I am of the opinion that the specimens are not technically fit for comparison and as such no definite opinion could be expressed with regard to their identification.
I also examined the body writings against serial Nos. 46 to 49 on the page of the Hotel Register marked Q19 which reveal similar types of unconscious handwriting characteristics and tendencies including execution and arrangements of different letters and words with some natural variation only. Consequently, the said entries appear to have been made by the same hand. Some of the important and prominent characteristics exhibited by this writing are mentioned below:
1) Peculiar tendency of sometimes writing the name ‘Rahman’ with letter ‘n’ instead of ‘m’ as shown against the entry No. 48. The letter ‘m’ otherwise is written correctly as in the entries nos. 46 and 47
Page: 41
2) Habit of writing the terminal ‘r’ in both the forms i.e. copybook and big type as is evident from entry No. 47(Saber) and 48 and 49 (Shamsur, Haider), etc.
3) Predominant tendency of abbreviating the terminal portion of Greek ‘r’ extensively as in ‘Hafizur’, ‘Haider’.
4) Tendency of writing terminal ‘r’ in the words ‘Saber’ in peculiar wedge form.
5) Habit of embellishing initial staff of capital ‘H’ which is generally linked through an eyelet impulse as in ‘Hafizur’, ‘Haider’. Same tendency is shown by writing the capital letters ‘A’ as in “Ahmad’.
6) Peculiar tendency of sometimes abbreviating the initial staff of capital ‘R’ which is usually written with two strokes. The returning impulse before the terminal stroke is also sometimes prominent.
7) Habit of writing capital “S’ prominently with a tendency of embellishing the initial and terminal impulses as is clear in the entries No. 47 to 49.
8) Peculiar habit of forming ‘w’ like impulse for the combination of terminal letters ‘u’ and ‘r’ in the words ‘Hafizur’ and ‘Fazlur’.
9) Tendency of terminating the last letter ‘d’ with a downward impulse of its toe as in entry No.47(Ahmed).
10) Habit of writing the letter ‘z’ with sometimes embellished loop impulse.
11) Tendency of making a prominent base loop of the letter ‘J’. 12) Tendency of linking capital ‘B’, ‘C’ and ‘D’ from their base.
13) Habit of writing medial letter ‘d’ with a loop in its staff as in ‘Kafiluddin’, ‘haider’.
14) Peculiar link between the letters “s’ and ‘i’ in the word ‘Business’.
15) Tendency of adding ‘hiatus’ in the same ‘Haider’ at the position of letter ‘d’.
16) Habit of writing the date prominently with forceful digits ‘6’ and ‘7’
17) Linked writing with the tendency of embellishments. The combination of all the above mentioned major characteristics exhibited by the encircled questioned writings marked Q19 are not shown by the request specimen writings of Std. Mujibur Rahman (S65 to S69), M. A.
Page: 42
Reza (S128 to $131), M. Daliluddin (S46 to 553) and Jalaluddin Ahmed (S185 to 188). As regards the specimen writings of M. A. Samad on the documents marked S75 to $77, most of the above mentioned characteristics are shown with fundamentally similar impulses and tendencies, as shown by the questioned writings, marked Q19. Consequently, the said questioned writings appear to have been written by the hand of MR. M.S. Samad, but as the bulk of questioned writings included a few names only definite identification with the available data is not possible.
Photographic analysis charts were got prepared from the photographic Expert under my supervision from the C.I.D. Photo Section, Dacca and they are hereby submitted. This is the chart of the enlargements of the documents Q19, S75 and 577 and now marked Ext. P.W.239/31. The enlargements of S65, S67, 369, S128, S153. S187 and S188 are in one chart which is now marked Ext. P.W. 239/32. The entries already marked Ext. 59/2 were marked by me as Q19 in the register marked Ext. P.W. 59/1. On the document marked Ext. P.W. 169/36 I marked the entries on the first page as S65 and on the third page as S67, within the red pencil line. On the document marked Ext. P.W. 169/18 on the first page the entries encircled within red pencil, were marked by me as S128, another entry on the next page as S129, another signature on the following page as S130 and the one on the next page as S131. In the document already marked Ext. P. W. 169/33 I have marked the entries enclosed within red pencil on the second sheet from the end, as S53. The document marked by me as S185 is now marked Ext. P.W. 239/33, that marked by me as S189 is now marked Ext. P.W. 239/34. The one marked by me as S187 is now marked Ext. P.W. 239/35. That marked by me as S188 is now marked Ext. P.W.239/36. In the document already marked Ext. P.W. 169/14 I marked the first page as S75, the second page as S67 and the third page as S77.
This is the chart of photographic enlargements of Q34 and 5158 now marked as Ext. P.W. 239/37. The document marked by me as Q34 already bears the mark Ext. P.W. 33/9. The first page of the document already marked as Ext. P.W. 169/29 was marked by me as S157. The
Page: 43
sheet following it is marked as S158. The sheet after that is marked as S159 and the following sheet is marked 160.
I also examined the questioned writings on the telegram marked Q9 and Q9(a) which show that the combination of the majority of unconscious writing habits and tendencies exhibited by the questioned writings are also shown in fundamentally similar manner by the request specimen writings of Shamsuddin Ahmed marked S192 to S94 with some natural variations. There is a general agreement between the two sets of writings as far execution and agreement of letters and words are concerned, including pen-pressure, proportion, general slant, connections and digits writing. Prominent characteristics of writing the word ‘Alam’ and digits 4, 8 and 9 in peculiar form along with the execution of capital letters ‘N, S, B, Y, A, H, P etc. are similarly shown by the questioned and specimen writings. Consequently, it appears that the writings on the telegram marked Q9 & Q9(a) have been written by the same hand that wrote the specimens marked S192 to S194. It was, however, observed that the bulk of questioned writings include disjointed capital letters only it is technically not possible to express a very definite opinion in this case with the available data.
The photographic analysis chart was got prepared from the photographic expert of the CID office, Dacca and is submitted herewith. This is the chart containing the photographic enlargements of Q9, Q9(a). S192, 193, 193(a), 194 and 194(a) now marked Ext. P.W. 239/38. The first page of the telegram already marked Ext. P.W. 4/2 was marked by me as Q9 and the writing on the reverse as Q9(a). The first page of the telegram marked as Ext. P.W.203/23 was marked by me as S192 and the writing on the reverse as S192(a) and the writing on the next page as S193, the writing on its reverse as S193(a) and the writing on the next page as S194 and on the reverse of it as S194(a).
I also examined the questioned writings on the telegrams marked Q8, 8(a) and 10 and compared them with the requested specimen of M.A. Reza on the documents marked S120 to 124. It was observed that the specimens of M.A. Reza have been written carelessly in different forms as against normal writings on the questioned telegrams especially the
Page: 44
portion including the name and address of the sender. Consequently, I am of the opinion that definite opinion on the questioned writings with these available data is not possible.
The photographic enlargements were got prepared by the photographic expert of the CID office, Dacca under my supervision chart is submitted herewith. This is the chart containing the enlargements of Q8(a) and 10 and $120, 124, 124 (a) now marked as Ext. P.W. 239/29. The first page of the telegram marked Ext. P.W. 23/3 was marked by me as Q8 and the writing on the reverse as Q8(a). Writing on the first page of the telegram marked Ext. P.W. 91/2 was marked as Ext. P.W. 169/16 was marked by me as S120. The second page as S121, the following page as S122 and the page after that as S123. The first page of the telegram marked Ext. P.W. 169/17 was marked by me as S124.
I also examined the questioned writings on two sheets of paper marked Ext. P.W. Q35 and Q36 and compared them with the request specimens of Daliluddin Ahmed marked S46 too. It was observed that the combination of unconscious characteristics and habits of writing exhibited by the said questioned writings are not shown in fundamentally similar manner by the request specimens marked S46 to $50. The two sets of writings show fundamentally divergences in the execution arrangement and impulses of various letters and words indicating that the questioned writings marked Q35 and Q36 have not been written by the hand of Daliluddin who wrote S46 to $50.
The photographic enlargements were got prepared by the photographic expert of the CID office, Dacca and the chart is submitted herewith. This is the chart containing the enlargements of Q35 and Q36 and S48 now marked as Ext. P.W.239/40. The document already marked as Ext. P.W. 3/25 was marked by me as Q35 and the one marked as P.W. 2/24 was marked by me as Q36. The document collectively marked as Ext. P.W. 69/34, was marked by me on the 1s’ page as S46, on the second page as S47, on the third page as S48, on the fourth page as S49 and on the fifth page as $50.
I also examined the questioned writings on the document marked Ext. Q37 and Q38 and compared them with the specimen writings of Lt.
Page: 45
Com. Moazzem Hossain marked as S169 to S172, and the specimen writings of Lt. M.M. Rahman marked as S181 to $184 and that of Jalaluddin Ahmed marked as S189 to S191. It was observed that the combination of all the unconscious characteristics exhibited by the questioned writings marked Q37 and Q38 are not exhibited by any one of the above mentioned specimen writings. Consequently, I am of the opinion that the questioned writings have not been written by any one of these persons who wrote these specimens mentioned above.
The photographic enlargements were got prepared by the photographic expert of the CID office, Dacca and are submitted herewith. This is the chart containing the enlargements of Q37, 238, S183, S189 and S190. (This is now marked as Ext. P.W.239/41.) This is the chart containing the enlargements of $169, 5171 now marked as Ext. P. W.239/42. The document already marked Ext. P.W. 3/27 was marked by me as Q38. The document already marked Ext. P.W. 3/26 was marked by me as Q38. The documents collectively marked as P.W. 169/23 were marked by me on the first page as S196, on the 2nd page as S170, on the 3rd page as S171 and on the 4th page as S172. The first page of the document marked as Ext. P.W. 169/4 was marked by me on the 1st page as S181, on the 2nd page as S182, on the 3rd page 5183 and on the 4th page as S184. In the collection of the documents marked as Ext. P.W. 239/33, the last three sheets were respectively marked by me as $189, 190 and 191.
I also examined the questioned signatures marked Q5, Q7, Q47, Q46, Q52, Q54 and 258 and compared them with the request and routine signatures of Manik Choudhury marked as S40 to S42 and R27 and R28. The examination shows that all the questioned signatures mentioned above have been written in entirely different forms as compared with the specimens and that they contained merely impulses as against normal type of standard specimens. Consequently, I am of the opinion that the questioned signatures and the standard specimens are not fit for comparison or definite opinion. The photographic enlargements were got prepared by the photographic expert of the CID office, Dacca and are submitted herewith. This is the chart containing the enlargement of
Page: 46
Q5(b), Q7, Q47, 249, 252, 254, Q56 and R27, R28 and S40, S41 and S42 now marked as Ext. P.W.239/43.
The signatures now marked as Ext. P.W. 239/14 in the register marked P.W. 5/2 was marked by me as Q5 on page 126. The signature on page 133 of the hotel Green register Ext. P.W. 5/2 now marked as Ext. P.W.239/45 was marked by me as Q7.
The entry already marked Ext. P.W. 53/1 in the Register Ext. P.W. 51/2 was marked by me as Q/47. The signature marked Ext. DD/3 in the hotel Green Register marked Ext. P.W.5/2 was marked by me as Q/49. The signature on page 127 now marked Ext. P.W.239/46, of hotel Green Register Ext. P.W. 5/2, was marked by me as S/52. The signature on page 128 of this very register now marked Ext. P.W.239/47, was marked by me Q/54 and the signature already marked Ext. P.W. 5/9 on page 130 of this very register, was marked by me as Q/50. The signature of Manik Choudhury on the document already marked Ext. P.W. 169/37, was marked by me as S/40; the signature on the next page as S/41 and the signature on the following page as S/42. The signature on the document marked Ext. P.W. 148/27 of B.B.Choudhury, was marked by me as R/27; those on the document at the page already marked Ext. P.W. 148/28, were marked by me as R/28.
The examination of the routine and request specimen signatures of D.K. Sen marked by me R/21 to 23, R/26 and S/43 to 45 show the following major characteristics of unconscious nature:
1. Individual type of ornamental link between the first two portions of the signatures through the letter ‘d’.
2. Individual habit of writing embellished ‘h’ as the second portion of the signature.
3. Individual habit of extensively abbreviating the word ‘Krishna’ in the signature which is almost missed.
4. Peculiar habit of generally abbreviating the terminal portion of the signatures in the form of short curve strokes.
5. Habit of embellishing the capital ‘S’ through a loop impulse with the tendency of linking it from the base with the terminal portion of the signatures.
Page: 47
6. Almost fixed habit of adding ‘i’ dot in the signatures.
7. Habit of extending the link preceding capital ‘S’ through a smooth curve impulse.
8. Extensive abbreviation of the form of letter ‘d’ in the word ‘Bidhan’ with the tendency of making an eyelet impulse instead of oval of ‘d’.
9. Predominant tendency of initiating the capital letter ‘B’ with an upward impulse which is generally linked through an eyelet impulse.
10. Peculiar tendency of extending the size of in-between letter ‘h’ as compared to the size of capital ‘B’ and ‘S’.
11. Predominant tendency of adding an under signature line with two dots underneath.
12. Almost fixed habit of writing the signature without any pen lift but even then the signatures are written in three separate portions which are continuously inter-linked.
13. Writing with arm-movement with prominent pen pressure on downward strokes.
14. Habit of writing signatures without any erratic alignments.
15. Habit of maintaining proportion and slant of long strokes without any erratic changes.
16. Absence of the habit of putting the date under the signatures.
The combination of all the above-mentioned characteristics is shown in fundamentally similar manner by the questioned signatures marked Q/7, 51, 53 and 55 with a little variation which remains within the limits of natural variations as shown by the standard and request specimen signatures of B.K. Sen. There is, however, no fundamental type of divergence on served between any one of the identifiers questioned signatures and the standard signatures. Signatures of B.K. Sen to indicate two different hands.
In view of the above-mentioned facts and as a result of my overall examination I am of the opinion that the questioned signatures marked Q/7, 51, 53, and 55 have been written by the same hand that wrote the specimen signatures marked R/21, 22, 23, 26 and S/43 to 45. The photographic analysis charts were got prepared from the photographic expert of the CID, Dacca and are submitted herewith. This is the chart of
Page: 48
enlargements of Q/7, 51, 53, 55, 57, S/43 to 45, R/21 to 23 and R/26 now marked Ext. P.W. 239/48. The signature now marked Ext. P.W. 239/49 on page 133 of the hotel green Register Ext. P.W. 5/2 was marked by me as Q/7. The signature now marked Ext. P.W.239/50 on page 117 of this very register was marked by me as Q/50. The signature now marked Ext. P.W. 239/51 on page 119 of this very register was marked by me as Q/51. The signature now marked Ext. P.W.239/52 on page 127 of this very register was marked by as Q/53.
The signature now marked Ext. P.W.239/53 on page 128 of this very register was marked by me as Q/55. The signature now marked Ext. P.W. 239/54 of this very register on page 130 was marked by me as Q/57. The document already marked Ext. P.W. 148/20 was marked by me as R/21; which marked as Ext. P.W. 148/21 was marked by me as R/22. The signature on the document already marked Ext. P.W. 148/25 was marked by me as R/26. The signature on the first page of Ext. P.W.169/38 was marked by me as S/43. The signature on the next sheet was marked by me as S/44 and that on the following sheet was marked by me as S/45.
No definite opinion could be expressed regarding the identification of questions. Signatures marked Q/50 and 57 on technical grounds.
The examination of the request and routine signatures of Dr. S.R. Choudhury marked S/195 to 198 and R/32 to 41 reveal the following unconscious characteristics:
1. Individual habit of initiating the signature with a curve stroke which has no formation of any letter. There is, however, an occasional tendency of adding letter ‘s’ in abbreviated form after this initial stroke.
2. Predominant tendency of commencing the signature with an embellished loop impulse followed by short curve impulse only.
3. Predominant tendency of adding two dots with tick impulse underneath the signature but generally above the under-signature line.
4. Habit of generally terminating the signature with the impulse of letter ‘y’ whose loop is abbreviated.
5. Highly individual habit of writing the main signature with loop and curve impulses only without any pen lift or hiatus.
6. Habit of adding under signature-line with stubbed start.
Page: 49
7. Peculiar tendency of terminating the signature generally with a downward impulse.
8. Habit of forming a deep linking curve with prominent pressure on downward strokes only.
9. General tendency of raising the alignment of the signatures a little upward near the terminal portion.
The combination of the above mentioned unconscious characteristics is shown in fundamentally similar manner by the questioned signatures marked Q/4, 6, 7 and 63 with natural variations only which remain within the limits of variation shown by the above mentioned repeated standard signatures of Dr. S.R. Choudhuary. There are no divergences of fundamental nature between the identified questioned signatures and the standard specimens to clearly indicate two different hands.
In view of the above-mentioned facts and as a result of my overall examination, I am of the opinion that the questioned signatures marked Q/4, 6, 7, and 63 have been written by the same hand that wrote the specimen signatures marked S/195 to 198 and R/32 to 41.
No definite opinion could be expressed regarding the remaining questioned signatures on technical grounds.
Photographic expert under my supervision at CID, Dacca and are submitted herewith. This is the enlargement chart of Q/4, 6,7 and Q/63 to 65 S/195 to 198 and R/32 to 41 now marked Ext. P.W.239/55.
The signatures on page 125 of the hotel Green register Ext. P.W. 5/2, against the Ext. P.W. 5/4, was marked by me as Q/4. The signature already marked Ext. P.W.239/41 at page 129 of the same register, was marked by me as Q/5. The signature now marked Ext. P.W. 239/56 at page 131 of the same register, was marked by me as Q/6. The signature already marked Ext. P.W. 239/49 at page 133 of the same register was marked by me as Q/7. The signature now marked Ext. P.W. 239/57 at page 119 of the same register was marked by me as Q/62. The signature now marked Ext. P.W. 239/58 at page 128 of the same register was marked by me as Q/64.
Page: 50
The signature now marked Ext. P.W.239/59 at page 119 of the same register was marked by me as Q63. The signature already marked Ext. P.W. 5/8 at page 130 of the same register was marked by me as Q65. The signature on the first page of the document already marked Ext. P.W. 205/24 was marked by me as $195. The signature on the next page was marked by me as S196. The signature on the page thereafter, of this exhibit, was marked by me as S197. The signature on the page thereafter was marked by the same as S198. The signature on the document already marked Ext. P.W. 148/32 was marked by me as R32. The signature on the document already marked Ext. P.W. 148/35 was marked by me as R34. The signature on the document Ext. P.W. 148/36 was marked by me as R55. The signature on the document already marked Ext. P.W. 148/37 was marked by me as R36. The signature on the document already marked Ext. P.W. 148/39 was marked by me R38. The signature on the document already marked Ext. P.W. 148/40 was marked by me as R39. The signature on the document already marked Ext. P.W 148/41 was marked by me as R40. The signature on the document already marked Ext. P. W. 148/42 was marked by me R41.
The examination of the questioned signatures marked Q48, Q56 and their comparison with the specimen signatures of M.H. Rahman marked S92 to S94, shows that the specimen signatures have been written in full form whereas the questioned signatures are in extensively abbreviated form. Consequently, in my opinion, the two sets of signatures cannot be compared for the purpose of definite identification.
Photographic enlargements charts were prepared from the photographic experts of the C.I.D, Photo section, Dacca under my supervision. This is that chart which is now marked Ext. P.W. 239/60, relating to the documents marked Q48, 256, 265, 292 and S94. The signature at page 11 of the hotel register of Hotel Arzoo already marked Ext. P.W. 29/3, is now marked Ext. P.W.239/61 and this was marked by me as Q48. The signature on the document of the first page already marked Ext. P.W. 169/40, was marked by me as S92. The signature on the next page was marked by me as S93. The signature on the page thereafter was marked by me as S94.
Page: 51
.
The examination of the request and routine specimen signatures of Amir Hossain marked as S199 to sos and R90 (a) show the following unconscious characteristics.
1) Highly individual way of writing of capital ‘H’ in the word ‘Hossain’ in the form of a loop impulse and an angular return-impulse at the base. It does not normally have a second vertical staff as normally present in the capital letter ‘H’.
2) Highly peculiar habit of writing the initial capital ‘S’ with an embellished upper stroke as against short base-curve.
3) Peculiar habit of writing capital ‘A’ between ‘S’ and in ‘H’ in the form of small ‘A’ with embellished oval.
4) Predominant tendency of writing the terminal letters ‘i’ and ‘n’ with a continuous curve impulse having eyelet impulses at the point of “i’ generally making it appear as letter ‘e’.
5) Predominant tendency of linking two ‘S’ in the word ‘Hussain’ through open eyelet impulses at their points. There is a tendency of writing ‘s’ with short curve.
6) Habit of writing letter ‘a’ in the word ‘Hussain’ through continuous linking impulse with eyelet return in its oval. There is a tendency of writing this letter with an increased slant towards the right side.
7) Habit of adding forcefully in-between dots at a lower position. 8) Habit of writing the signature without any pen lift after the letter ‘a’.
9) Habit of extending the linking stroke on either side of the letter ‘u’ in Hussain as against close link in the two ‘s’.
10) Peculiar habit of terminating signature generally with an upward curve impulse.
11) Habit of raising the size of consecutive letters ‘S’, ‘A’ and ‘H’ in step-up position.
12) Tendency of writing the letter ‘u’ with short vertical stroke.
13) Habit of adding forceful ‘i’ dot generally at its proper place in the word ‘Hussain’.
14) Occasional tendency of adding a dot at the end of the signature as is clear in S199 and S200.
15) Absence of habit of adding under-signature liner or date.
Page: 52
16) Forceful writing with hand movement and prominent pressure at downward stroke and curve links.
17) Habit of raising the alignment of signature smoothly upward in the initial stages.
18) Habit of maintaining the usual proportion and slant of vertical strokes.
Combination of the above-mentioned characteristics is shown in fundamentally similar manner by the questioned signatures of Amir Hussain marked Q58 to 261 with natural variations only. There is not a single divergence of fundamental nature between the identified questioned signatures and the specimen signatures showing two different hands.
In view of the above-mentioned facts and as a result of my overall examination I am of the opinion that the questioned signatures marked Q58 to 261 have been written by the same person who wrote the specimen signatures marked S199 to S202 and R16 (a). During the examination, photographic enlargements were got prepared by the photographic expert of the C.I.D. Photo section Dacca. This contains the photographic enlargements of the documents marked Q58 to 261, 3199 to S202 and R90 and R90(a) and is now marked Ext. P.W. 239/62. The signature appearing on the page of the register of the Dacca Hotel already marked Ext. P.W. 3/28 was marked by me as Q58 and it is now marked Ext. P.W. 239/63. The signature appearing at page already marked by me as Q58 and it is now marked Ext. P.W. 239/63. The signature appearing at page already marked Ext. P.W. 43/31, was marked by me as Q59 and is now marked Ext. P.W. 239/64. The signature appearing on the page of this register already marked Ext. P.W. DB/22, was marked by me as Q60 and is now marked Ext. P.W. 239/65. The signature appearing on the page of this register already marked Ext. DB/23, was marked by me as Q61 and is now marked Ext. P.W. 239/66. The signature appearing on the first page of the document already marked Ext. P.W. 205/25 was marked by me as S199. The signature appearing on the second page of this document was marked by me S2000. The signature appearing on the page thereafter was marked by me
Page: 53
as S201. The signature appearing on the following page was marked by me as S202. The signature appearing on the document already marked Ext. P.W. 3/59 was marked by me as R/90(a).
My report on the examination of the documents mentioned earlier is submitted herewith and is now marked Ext. 239/67. This bears my signatures.
On 6th November, 1968 I again received the diaries of M.A. Reza and M. A. Samad along with the specimen writings already mentioned. I examined the other entries in the diary of M.A. Reza as asked by the S.S.P., S.B. and compared them with the standard and request specimens. It revealed that the two sets of writings, questioned writings marked Q and the specimen writings, exhibit fundamentally similar combination of writing habits, tendencies and characteristics without any fundamental divergences in basic characteristics except a little variation within the limits of natural variation normally exhibited by the repeated specimen writings of M.A. Reza mentioned and explained in my previous report Ext. P.W. 239/67. The identified questioned entries with the writings of M.A. Reza are as under:
1) Entry dated 8th April marked Q81. 2) Entry dated 17th April marked Q85. 3) Entry dated 19th April, marked Q80. 4) Entry dated 20th April, Marked Q86. 5) Entry dated 21st April marked Q87. 6) Entry dated 5th/6th May marked Q12. 7) Entry dated 8th to 11th May marked Q93. 8) Entry dated 15th/16th May marked Q95. 9) Entry dated 19th/20th May marked Q95. 10) Entry dated 29th/30th May marked Q101. 11) Entry dated 31st May marked Q102. 12) Entry dated 1st June marked Q102. 13) Entry dated 4th June marked Q103. 14) Entry dated 14″/15th June marked Q106( a). 15) Entry dated 16th/17th June marked Q107. 16) Entry dated 21st & 22nd June marked Q104.
Page: 54
17) Entry dated 11th July marked Q15. 18) Entry dated 12th & 13th July, marked Q15(a) 19) Entry dated 14th/15th July marked Q116. 20) Entry dated 2nd, 3rd August marked Q121. 21) Entry dated 14″ August marked Q17. 22) Entry dated 1st/2nd September marked Q132. 23) Entry dated 8th/9th September marked Q135. 24) Entry dated 11th/12th September marked Q136. 25) Entry dated 2nd/3rd October marked Q145. 26) Entry dated 9th/10th October marked Q147. 27) Entry dated 25th/26th October marked Q154 28) Entry dated 30th /31st October marked Q156 and 29) Entry dated 8th/9th November marked Q160.
Fundamental agreements in major characteristics and habits mentioned in my previous examination report Ext. P.W. 239/67 apply similarly to the above mentioned identified entries. Apart from this, additional characteristics observed in the form of abbreviations and embellishments of specified words have also been similarly exhibited in the questioned and specimen writings. Consequently, I am of the opinion that the above mentioned questioned body writings have been written by the hand of M.A. Reza that wrote the specimens marked R17, R17(a), R17(b), R17(c), R17(d), S4 and 595 to s118.
Photographic enlargements of these entries were got prepared from the photographic expert of the C.I.D. Photo Section, Dacca for illustration purposes which are now placed before the Court.
This is the chart relating to the questioned writings (81, 85, 86 and 87, now marked as Ext. P.W. 239/68. This is the photographic chart of the questioned documents Q132, 135 and 136, now marked as Ext. P.W. 239/69. This is the photographic chart of the documents Q145, 146, 147, 154 and 160, now marked as Ext. P.W. 239/70. I have already placed before this Court the photographic enlargements of other entries, which were also taken into consideration at the time of comparison of these writings. Nothing definite could be expressed regarding the signatures on the identified pages of these entries, which have made in entirely
Page: 55
different patterns than those of the specimens signatures written by M.A. Reza. Unless a similar pattern of signatures is available, comparison could not be had for the identification purpose.
The writings on the page of the diary already marked Ext. P.W. 27/2 with the dates 7’h and 8th of April, 1967 was marked by me as Q81. The page of this diary dated 17th and 18th of April, 1967 was marked by me as Q85. The page of this diary dated 19th and 29th of April, 1967 was marked by me as Q86.
The page of this diary dated 21st and 22nd of April, 1967 was marked by me as Q87. The page dated 5th and 6th of May, 1967 was already marked as Q12. The page of this diary dated 8th and 11th May 1967 was marked by me as Q93. The page of this diary dated 15th and 16th of May, 1967 was marked by me as Q95. The page of this diary dated 19th and 20th May 1967 was marked by me as Q97. The page dated 29th and 30th of May 1967 was marked by me as Q101. The page dated 31st of May and 1st of June, 1967 was marked by me as Q102. The page dated 14th and 15th of June, 1967 was marked by me as Q106(a). The page dated 16th and 17th of June, 1967 was marked by me as Q117. The page dated 14th and 15th of July, 1967 was marked by me as Q116. The page dated 2nd 3rd of August, 1967 was marked by me as Q121. The page dated 1st and 2nd of September, 1967 was marked by me as Q122. The page dated 9th and 10th of October, 1967 was marked by me as Q147. The page dated 25th and 26th of October, 1967 was marked by me as Q154. The page of this diary dated 30th and 31st of October, 1967 was marked by me as Q156. The page of this diary dated 8th and 9th of November, 1967 was marked by me as Q160.
As regards the questioned entries in the RUPALI Diary of M .A. Samad marked Q1 in addition to the already identified entries on the dates 11th July to 14th July, 1967, the examination of the following entries revealed that they also exhibited similar major tendencies and writing habits mentioned in paragraph ‘G’ of my report P.W. 239/67 which are shown by all the standard request specimens of M.A. Samad on the documents marked by me as to S78 to 587 and S203 to S216. It has, however, been observed that the available request specimens do not
Page: 56
provide all the questioned words for detailed comparison to arrive at a definite opinion but important tendencies exhibited in the form of letters, digits, connections, line quality, etc. by the under-mentioned questioned entries, do not show the fundamental type of divergence to indicate that they have been executed by some other hand. The identified entries are as follows :
1. Entry dated 20th June, 1967 marked Q177.
2. Entry dated 23rd to 26th June, 1967 marked Q176.
3. Entry dated 9th to 12th of August, 1967 marked Q187.
4. Entry dated 13th to 16th August, 1967 marked Q188.
5. Entry dated 15th to 18th September, 1967 marked Q193.
6. Entry dated 15th and 2nd October, 1967 marked Q195.
The photographic analysis chart was got prepared by the photographic expert of the Photo Section of the CID office, Dacca under my direct supervision.
The enlargement of the specimen writings is now produced before the Court.
This is the enlargement of the specimen writings Nos. S203 to No. 207, S110 and S114 now marked Ext. P.W.239/71. This is photographic enlargement chart of S204, 208, 211 and 215 now marked as Ext. P.W. 239/72. This is another photographic enlargement chart of S205, 209, 206, 2… and 212 and 216 now marked as Ext. P.W.239 773.
The page of the diary already marked Ext. P.W.45/6 bearing the date 29th of June 1967 was marked by me as Q177 and is now marked as Ext. P.W. 239/74. The writings on the two pages bearing the dates 23rd to 26th June, 1967 of this diary was marked by me as Q176 and it is now marked as Ext. P.W.239/75. The page of this diary bearing the dates 9th to 12th August, 1967 was marked by me as Q197 and is now marked Ext. P.W. 239/79. The page of this diary 13th to 16th August, 1967 was marked by me as Q188, and is now marked as Ext. P.W. 239/77. The page of this diary bearing the dates 15th to 18th September, 1967 was marked by me as Q193 and is now marked as Ext. P.W. 239/78. The page of this diary dated 1st and 2nd October, 1967 was marked by me as Q195 and is now marked as Ext. P.W.239/79.
Page: 57
My report is connection with the explanation of these documents is produced before this Court and is now marked as Ext. P.W. 239/80. This bears my signature. The page of the specimen writings was marked by me as S203 to S216.
On the 23rd November, 1968 I received the questioned entries marked as Ext. P.W. 3/68 to P.W. 3/73 in the diary marked P.W. 3/66 and the entries on two pages already marked Ext: P.W. 3/74 and #/75 in the diary Ext. P.W. 3/67 with the request and routine specimen writings of Amir Hossain marked Q21 and R19 and R19(a). I compared the two sets of writings and observed that sufficient common materials are not available for a proper and comprehensive examination. A few writing characteristics which could be picked up from them, are not exactly similar indicating that the questioned writings are not indicating in all respects with the specimen writings of Amir Hossain.
The photographic analysis charts were got prepared by the photographic expert of the Photo Section of the CID office, Dacca. This is the photographic enlargement chart of the documents P.W. 3/68 to P.W.3/73 now marked as Ext. P.W.239/81.
This is the photographic enlargement chart of the documents marked by me as R19 and R19(a) and the documents marked as S217 to S220 now marked as Ext. P.W.239/82.
As regards the request and specimen writings of A.B. Khurshid received with this letter it has been observed that the specimen is the conscious product of intentional disguise due to which it is illegible in many places. A few writing habits of unconscious nature which could be picked up from the specimens are not exhibited in an identical manner by the above-mentioned questioned entries in the two diaries P.W. 3/66 and P.W. 3/67 but in the absence of normal routine writings of A.B. Khurshid, it is not technically possible to express definite opinion regarding common authorship or otherwise.
I also received the RUPALI Diary of M.A. Samad marked Q1 and examined the same. It was observed that when the entries mentioned below are compared with the entries already identified in my previous report concerning the diary of M.A. Samad marked QI, they show
Page: 58
marked agreement in some general characteristics of common writing including a few individual peculiarities such as execution of capital letters B.M.R.I.T.S and also the execution of the small letters such as ‘r’ *t’ y’ ‘T’b’d’ ‘c’ ‘n’ ‘s’ ‘h’ etc. These entries are as follows:
1. Entry dated 28th June, 1967 marked Q-177.
2. Entry dated 30th June, 1967 marked Q-177.
3. Entry dated 1st, 2nd July, 1967 marked Q-178.
4. Entry dated 23rd to 26th July, 1967 marked Q-182.
5. Entry dated 31st July, 1967 marked Q-184 along with two bottom lines marked Q-184.
6. Entry dated 13th, 14th August, 1967 marked Q-188.
7. Entry dated 15th & 16th August, 1967 marked Q-188.
8. Entry dated 6th September, 1967 Q-198.
9. Entry dated 27th-30th October, 1967 marked Q-199.
10) Entry dated 21st November, 1967 marked Q-204.
In view of the above facts, I am of the opinion that the same entries in the diary marked Q-1 are in all probability executed by the same individual who wrote entries of the said diaries, previously identified by me as in the hand of M.A. Samad.
Photographic analysis chart of these entries was got prepared by the photographic expert of the C.I.D. office, Photo Section, Dacca. The chart of the question documents Q-177, 178, 182, 184, 188, 191, and 204 is now marked as Ext. P.W. 239/83. The page of the diary already marked as Ext. P.W. 45/6 bearing the date 1st and 2nd July, 1967 was marked by me as Q-178.
The pages of this diary dated 23rd to 26th July, 1967 were marked by me as Q/182. The page of this diary dated 31% July, 1967 was marked by me as Q/184. The pages of this diary dated 13th to 16th of August, 1967 were marked by me as Q/188. The page of this diary dated 6th September, 1967 was marked by me as Q/191. The page of this diary dated 27th to 30th October, 1967 was marked by me as Q/199. The page of this diary dated 21st November, 1967 was marked by me as Q/204. My report in connection with the examination of the documents as stated by
Page: 59
me now is placed here and now marked as Ext. P.W. 239/84. This bears my signature.
The specimen writings of A.B. Khurshid taken before the Tribunal by the Asstt. Registrar is now marked Ext. P.W. 239/85 and this series was marked by me as S/220 to 240 ……………… PW239 (partial) documents missing ………….. by the Military authority and subsequently, the investigation was taken up by the East Pakistan Police. At the time of the Photography of the documents, I was personally present and I also gave instructions in connection with it. I gave the direction regarding the magnification of the photography. I told him that the body writings should be enlarged from one and a half to two times and the signatures from three to four times. I did not specifically instruct him with regard to filters and choice of specific films. The filters were used when the signatures were on the stamps only.
Page: 60
SPECIAL TRIBUNAL
Record of Proceedings
PRESENT
Mr. Justice S.A. Rahman, H.Pk., Chairman.
Mr. Justice Mujibur Rahman Khan, S.Pk.,Member.
Mr. Justice Maksum-ul-Hakim, Member.
For the prosecution .. As before.
For the Defence .. As before
Accused present .. As before.
Witness on oath .. As before.
CROSS-EXAMINATION OF P.W. 239, MR. ABDUL MAJID QURAISHI CONTINUED:
TO MR. NAZIRUDDIN AHMED:
The initial letter ‘i’ in the word ‘immediate’ in Q21 as well as in the sample S142 has a loop, but the loop in the letter is a little more elongated. The initial stroke of this letter ‘i’ in my opinion, creases the vertical line in both these words. S142 the return impulse at the base of the capital ‘l’ in the word ‘Immediate’ makes a triangle whereas in Q21 the return impulse is there, but the open triangle is not there. There start in the word ‘Immediate’ in S142 is a continuous return from its staff in curved form while in Q21 the continuous return is in the form of loop and vertical. In S142 the small ‘i’ following ‘d’ is in a continuous linked
Page: 61
form without any toe impulse while there is a toe impulse in Q21 in the same letter of the word ‘Immediate’. This means that the letter ‘i’ in Q21 is in a copybook form whereas in S142 it is in simplified form. The cross-bar of the letter “t’ in S142 in the word ‘Immediate’ is far away on the right side whereas in Q21 it is nearer to the staff of the letter ‘t’. The terminal letters ‘t’ and ‘e’ in the word ‘Immediate’ in Q21 are not linked whereas they are the linked is S142. In Q21 the letter ‘w’ in the word ‘work’ has a little curve-impulse in the initial stroke but as against it in the same letter in S132 in the word ‘work’, it is almost vertical with a backward slant. In Q21 the letter ‘o’ on the word ‘work’ is almost closed whereas in S132 the letter ‘o’ in the word ‘work’ has an open oval as already explained by me in my evidence. The terminal letter ‘k’ in the word ‘work’ in Q21 is made in two operations whereas in S132 in the same word there is a trail link between the two impulses of the letter ‘k’ but they were not done in one operation. The letter ‘S’ in the word ‘Samad’ in Q21 in the fifth line has a link impulse from its base whereas in the same word ‘Samad’ in the first line of S134, it is not linked. It has been linked through a loop impulse in Q21. The structure of the letter ‘M’ in the word ‘Mujibur’ in Q21 is a little different from the letter ‘M’ in the word ‘Mujibur in S134, in as much as in the former the inner portion of the letter ‘M’ has angular impulse whereas in S134 it has a curve impulse without any angle. The commencing stroke of the letter ‘M’ in Q21 in the word ‘Mujibur starts downward, but it is on the left side of the vertical staff as against the right side of the vertical staff in the same word in S134. The downward stroke is, however, present in both the words. In the word ‘other’ in Q20 (a) the letter ‘o’ and ‘t are not linked. The same is the position in the word ‘other’ in S135, but the cross-bar of the letter ‘t’ in S135 has touched the oval of the letter ‘o’ which is not the case in Q20(a). The cutting bar of the letter ‘t’ in Q20(a) is separately added as against linked continuous cutting bar of letter ‘t’ in S135 which I have explained in my evidence. There is an additional small cutting stroke in the word ‘other’ in Q20 (a) which is not present in the same word in S135. The terminal letter ‘e’ and ‘r’ in the word ‘other’ in Q20(a)
Page: 62
are not linked whereas they are linked in S135 in the same word, the former ‘r’ being in the copybook form and the letter ‘r’ in the simplified form. The letter ‘R’ in the word ‘Requirement’ in Q20(a) has a normal copybook type oval impulse whereas in S135 in the same word the letter ‘R’ has an elongated oval. The letter ‘q’ in the word ‘Requirements’ in Q20(a) is in copybook form whereas the letter ‘q’ in S135 in the same word is in a simplified form. So far as the return impulse is concerned the crown is the same in both the documents. The two letters ‘i’ and ‘r’ in the word ‘requirements’ in Q20(a) have a little gap in between whereas in the same word in S135 there is no gap, but the two letters have been written separately in both the documents. In the word ‘requirements’ in Q20 (a) there is a prominent gap between the letters ‘e’ and ‘m’ whereas in the same word in S135 although they have been written separately, there is no gap. The initial “P’ of the word ‘Propaganda’ in Q30 is linked through an eyelet impulse from the oval portion of ‘P’ with the following letter but in S143 in the same word the initial ‘P’ is capital ‘P’ and it is not linked from its oval portion with the letter ‘r I have already explained this difference in my evidence.
In the letter ‘P’ following the letter ‘o’ in the word ‘propaganda’ in Q30, there is an impulse loop in its point whereas the same letter in the same word in S43 has a loop but it is not with any embellishment. The loop is very narrow in S143. The letter ‘d’ in the word ‘propaganda’ in Q30 is in copybook form in an abbreviated size with a loop in its staff whereas the same letter in the same word ‘propaganda’ in S43 is in delta form. This is a simplified form and I have explained this variation in my evidence. The connection of the letters ‘a’ and ‘d’ in the word an ‘eyelet’ is the same as was known by the term ‘bulb’ in the old days.
In the word ‘polytechnical’ in Q26 the letter ‘y’ is not linked with the letter ‘t’ but in S135 the letter “y’ in the same word is continuously linked with the letter ‘t’ which follows it. Moreover, there is a gap between the letter ‘h’ and ‘n’ in the same word in S135 whereas there is no such gap between these two letters in Q26. The two letters ‘h’ and ‘n’ however have been written separately with a prominent gap. Similarly, there is no
Page: 63
gap between the letters ‘i’ and ‘c’ of the word “polytechnical in S135 whereas there is a prominent gap between these two letters in the same word Q26. The two letters have been written, however, separately in both the words. In the word ‘polytechnical’ in Q26 the letter ‘o’ has been started with an anti-clockwise impulse and it is linked with its staff with a continuous impulse with the letter ‘t’ that follows it but in the same word in S135 the start of the letter ‘o’ is with the same impulse but it has been linked from the base by a circular impulse to the letters that follows.
In the word ‘institute’ in Q26 the letter ‘s’ and ‘t’ have not been linked but in the same word in S135 they have been linked. The terminal letter ‘t’ in the word ‘institute’ in Q26 has a return loop impulse in the closed-form whereas in the same word in S135 this letter has an open loop impulse. The cross-bar of the terminal letter ‘t in Q26 is in continuous form from its base but in the same letter in S135, the cross-bar is separate on the right hand side towards the top. This variation has already been explained by me in my evidence. The terminal letter ‘e’ in the word ‘Institute’ in Q26 is in an abbreviated form whereas the same letter in S135 in the same word is in copy-book form. The letter ‘u’ preceding the terminal letter ‘t’ in the word ‘institute’ in Q26 has an extensive abbreviation whereas this letter in the same word in S135 is almost in copy-book form.
The two ‘t is in the word ‘Chittagong’ in Q26 have loop impulses in the staff whereas in the same word in S139 there is no loop impulse in the ‘t’s. The initial letter ‘t’ of the double ‘t’ in the word ‘Chittagong’ in Q26 has an initial stroke that starts from its base and then forms a loop impulse from its staff but in the same word in S139 there is no such starting impulse from the base. In the word Chittagong in Q26 there is a gap between the letters ‘t’ and ‘a’ but in S139 in the same word the two letters are linked through a continuous cut. The base loop of the medial letter ‘g’ in the word ‘Chittagong’ has an abbreviated loop in Q26. It means that there is no full ……………. PW239 (partial) documents missing…….. in Q26 the first letter ‘n’ gives the appearance of the letter ‘m’ but in S135 the letter ‘n’ is in copy-book form.
The initial letter ‘E’ in the word ‘Eskaton’ in Q26 is in Greek form but in S135, the same letter in the same word, the small “e” is in
Page: 64
copybook form. It gives the appearance of “i’ without a dot. The letter ‘k’ in the word ‘Eskaton’ in Q26 has two clear separate strokes in its structure but in S135 the two strokes are there but they are linked. The curve of the last stroke in Q26 is more smooth as against the somewhat angular curve in S135. In the word ‘Eskaton’ in S135 the impulses that follow in between the letter ‘k’ and ‘t give the loop of a small ‘a’ but in the same word in Q26 there is an appearance of a small ‘er’.
In Q.27 the initial capital letter ‘p’ in the word ‘Production’ has a complete crown with closed oval. In S/143 the initial capital letter ‘P’ in the word ‘Production’ has somewhat oval or elliptical shape of a crown. In R/12 in the first line, the capital letter ‘D’ in the word “Dacca’ has an embellished loop impulse at its point which tends to link with the letter ‘a’ that follows. Similarly, there is an eyelet return at the base of this letter of the same word in R/12 but in Q/29 in the same letter of the same word at serial No. 8 in line 2, the loop impulse at the point is not present. The base eyelet is also in variable form as compared to that in R/12. This variation I have already explained in my evidence. The capital letter ‘D’ and the small letter ‘a’ in the word ‘Dacca’ of R/12 are not clearly linked but in Q/29 they are linked. In the word ‘Dacca’ of R/12, there is a gap between the letter ‘a’ and the following letter ‘c in R/12 but in Q/29 there is no such gap although the letter ‘c’ has started separately. The letter ‘c’ in the word ‘Post’ in serial 17 of 1/25 has a closed oval but in S/135 in the word ‘Postal’ against serial 14, it is an open oval. This variation I have already explained in my evidence. The letter ‘s’ in the same word ‘Post’ of 1/25 is in script form but in S/135 in the same word the same letter ……..’ is in copybook form. This variation I have already explained as a natural variation in my evidence. The medial letter ‘g’ in the word ‘Judges’ in serial 23 of 1/26 does not have a base loop but in S/135 the medial ‘g’ in the same word written against serial 12 has a base loop. This variation I have also explained in my evidence. The letters ‘g’ and ‘e’ in the same word in S/135 are linked whereas they are not so linked in 1/26. The word ‘industries’ in serial No.2 has a copybook type of ‘d’ with a loop impulse in its stub but in S/141 the same letter “dis written in a delta form. This variation I have already explained in my
Page: 65
evidence. The letter ‘u’ in the same word in Q/23 is in copybook form whereas the same in S/141 is in somewhat simplified form. In Q/23 the letter “s’ following the letter ‘u’ in the same word is linked whereas the same is not so in S/141. In Q/23 the letters “s’ and ‘t in the same word are linked whereas this is not so in S/141. In the word ‘Railways’ in Q/24 at serial 9 the letter ‘l is not linked on either side but in S/142 in the word ‘Railways the same letter ‘T’ is linked on the left side but not linked on the right side. The loop of l’ in the same word in Q/24 is a closed one but in S/142 it is a clear oval loop. In the word “Railways’ at serial 11 in Q/24 the letter ‘l’ is not linked on either side but in S/33 in the same word in serial 5 the letter ‘I’ is linked on the left side but not on the right side. The same letter in Q/24 is in a simple vertical line whereas in S/33 it is in copybook form. The letter ‘a’ in the same word “railway’ following the letter ‘w’ in Q/24 is in copybook form but in S/133 it looks like ‘o’. In the abbreviated letters, ‘SP’ in serial No.7 of Q/24 the letters ‘S’ and ‘P’ are not linked. But in S/133 the first two letters ‘S’ ‘Pare linked through a trail link and there is no full-stop in between these two letters of S/133, but there is a full-stop in Q/24. Apostrophes ‘s’ is present in Q/24, but it is not so in S/133. The word ‘top’ of Q/22 is linked and the cross-bar of letter ‘t is added separately at the top. In S138 the same word is not linked and the cross-bar of letter ‘t is form, in the middle of the word in the same letter. The signatures of Lt. Commander M. Hossain marked R/2 are not the exact replica of the signatures marked Q/20, so far as minute measurement goes. The letter ‘f in the word ‘friend’ in the second line of Q/39 has a base loop and an initial start. But the same letter ‘f in the second line of S/91 does not have a base loop. I have already explained that S/91 is in a disguised hand in my evidence. The letters ‘r’ and ‘i’ in the same word of Q/39 are linked, but in S/91 they are not linked. Similarly, the terminal letter ‘n’ and ‘d’ in the same word of Q/39 are linked, but in S/91 they are not so. The word ‘Mujibur’ in the second line of Q39 has linked ‘M’ with the letter ‘u’ that follows, but in S/91 in line No.3 the letter ‘M’ is not linked with ‘u’, Moreover, the medial letter ‘i’ in this word of S/91 is not linked on either side. But in Q/39 the medial letter ‘i’ is linked with the letter ‘b’ that
Page: 66
follows, but not with the preceding letter ‘J’. The word ‘Rahman’ in the second line of Q/39 has linked a h m, but in S/91 in the same word in line No.4 they are not linked. The two letters ‘f’s in the word ‘difficult’ in Q/39 in line No. 3 have loops at the base, but this is not so in the same word in S/91 line No.5. In the word ‘Problem’ in Q/39, line No.5, all the letters have been linked, but in S/91 in the same word in line No. 6 ‘p’ is not linked with ‘r’, ‘b’ is not linked on either side and the terminal letter ‘m’ is also not linked, although the tendency is there. In the word ‘confidential’ of Q/39 in line No. 5, the letter ‘f has a returning impulse and the letter ‘d’ is not linked with the letter ‘i’ that precedes it. It is, however, linked with the letter ‘e’ that follows in S/91. The same word in line No.6 does not have return impulse for the letter if I and the letter ‘d’ is not linked on either side. It stands independence Moreover, the letter ‘n’ is not linked with the letter ‘f. In the word ‘about’ in line No.4 of Q/36 the letters ‘a’ and ‘b’ are linked but in S/91 in the same word in line No. 11 they are not linked, Moreover, the letter ‘b’ in Q/39 is in normal English type, but in S/91 it is of script type. This variation I have already explained in my evidence. The word ‘it’ in Q/39 in line No.9 is linked and has an initial staff, but in S/91 the same word in line No.12 is not linked and it does not have initial staff. The word ‘patient’ inline No.10 of Q/39, the letter ‘a’ is linked with ‘t’ that follows and is not linked with the initial letter ‘p’, but in S/91 in line No.12 the letter “al’ that follows ‘p’ in the same word is not linked on either side. In S/91 in the same word, all the letters are disjointed. In Q/39 there are two pen lifts in the word “Patient’ which is otherwise linked. The word ‘hearing’ in line No. 10 of Q/39 is linked throughout but the same word in S/91 in line No. 13 is not linked at all and is written with disjointed letters. In Q/39 in the same word the letter ‘h’ has an initial spur whereas it is not so in S/91. The word ‘affection’ in line No. 14 of Q/39 is linked and both ‘f’s have base loops. But the same word in line No.19 of S/91 (a) has no base loops in the letters ‘ff and they are not linked with the initial letter ‘al’. In S/91 there are four pen-lifts with gaps in the same word. I have already explained to them in my evidence. The cross-bar of letter ‘t in the same word of Q/39 has been separately added at its point, but in S/91 (a) this is almost in the
Page: 67
middle of the vertical stroke. Moreover, the letter ‘t in S/91 (a) has a loop impulse at its point which is absent in the same word in Q/39. The word ‘with’ in Q39 in line No.15 has the three-terminal letters in linked form but in S91 (a) in line No. 21(a) the word is in disjointed form. The same applies to the word ‘best’ in line No. 15 in Q39 and the third line in S91(a). The same applies to the word “Johnson’ in Q39 and in S91(a). The capital letter ‘E’ in the word “Bhai’ in Q39 is in impulsed form and is linked with the letter ‘h’ that follows. But in S91(a) the letter ‘B’ has been written in capital form but in copybook form and is not linked with the letter ‘h’. The documents 991 and 991(a) have been written in a very conscious form in a disguised manner
The capital letter ‘B’ in the word ‘But’ in line No. 7 of Q39 is linked with an eyelet impulse at the base. The capital letter ‘B’ in the word ‘Before’ in line No. 6 of R55 is not linked similarly. The medial impulse in the letter capital ‘B’ of R55 is prominent but it is not so in the same word in Q39 although the impulse is still there. Moreover, the capital ‘B’ in Q39 has a downward start from its middle but in R55 similar start is not there.
The capital ‘R’ in the word ‘Rahman’ in line No. 2 of Q39 has smooth turning impulse in the terminal portion of this letter but in R55 the capital letter ‘R’ in the word “Rahman’ in line No. 15 does not have a similar turning impulse.
The letter ‘p’ in the word “passion’ in line No. 10 of Q39 does not have any initial spur but in the same letter in the words ‘personally’, ‘present and ‘pay’ in R55 there is an initial spur.
Page: 68
SPECIAL TRIBUNAL
Record of Proceedings
15.1.1969.
Present:
Mr. Justice S.A. Rahman, H.Pk., Chairman,
Mr. Justice M.R. Khan, S.Pk., Member,
Mr. Justice Maksum-ul-Hakim. Member,
For the prosecution … As before.
For the Defence … As before.
Accused present … As before.
Witness on oath … As before.
CROSS-EXAMINATION OF P.W. 239. MR. ABDUL MAJID QUARAISHI CONTINUED:
TO MR. ZAHIRUDDIN:
The return linking impulse in the letter capital ‘A’ of the work ‘Azhar’ in S109 has extended beyond the first staff of the capital letter ‘A’ whereas in Q102 in the same word it has remained within the first staff of the letter ‘A’. The linking returning curve in S106 of the word “Azhar’ in the letter ‘A’ differs from the same curve in Q102 in so far as the curvature is greater in Q102 than in S106. The returning loop of the letter “z’ in the word “Azhar’ in S102, crosses at the joint of the middle impulse whereas, in S106 in the same word, it crosses the crown portion.
Page: 69
The base loop of the letter “z’ in the word “Azhar’ of S106 is slanted prominently towards the right whereas in Q102 it is almost in a vertical position. The terminal letters ‘a’ and ‘r’ in the word ‘Azhar’ of S106 are extensively abbreviated whereas in Q102 are not abbreviated to that extent. The capital letter ‘P’ in the word ‘Balaka’ in Q107 is in copy-book form and made in 2 operations. This means there is no loop in it whereas in the word “Bashira’ in S97 the first staff of the letter ‘B’ has a return loop impulse which continuously goes with the terminal portion of this letter. This is, therefore, in embellished form. The initial start of the letter ‘C’ in words ‘Cross’ and ‘Could’ in S100 is with the upward impulse with its return from its top abruptly but in the letter ‘C’ in the words Called and ‘came’ in Q102 the start is upward but there is no abrupt return to give it a loop like appearance.
The capital letter ‘D’ in the word ‘Dabir’in S/114 has the vertical staff which crosses the curve of the letter ‘D’ but in Q13 in the word ‘Dhar’ the lower portion of this ‘D’ has been over-written many a time thereby not making it clear that the first staff crosses the curved portion of the letter ‘D’. In Q/13 the following letter ‘a’ has been linked with the letter ‘D’ with an eyelet impulse in its crown but in S/114 in the word ‘Dabir’ the letter ‘a’ has not been linked in this way. Moreover, there is no eyelet impulse in the crown of the letter ‘a’ in S/114. In the small letter ‘e’ in the word ‘evening’ in S/110 the initial spur does not cross the return impulse of the body of the letter ‘e’ and it starts with a rightward slant from the bottom upwards whereas in Q/15a in the same word, the initial starting impulse of the letter ‘e’ is curved down from the top coming downwards and then crossing the return impulse of the body of the letter ‘e’. The initial letter ‘g’ in the word ‘gave’ of Q/17 is in copy book form whereas the same letter in the same word in S/106 is in a simplified form. The capital letter ‘H’ in the word ‘henry’ in S/114 has a trail link from the toe of the first staff and with an ink, failure goes up to the toe of the second staff of this letter whereas in Q/13 in the same letter of the same word. The only tendency of the trail link has been shown but it does not go up to the point of second staff with ink failing etc. The return
Page: 70
impulse from the toe of the second staff of capital ‘H’ for linking with the letter ‘E’ that follows in Q/13, extends up to the first staff of the letter ‘H’ but in S/114 this return is much earlier and does not touch first staff of the letter ‘H’. The small letter ‘e’ following the letter ‘H’ in following the letter ‘H’ in the word ‘Henry’ in Q/13 has a prominent eyelet crown and there is an additional stroke in the curvature of this letter as well, whereas in S/114 the letter ‘e’ does not have any eyelet. It has been abbreviated extensively. The initial spur for the formation of an eyelet at the crown of the capital letter ‘T’ in S/100 is extended almost to the baseline whereas in Q/102 it has not been extended to that extent. It just starts from the normal position of the crown of this letter. The letter ‘K’ in the word ‘Khan’ in S/95 has a ‘V’ formation in the beginning and then there is the linking stroke to make it ‘K’ but in Q/102 in the word ‘Kanak’, the letter ‘K’ is written in copybook form and there is no ‘V’ formation in the first staff. The capital letter ‘M’ in the word ‘Muttalib’ of S/95 has a smooth inner body whereas in the same letter in Q/13 in the word ‘Muttalib’ and ‘Mufazzal the inner portion has a ‘V’ impulse as a normal copy book form. The capital letter ‘N’ in the word ‘NIPA’ of Q/106 has a curved terminal impulse running towards the right with the tendency of linking it with the letter that follows whereas in S/114 this letter in the same word is in copybook form with no linking tendency to the letter that follows with a curve impulse. The capital letter ‘A’ in the word ‘NIPA’ of Q/106 has a separate crossbar whereas in the same letter in the same word in S/114 there is a trail link for making this bar which gives it the look of a continuous bar from the toe. The letter ‘P’ in the word “NIPA’ of S114 has a trail linking tendency from its crown with the letter ‘A’ that follows whereas in Q106(a) there is no such tendency and there is a gap between the two letters, but the gap is also present in S114. The letters ‘P’ and ‘A’ in the word ‘NIPA’ in S118 have been linked through a trail link by an eyelet impulse whereas in the same word in Q12 they are independently written. In the letter ‘p’ of the word “NIPA’ in S118, there is a retrace in the staff of the letter ‘p’ but in Q12 there is no such tendency in the same letter. The staff, there is an independent vertical
Page: 71
stroke.’The crown of the letter ‘p’ goes in continuation with the retrace impulse in S118 whereas in Q12 it has been executed independently. The oval of the letter ‘O’ in the word “O&M’in S118 has been linked at its top, leaving two trails on either side within the body of ‘O’, whereas in Q/12 through the impulse of the oval of ‘O’, is similar, it has been linked at the top with an angle. In Q12 the letter ‘O’ has been re-written. While rewriting ‘O’ in Q12 at has been linked through anticlockwise with the notational ‘and’ that follows whereas in S118 the link has not been made clear, but the tendency of linking is there. The trail, however, ends within the body of the letter ‘o’. There is a prominent gap between the end of the trail link of ‘o’ and the oval in the body of ‘o’ in S100(a). The initial start of the notational ‘and’ in S118 is not linked with a linking curve from its base with the letter ‘M’ that follows whereas in Q12 it is linked thereby making a shape of a triangle. The capital letter ‘P’ in the word ‘Peshawar’ in Q107 a separate crown whereas in the same letter of the word ‘Planning’ in S118 the crown is linked with its staff. The crown of the letter ‘P’ in Q107 has been embellished with a compound curve at its tow. This is not so in the same letter in S118. The capital letter ‘S’ in the word ‘Saw’ in S116 has a loop like crown whereas in Q12 the same letter in the same word has no such crown. The horizontal bar of the letter ‘I’ in the word ‘TV’ of Q13 is in copy-book-form, but in S117 the left portion of the word has been abbreviated. The letter ‘U’ in the word ‘USIS’ of Q14 has an initial spur whereas the same letter in the same word in S108 has no such spur. The medial ‘I’ in the word ‘USIS’ in Q14 is linked with the preceding ‘S’ and not with the ‘S’ that follows. But in S108 the letter is not linked on either side. The letter ‘I’ in S108 has a stubbed start, but in Q14, as it is linked with the preceding word, there is no such start. The letter ‘V’ in the word TV of Q101, has stubbed start, but its size is prominent whereas in S117 this letter in the same word has a stubbed start, but it is in abbreviated size. There is a slight curve impulse in the same word in the first staff of this letter in S117 whereas the first staff is vertical in Q101. The capital letter ‘R’ in the word “Razzaque’ of Q16 has been executed in two separate operations whereas
Page: 72
the same letter in the word “Rahman’ in S117 has been written with a trail link from the toe of the first staff giving a loop like execution in one operation. The letter ‘R’ in the word “Rahman’ of Q11 has been repeatedly over-written but it has a clear impression of writing in two separate operations. But the same letter in the word “Rahman’ in S117 has been written in one operation. The crown of the letter ‘R’ in Q11 and Q16 is very prominent in copy-book-form whereas in S117 it has an elongated impulse from its linking trail. The returning impulse of the crown of letter ‘R’in Q11 and Q16, is linked with the initial staff near about the middle portion but in S117 it is not linked with the staff there is just a smooth turning curve near about the base. There is a tendency of a curve in the initial start of the letter ‘wo in the word “was’ in Q101, whereas in S113 the word was extensively abbreviated. The initial start of the letter ‘W’ has no curve tendency. Its staff starts with a staff stroke and slants to the left. The second staff of the letter ‘w’ in S113 has a curve linking stroke whereas the terminal staff of ‘w’ in Q101 has an upward stroke. The linking stroke between the letters ‘w’ and ‘a’ in Q101 is almost horizontal. The terminal letters a’ and in the word ‘was’ of S113 have been extensively abbreviated to make them in the form of impulse only whereas in Q101 the letter “a’ is abbreviated but less prominently, so far as the impulse is concerned. The terminal letter “s’ has a turning curve only and not in copy-book-form. The initial start of the capital letter ‘Z’ in the word ‘Ziku’ in S117 has an upward stroke whereas in S95 the same word has a copy-book-start in a horizontal form. The terminal portion of letter ‘z’ in S117 is a slanting stroke going upwards whereas in Q95 it has a curve impulse before going upwards at the toe. The letter ‘k’ in the same word in S117 has been written in a simplified form with the tendency of linking the second staff to a trail link with a linking stroke forming two eyelets whereas in Q95 it is a copy-book form which has been linked clearly with the letter ‘u’ that follows. The terminal letter ‘u’ in the word “Ziku’ in S117 has an eyelet return in its first staff whereas in Q95 it is in copy-book form without any eyelet.
Page: 73
I consider the supply of standard writings as an ideal basis for examination and give an opinion about disputed documents. It cannot be said, however, that it is almost in every case. If no standard writings are available then there should be available sufficient amounts of specimen writings with common words in sufficient numbers. If the specimen data is insufficient then comparison becomes difficult comparatively. Among many other features, I agree that one has to consider the design, size, proportions, slant, shading, vigour, angularity, roundness, artistic qualities and direction of the strokes. The basis of my examination is the consideration of unconscious, inconspicuous writing characteristics, habits and tendencies for arriving at any conclusion. The shading and interspacing are qualities of hand-writings which are of variable nature. By variable nature, I mean that their presence in exactly similar form and identical places are not normal. Angularities and roundness may also be considered as part of writing habits and qualities. In my report at page 18 at serial No. 34, I have specifically mentioned the result of pen-pressure which leads to shading but so far as inter-spacing roundness and angularities are concerned in its specific form, I have not mentioned them in my report but I considered them while arriving at the final conclusion.
At page 24 of my report in serial 21, I have specifically mentioned inter-spacing and at page 25 in serial M.I. have specifically mentioned the execution of the letters, which includes design. The words angularity and roundness have not been specifically mentioned in my report although the same were considered while examining the writings. Slant is a habit and a characteristic but not a fixed one. I agree with the observation of born at page 144 (2nd Edition) that, slant in writing is a characteristic that becomes highly significant under certain conditions and with many writers is one of the most fixed of habits. I have not specifically referred to slant in my report on the writings of Ali Reza. In certain cases the examination of the paper and the ink is important for an expert. A very rough estimate can be made of the age of writings by examining the quality of ink.
I did not mention any tremor in any of the writings I examined because I found none. I did not consider it necessary to mention this fact
Page: 74
in my report. I did not mention in my report that I examined the quality of paper of the questioned as well as the specimen writings although this was considered by me. In case of questioned documents relating to Mr. K.M.S. Rahman I had no paper with me and this I have mentioned in my report. Similarities alone should not be the basis of a final opinion. Likewise, the dissimilarities alone should not be the basis of the final opinion. By natural variation, I mean the modifications of the designs of the letters and their formation, seen in the repeated writings of the same individual, in natural form. Natural variations are peculiar to a particular writer. It may vary to a little extent depending on the skill of the expert but the limit of natural variations will not differ. It is not correct to say that I have tried to explain away the real ‘differences’ by calling them “natural” “variation”. In my sense ‘variation’ and ‘difference’ are two distinct ideas. I have not specifically refreshed the artistic qualities, proportions or size in my report relating to the writings of Ali Reza but they were considered while forming my opinion. I have not used the word ‘vigour’ in my report on Ali Reza’s writings but the difference of pressure in the connecting strokes and in the general writing has already been mentioned in my report and that also implies consideration of ‘vigour’ I have considered the factor of speed while examining the writings of Ali Reza. I have mentioned n serial 33 of my report on page 18. I include in ‘speed’ the four stages, namely, slow drawn, deliberate and rapid or swift.
I am holding a Specialist post in the Central Intelligence Bureau. It is a senior scale post in the grade of Supdt. of Police. There will be difference in shading according to the use of the instrument of writing viz. fountain-pen normal-pen pencil or a ball-pointed pen. As in the questioned writings of M.A. Reza, ball-pointed pen writing was also included, so the specimen in a ball-point pen was also obtained for the purpose of examination and comparison. In the case of other writings, normal pen writing was obtained and compared. This was done on my verbal instruction to the effect that writing with a ball-point pen should be obtained from Ali Reza. This instruction is not mentioned in my report. This instruction was given to Inspector Israel who brought the
Page: 75
documents to me, I do not recollect the date on which this instruction was given by me. Nor do I remember as to how many days after this instruction, I received the ball-point pen writing. All the specimens and questioned writings were received by me between the 13th and the 21st April, 68 did not examine the writings of Ali Reza at any time before 13th April, 68. I received these writing of Ali Reza in Dacca. As far as I remember I reached Dacca sometime in the first week of April, 68. I do not know who asked my sub-bureau in Dacca to requisition my services. My sub-bureau office is also located in Rajarbagh. This sub-bureau is a branch of the Intelligence Bureau of the centre. My sub-bureau is located in a different building from the one where Provincial Intelligence Bureau is located. I received these documents in the hand-writing bureau of the Provincial C.I.D, Dacca. The S.S.P. C.I.D. asked me to give these Bengali writings to Mr. Kader. As far as I remember, his name is Mr. Hamid. There was no written order to me to hand over the documents to Mr. Kader. There is no written record to show that I was asked to hand over the Bengali documents to Mr. Kader. There is no written Israel that I will hand over the documents to Mr. Kader. I disagree with the view that any expert even without knowing the language could examine and give opinion on such writing. I cannot rule out the possibility that such opinion an opinion can be given at sometime. When I handed over the documents and report to Mr. Israil I obtained his acknowledgment and signature on my office copy of the report. I did not submit any joining report after my arrival at Dacca as that was not necessary.
Apart from the pictorial form of the letters, there are certainly other factors including habits, characteristics, and tendencies which are to be considered before giving an opinion on a questioned writing. They may be 50 or more. It is not correct to say that I have depended only on the pictorial form of the writings for my opinion.
Page: 76
SPECIAL TRIBUNAL
Record of Proceedings
Present :
Mr. Justice S.A. Rahman, H.Pk., Chairman,
Mr. Justice M.R. Khan, S.Pk., Member,
Mr. Justice Maksum-ul-Hakim, Member,
For the prosecution … As before.
For the Defence … As before.
Accused present … As before.
Witness on oath … As before.
CROSS-EXAMINATION OF P.W. 239. MR. ABDUL MAJID QURAISHI CONTINUED:
I agree with Osborn’s opinion which has been read out from page 285,- Second Edition as follows: ‘If it is feasible, it is usually advisable that an investigation of a writing would begin not with an examination of the questioned writing itself, but by a careful study of the standard writing with which it is finally to be compared and this study of the genuine writing should; if possible, be made before the questioned writing is seen by an examiner’. In my view the writing in the diary Ext. P.W. 3/14 ascribed to Lt. Commander Moazzem Hossain is with a normal pen and to also the specimen writings in Ext. P.W. 169/19. I would, however, say that the writing in Ext. P.W. 3/14 has been done with a pen with a little broader nib than one used for the specimens.
Page: 77
The spelling of the word ‘bungalow’ in the document marked Q1 has a terminal letter as ‘w whereas in S78 and S80 the terminal letter is ‘o’. Also in Q1, this word has been spelled with ‘Bu’ whereas in S78 and S80 it is spelled with ‘Ba’. The capital ‘B’ in the word ‘Bungalow’ in Q1 has been executed in two operations and in simplified form, whereas in S78 the letter ‘B’ of the word ‘Bungalow’ has been executed in one continuous operation in an embellished form. The middle curve of the capital letter ‘B’ in the word ‘Bungalow of S78 and S80 just touches the initial staff of the letter but in Q1 in the word ‘Bungalow it does not. The letter ‘n’ in the same word is simplified from in Q1 whereas in S78 it is in copy-book form. The capital letter ‘S’ in the word ‘Shirts’ in S79 is in copy-book form and embellished form but the same letter in the same word in Q1 is in simplified form. This letter ‘S’ has been linked in Q1 with the following letter ‘h’ but in S79 and 578 there is a tendency of linking without the linking being present. The letter ‘h’ in the word ‘Shirts’ is a retraced point without any loop but in S79 the loop is there in the same letter with ink failing. The letter “i’ in the same word in Q1 is in simplified form and its dot has been added far above on the upper side in a characteristic tick form whereas in S79 the dot has been added above the letter “i’ in a normal form. This letter ‘i’ in S79 is in copy-book form. In the same word, the letter ‘r’ has been used in Greek type form in S79 but in Q1 it is in a simplified form whereas in S79 it has two clear eyelets. In the letter ‘t of the same words, its staff has a clear open loop in S79 whereas in Q1 there is only a retraced and closed loop. The crossbar of the letter ‘t’ in Q1 has been characteristically put in a tick form on the right of the staff without cutting it whereas in S79 it cuts the upper portion of the staff of the letter ‘t. The terminal letter “s’ in the same word in S79 has an eyelet return on its top whereas in Q1 it has an ordinary return without the eyelet. The capital letter ‘M’ in the word ‘Meals’ under 12th July in Q1 does not have an eyelet return on the last stroke whereas the eyelet return is there permanently in S79 in the same letter of the same word. I have already explained this in my evidence. The inner portion of the letter ‘M’ in Q1 in this very word has a ‘V’ impulse whereas in S79 it has a smooth curve impulse. The first staff of the capital letter ‘H’ in the word ‘Hav’ has a smooth curve from the toe in Q1 but in $79.in the same word, the curve is angular in this letter.
Page: 78
The initial staff of the capital letter ‘H’ in the same word has been started with stubbed pressure in Q1 as well as in S79 but the trail of the staff has gone towards the left in Q1 whereas it is towards the right in S79. The linking stroke in the same letter in Q1 is with retraced impulse that starts the link somewhat near the middle of its staff but in S79 there is no retraced impulse but it has a returning impulse from its toe. The terminal letter ‘v’ in the same word has an angular return in S79 whereas in Q1 it has a smooth impulse return but both the ‘V’s have stubbed end. The initial start of the capital letter ‘T’ in the word “Truck’in Q1 has a curve staff whereas in S79 it has an upper staff in the form of start and then the curve for forming the crown. Both the ‘t’s have an eyelet return before the vertical stroke starts. The letter ‘r’ in the word ‘Truck’ in Q1 has a somewhat prominent eyelet return whereas in S79 there is no such eyelet return in this letter in the same word. There is a return loop impulse in the terminal letter ‘k’ of the word ‘Truck’ in Q1 whereas in the same letter in the same word in S79 there is no such returning loop impulse. The two slanting strokes of the letter ‘k’ are not linked in 879 but they appear to be linked in Q1 due to the return loop formation. The letter ‘n’ in the word “convey’in Q1 has been linked with the letter ‘o’ that precedes it but it has not been so linked in S82 in the same word. The letter ‘n’ in the same word in Q1 has an arched form whereas in 582 it has a garlanded form in the same word. The word ‘candle’ in Q/1 under the date 13th July has been spelled with ‘dd’ whereas in S/81 it has been spelled with one ‘d’, but the same word, I may point out, has been spelled with one ‘d’ under the date 12th July in Q/1. The letter ‘n’ the same word in Q 1 under the date 13th July is in copybook form but in 581 it is in simplified form. So it is in Ql under the date 12″ July also. In the same word, the letter ‘T’ in Q1 has a closed-loop whereas in S81 it is an open loop. The letters ‘n’ and ‘d’ in the same word in Ql are not linked and the terminal stroke of ‘n’ touches tye oval of ‘d’. But in 581 both the letters are not linked but there is a gap between the letters ‘d’ and ‘n’. The capital letter ‘F’ in the word ‘Feni’ in Ql under 11th July has been operated in an embellished form in two operations whereas in S/85 the same letter in the same word has been executed in three operations almost in copybook form. I have explained this in detail in my evidence. The letter ‘t’ in the same word in Q1 but in S/85 it has a closed has a
Page: 79
clear eyelet. The eyelet impulse in the letter ‘e’ in Q/1 has not crossed the body of the letter ‘e’ but in S/85 it has crossed and thereby giving it the look of a spur. The letter ‘n’ in the word “Feni’ in Q/1 has somewhat the appearance of ‘u’ whereas in S/85 it has somewhat the appearance of ‘v’. The dot in Q/1 has been added in characteristic tick form and is about a little toward the left whereas in S/85 it has been added in characteristic tick form and is about a little toward the left whereas in S/85 it has been added in normal dot form but somewhat on the left side.
It is not a fact that I am working in the Police Deptt. and therefore, I have given the report in favour of the police. I have not studied science photography as an expert. I would not be able to say specifically what kind of photographic papers of filters were used by the expert photographer in making the enlargements in this case.
TO MR. MD. ISMAIL:
I signed the report submitted by Mr. Abdul Kader without going through it.
TO MR. ABDUS SALAM KHAN: (For Mr. B. K. Sen)
In my opinion, the signature of B. K. Sen in this particular case which I identified supplied sufficient date for my opinion. If a signature contains initials and surname consisting of five or six letters, I would regard it as sufficient data for comparison. Even in Q/50, I find that the signature consists of initials and a surname. (No other Counsel wishes to cross-examine the witness.)
TO COURT:
The variations pointed out to me in cross-examination by the learned defence counsels are just variations without being fundamental divergences.
Chairman.
Member
Member.
Page: 80
DEPOSITION OF P.W.240, MR. SAIFULLAH KHAN
ON SOLEMN AFFIRMATION:
My name is Saifullah Khan, S/o. Sardar Abdul Aziz Khan, aged 39 years, by faith Muslim. I am Assistant Station Traffic Manager, Lahore Airport, P.I.A.
TO MR. T. H. KHAN
I am Assistant Station Traffic Manager, Lahore Airport, in the P.I.A. I see here a passenger manifest dated 8th November (It is already marked Ext. P.W.217/2). I do not see the year mentioned in this manifest. This document belongs to my office at Lahore. The manifest relates to Aircraft Boeing 720-B for the journey on flight Pk.726 on 8th November from Lahore to Dacca. I cannot say to which year it relates unless I see all the connected papers. There is a number on the top of the first page of the manifest which reads 101. This may be the number of this page in the file from which this document has been taken. The serial No. 32 in this manifesto states the name of Ali Reza. The file concerned may be available after a proper check.
CROSS-EXAMINATION OF P.W. 240, MR. SAIFULLAH KHAN
TO MR. ABDUS SALAM KHAN:
This letter is signed by S. Enkisarul Hasan, Senior Accounts Officer, PIA (Revenue), Karachi. This is now marked as Ext. P.W. (1)/1. The accompanying document is a photostat copy of the ticket issued on 25th March, 1967 for travelling in the sector Dacca-Lahore-Rawalpindi on flight No. PK 733/304 of 28th March, 1967. It was issued in favour of
Page: 81
Mr. Shamsur Rahman on one way, i.e. Dacca-Lahore-Rawalpindi. (This is now marked as Ext. DE(1)/2). This is a letter from Mr. A. R. Tazua who was then acting Station Traffic Manager, PIA, Lahore, showing the list of passengers on board the flight No. PK734 of 1st July, 1967. (This is now marked as Ext. DE (1)/3). The accompanying document is a copy of the passengers’ manifesto for flight PK734 of 1st July, 1967 though the year is mistakenly showed as 1968. (This is now marked as Ext. DE(1)/4). Serial No. 1 relates to Mr. Quddus in first class in the journey from Lahore to Dacca. The first one relates to Mr. Quddus.
(No other Counsel wishes to cross-examine the witness)
Chairman.
Member.
Member
Page: 82
DEPOSITION OF P. W. 240, MR. SAIFULAH KHAN
ON SOLEMN AFFIRMATION.
(ON RECALL)
22.1.1969.
TO MR. T.H. KHAN:
I have now obtained the file relating to the document Ext. P.W. 217/2. From the file, I can now say that this document relates to gth November, 1967
CROSS-EXAMINATION:
Declined.
Chairman.
Member.
Member.
Page: 83
DEPOSITION OF P.W.241, MR. MOHAMMAD GHOUS
GHIAS ON SOLEMN AFFIRMATION
My name is Mohammad Ghous Ghias, son of late Hakim Mohammad Hossain Ghias, aged 44 years, by faith a Muslim, I am an Accountant, Local office, National Bank of Pakistan, Karachi.
TO MR. T. H. KHAN:
I find before me a demand draft which was payable on presentation. This is already marked as Ext. P. W.3/43. This was issued from the National Bank of Pakistan, Local Office, Dacca, on 31st March, 1966. It was paid by the National Bank of Pakistan, Local Office, Karachi to the payee Lt. Moazzem Hossain (PN) on 7.4.66. It carries a bank seal showing the payment. I see on it the signature of Mr. Nizamuddin, the Asstt. Accountant of our local office in our Bank at Karachi which shows that the amount in question has been paid to the payee. The payee has assigned at the back of this draft. There are two such signatures. We have to be satisfied with the identity of the payee before the payment is made. In this case also I asked the payee to produce evidence about his identification and he produced his identify card No. PP 22903, Rank Lt. No. 576 dated 1.3.1963 issued on 19.12.63 at Naval Headquarters, Karachi. The endorsement in red ink in the back is in my hand and bears my signature.
Page: 85
CROSS-EXAMINATION:
TO MR. ABDUS SALAM KHAN:
Usually, over-draft is given to service personnel for a period of one year.
(No other counsel wishes to cross-examine the witness.)
Chairman.
Member.
Member.
Page: 86
DEPOSITION OF P.W. 242, MR. ZAINAL ABEDIN
ON SOLEMN AFFIRMATION
My name is Zainal Abedin, son of late Khan Shaheb Shamsul Abedin, aged 46 years, by faith a Muslim, I am a Section Officer, Govt. of East Pakistan, Education Department, Dacca.
TO MR. T. H. KNAN:
I have been serving for 8 years as Section Officer in different departments of the Govt. of East Pakistan. I know Mr. Khan Mohammad Shamsur Rahman, CSP, I served under him in the Planning Department, Govt. of East Pakistan, sometime between 1954 and 1957. At that time I was an Upper Division Assistant. At that time I had occasions to see the writings and signatures of Mr. K.M.S. Rahman. I am acquainted with his writings and signatures. This document already marked as Ext. P.W.239/22 is in the hand of Mr. K. M. S. Rahman and the signature appearing on this page is also his. This document already marked as Ext. P.W.239/23 is also in his hand and the signature appearing on this page is also his. This document which is already marked as Ext. P.W.239/24 is also in the hand of Mr. K.M.S. Rahman and the signature appearing on this page is also his.
CROSS-EXAMINATION OF P. W. 242, MR. ZAINUL ABEDIN
TO MR. ABDUS SALAM KHAN:
The signature already marked Ext. DS/3 on the document shown to me is also the signature of Mr. K.M.S. Rahman. (This is in the Register of the East Pakistan House, Rawalpindi. This is now marked as Ext. DF/(1)/1). I know Mr. Ahmed Fazlur Rahman, CSP. He acted as Joint
Page: 87
Secretary, Planning Department, Dacca, perhaps from before 1960. During that time a number of Development Officers were appointed, I do not know whether Mr. Fazlur Rahman insisted that the Development Officers while working in East Pakistan must know Bengali as I was not in the same Branch which dealt with this appointment. I do not know whether there was a difference of opinion on that issue between him and Mr. Moizuddin Ahmed, CSP, then Addl. Chief Secretary, Govt. of East Pakistan. I hail from Calcutta.
(No other counsel wishes to cross-examine the witness.)
Chairman.
Member
Member.
Page: 88
DEPOSITION OF P.W. 243, MR. MIRAJ HUSSAIN
ON SOLEMN AFFIRMATION:
My name is Miraj Hossain, son of Mvi. Seraj Hussain, aged 45 years, by faith Muslim, I am Dy. Secretary in the Home Affairs Division, Government of Pakistan, Islamabad.
I am Deputy Secretary, Government of Pakistan at Islamabad in the Home Affairs Division. I have been there since October, 1966. Mr. A.W. Awan is my Secretary. I know his signature and hand-writing. This petition of a complaint lodged before the Tribunal in this case bears the signature of Mr. A. B. Awan, the Secretary. It is dated the 28th of May, 1968. It also bears his seal. The annexure-l of this petition of the complaint is also signed by him. List ‘A’ annexed to this petition of the complaint is also signed by him. The list of accused persons also bears his signature. The list of witnesses accompanying the complaint also bears his signature at the end. The list of documents accompanying the petition of the complaint also bears his signature. The list of articles and the set of 35 charges also bear the signatures of Mr. A.B. Awan, my Secretary, Annexure-11 also bears the signature of Mr. Awan.
(CROSS-EXAMINATION)
. PW243 (partial), PW244, PW245, PW246 and PW247 (partial) documents missing.
Page: 89
SPECIAL TRIBUNAL
Record of Proceedings
22.1.1969.
PRESENT:
Mr. Justice S. A. Rahman, H.Pk., Chairman.
Mr. Justice M. R. Khan, S.Pk., Member.
Mr. Justice Maksum-ul-Hakim, Member.
For the Prosecution …… As before.
For the defence …… As before.
Accused present …… As before.
Witness on oath ….. As before.
CROSS-EXAMINATION OF P. W. 247, MAJOR A. B. NASER CONTINUED:
TO MR. ABDUS SALAM KHAN:
I have brought the register from the Punjab Officers’ Mess maintained by the J.C.Os. showing their change of duties from time to time. This would not show whether any of the accused persons or any of the detenus was absent from there at any time. This register relates to the last year there starting from December, 1968. The covering letter with which this Register has been forwarded to me from the Officers’ Mess is on this file. The previous record has been destroyed as this covering letter mentions. No Adjutant is in charge of any mess. There is one
Page: 90
Adjutant in every battalion. The guard duties fall within the function of the Adjutant who arranges this duty for every battalion. I do not know if it any time the rule was that do detenu would be taken out for interrogating without the permission of the C.O. Col. Staff. This may have been the position before the present rules were framed but I am not aware of it. The present rules were framed on 6th May, 1968. For the period from February to May I was not aware of any rules framed by the Adjutant with regard to such interrogation. In those days if anyone had to be taken out for interrogation the orders would have been passed by the C.O. by Col. Sher Ali Baz. (The witness was handed over a paper containing instructions issued by the Adjutant, 3rd Punjab.) He says in these rules which were apparently framed by the Adjutant the C.O. means commanding officer of the battalion and Col. Staff would mean an officer who is holding appointment as such at Div. Headquarters, who orders in the absence of the C.O. of the battalion. No arrangement has been made so far to provide a Bengali cook to cater to the needs of the Bengali detenus. I am aware that this matter was mentioned in court and the Court observed that some arrangements should if possible be made. All the officers of the Pakistan Army and Navy of the detention camp have to pay for their food taken from the mess. It is not possible for the military authority to provide a separate cook in the same mess for the Bengali gentlemen under detention, even if they offer to pay for the cook. We do not work on such a system. If a person was taken out for interrogation at the time when these rules were taken out for interrogation at the time when these rules framed by the adjutant were in force, the fact of taking out for that purpose would have been noted down in the J.C.Os, register. I am not aware have been done by the battalion concerned. It is not true that this forwarding letter has been merely produced to say that the previous registers have been destroyed because of my cross-examination. It is completely incorrect to say that after I had sent a requisition to the 3rd Punjab to send previous registers maintained by the J.C.Os’, they have all been taken away and made to disappear. The Duty Officer in the 3rd Punjab means an Officer detailed by the battalion
Page: 91
every day for the duty with the detenus. The duty officer would be a junior commissioned officer. (The instructions and rules issued by the Adjutant of the 3rd Punjab have now marked Ext. DGI/3). I do not know if the diary mentioned in Rule I of the Adjutant’s Rules to be maintained by the J.C.O. on duty, is now available or not. Whatever record has been sent by the 3rd Punjab, I have produced. The J.C.O. on duty would not sit in the room of the detenu himself, but he would either sit in the verandah or in a special room earmarked for that purpose. It is not correct that before the trial commenced in this court there were guards deputed to live in the room with the detenus, contrary to the rules. No persons are ever detailed to live with the officer detained, in the same room. It is not correct that I deputed any person to stay with a detenu in the same room with him during the night.
Nor would any such person be deputed to stay with the detenu in the same room during the day. Only if the detenu called the officer on duty inside, he would go and talk to him. Close arrest means that once an officer or J.C.O. is to be under close arrest, he remains under guard, but the guard remains outside. In the case of Officers, however, only an officer senior to him or of the same rank would stay with the officer detained, in the same room with him. It is not within my knowledge that the J.C.Os were ordered to stay day and night with the officers detained, in the same room, till the commencement of the trail. It is not correct that the J.C.Os were detailed to stay with the officers, in the J.C.Os, were detained to stay with the officers, in the same room, with the object of putting them to mental distress, to insult them and to make then confess falsely in this case. At least I am not aware of it. I know Subedar Abdur Razaque from among the accused. It is not correct that this accused was kept under constant interrogation for 4/5 days without being given any food in order to extort a false confession from him and that on one occasion I took pity on him and gave a piece of bread to him. I am not aware of that on 7.5.68. Lt. Commander Moazzem Hossain complained to the C.O. about misbehaviours of a J.C.O. Col. Shakoor was at one
Page: 92
time C.O. of the Punjab Battalion. I am not aware whether any such complaint was made to him. It is not correct that I took Major Hasan several times to Lt. Commander Moazzem Hossain who was then made to write a false confession which was corrected by Major Hasan in his own hand. The accused officers, in this case, were under close arrest. I see here a letter dated 3rd January 1968, intimating to Capt. Muttalib that he was being placed under close arrest with immediate effect. It is signed by Major Mohiuddin Ahmed, DAA & QMC, Peshawar. (This document is now marked as DGI/4). Capt. Muttalib belongs to the some regiments as I do. I am not aware of any incident during which Capt. Shaukat Ali Mia may have been correct into making a false confessional statement with the inducement that he would be cited as a witness in this case and that even the number of the witness he was supposed to be, was cited on the document. It is not correct to say that before representations were made by the Defence Counsel to the Tribunal the detenus were insulted by Junior Officer or that they were maltreated in respect of food and other matters.
It is not correct that the detenus who are accused in this case were brought out on the pretext of exercise from their rooms and made to stand in front of the places where the approvers were being kept, so that the approvers might see them. It is not correct that the photograph of the accused persons taken by the CID photographer was shown to the approvers before the identification parades were held. Lt. Commander Moazzem Hossain used to stay in the 3rd Punjab Mess. There is a VIP House in the Cantonment. That is about 2 to 3 furlongs from the 3rd Punjab Mess. I am not aware that on one occasion Lt. Com. Moazzem Hossain was taken out from the 3rd Punjab Mess to the VIP House. When I was the Assistant Officer-in-charge of the detenus, orders may have been given without my knowledge for taking the detenus outside the Cantonment. Lt. Com. Moazzem Hossain was never kept in the VIP House during his period of detention in the Cantonment. It is not correct that Mr. K. M. S. Rahman, Lt. Com. Moazzem Hossain, Std. Mujibur Rahman and L. S. Sultanuddin Ahmed were taken out from their rooms
Page: 93
to the lawn opposite the room where Capt. Alim Bhuiyan and Capt. Shawkat Ali were being kept.
TO MR. MD. ISMAIL:
I did produce certain accused persons before a Magistrate or at least I brought them to the Magistrate’s room but I did not know whether they were tendered pardon by the Magistrate. Nor can I say that Corporal Serajul Islam was among those who were produced before a Magistrate for tendering pardon. I do not know where the tendered of pardons was made by the Magistrate to certain accused persons. I only brought the accused persons to be produced here in this building in the Signals Mess. I never went inside the room where the Magistrate sat to produce the accused persons. I only brought them to the place outside the room, I cannot remember if Corporal Serajul Islam and Sgt. Abdul Halim were amongst those accused persons whom I brought outside the Court of the Magistrate here. I am 6 feet and la inches in height. I may be described as having a fair complexion. I have a moustache. I am slightly bald also.
TO. MR. ATAUR RAHMAN KHAN:
Ali Reza, accused was being kept in the Barrack Lines. He is getting his food from the JCO Mess and not from the Jawans Mess. He has not paid for it. He wanted some extra things over and above the food supplied to him and therefore some payment was demanded. It is not correct that he was being given Jawans’ food and he asked for JCOs food and so he was directed to make payment. The status of the accused persons was determined in accordance with the last pay drawn while in service and the status that he was holding in the service. I am not aware that Ali Reza was a Class 1 Officer while he was on NIPA before his arrest. I know that an application was moved before this Tribunal for fixing his status as Class 1 Officer, and treating him accordingly. We replied to the query made by the Tribunal but no change of his status was made. It is incorrect that he was not allowed to have a mosquito-net till September, 1968. The Army does not provide any mosquito-net. It is not correct that no toilet goods were allowed to be supplied to him even from
Page: 94
outside until that case started for trial. It is not correct that money orders were sent from his father twice and were refused, I do not know if he received any money order. I am not aware if he was interrogated in the month of February, 1968 by Col. Sher Ali Baz. It is not correct that I brought him to Major Hasan for interrogation on 11.5.68 at 10 a.m. and that Major Hasan coerced him to become an approver saying that this was his last chance to save himself. It is not correct that I took him several times to Col. Sher Ali Baz in order that he might become an approver. It is correct that the accused complained to me sometimes that the food was not properly cooked and not to their taste. We did not change the cook for that because we could not interfere with the administration of the battalion. I did not make any recommendation to the administration to change the cook on the ground that he was not able to prepare proper food. It is not correct that Std. Mujibur Rahman was made to lie down on an ice-block on the floor. The cheque and the letter which Capt. Khurshiduddin Ahmed gave to me for being sent to his wife, were in an envelope on which the address of his wife was written. The Chit Ext. P.W.238/20 was given to me by Capt. Khurshiduddin Ahmed before he had handed over the envelope containing the letter and the cheque to me. He wanted to find out if his wife had returned to Dacca or not and that is why he gave me this Chit. This chit might have been given to me one day earlier than the envelope. The address on the envelope must have been the same as on the chit. I sent a person from the S.B. Officer, Dacca, to ascertain whether she was in Dacca or not. I did not know where she lived in Dacca and with whom she lived. The constable reported back to me that she was in Dacca. I handed over the envelope to the person containing the letter and the cheque to be delivered to his wife. It was not posted because it was not stamped. No receipt was taken from his wife for the letter and the cheque when they were delivered to her. I did not know if Capt. Khurshiduddin Ahmed issued no cheque to his wife. I did see the cheque but I cannot remember whether it was in the name of his wife or somebody else. The chit Ext. P.W.238/20 was just retained by Chance in my office. I did not know if Capt. Khurshiduddin Ahmed had a joint bank account with his wife. I did not hand over this slip to the Police. I do not know who produced this slip to
Page: 95
the Court. This was taken from me by one of the members of the S.B. Team who was working here under Mr. Khaleque. I do not remember if a seizure list was prepared when it was taken. It might have been in the month of May or June that this document had been taken away from me by the S.B. Officer. I think this slip was made by Capt. Khurshiduddin Ahmed by tearing it from the calendar which was hanging in his room. He had a pencil to write on. He wrote this in his room when he called me in. I got typed forms for Income Tax returns prepared for all officers under detention and issued them for filling them up probably in September, 1968. We have to send these forms to the Income Tax Officer, Military Circle. I sent them into the Military Circle. I submitted even this from Ext. P.W. 233/21. This document here is the official copy which has been retained in my office. The forms submitted were in triplicate. Two copies were sent to the Income Tax Officer and the office copy was retained in my office. I do not know if the 3 copies were filled up separately or by placing carbon papers between them. There is no indication in this document that this is an official copy. Office copy of the Income Tax Returned has been kept for every officer. Some of these were handed over to the accused officers who asked for them.
Capt. Nuruzzaman did arrive in Dacca in the month of May, 1968 from Quetta and he was put into the Ordnance Officers Mess. It is incorrect to say that I took him to Major Hasan on the 10th of May, 1968 and that he was asked to become a witness against Col. Osmani, Mr. K. M. S. Rahman and Capt. Huda on the ground that he must have known them while he was at Chittagong and that Capt. Nuruz Zaman declined to do so and he was threatened with being made an accused and being sentenced to death. I am not aware if from time to time Major Hasan put pressure on him after that. I do not remember the date but I did shift this Officer from the Ordnance Mess to the 14 Div. Officers Mess. I did not tell him that he was under arrest after I had brought him there. From the date he landed here he was supposed to be under arrest and that is why he was placed in the Ordnance Officers Mess. He was under open arrest and therefore, he used to attend office in the month of May, 1968. He was not, however, allowed to go to the city. I am not aware that on the date he was brought to the Div. Mess this accused had gone to the civil
Page: 96
Secretariat, Dacca to ask for allotment of land for Col. A. T. K. Huq as requested by Major Rizivi. It is not correct that I was waiting for him till 1.40 p.m. that day and when he came from the Secretariat, I told him that he was under arrest.
TO MR. ZAHIRUDDIN AHMED:
Arrest of Army Officer would mean arrest under the Army Act unless otherwise specified. If an officer is placed under arrest under that Act and Rules thereunder. Under the Army Act and Rules custody means arrest. I am not aware if the correct position under the Army Act is that if an officer or a J.C.O. is under close arrest, he will not be permitted to go out for exercise without the specific advice of the Medical Officer. I never received any charge sheet in respect of any officer detained under my charge. According to the rules, if a charge sheet is framed against an officer, witness has to be questioned in his presence and he has to be allowed to cross-examine them. Besides the officers I have named as members of the Interrogation Team at Dacca, there may have been two or three other officers included among them. All the officers I have named as members of the Team are from West Pakistan. Capt. Mannan was the officer-in-charge of the F.I.G., in Dacca. He is now Major, G.S. 11 Mujahids means General Staff Officer for training Mujahids. It is incorrect to say that my appointment. I have never served in M.I. (Military Intelligence) in my service period; nor have I never served in the InterService Intelligence. It was not a part of my duty as G.S.11 Mujahid to interrogated people. I was given to the Team of the Interrogators by orders of the Hqrs. of the 14 Division. It is incorrect to say that I also interrogated Capt. Huda at Rawalpindi. I was in Pindi in January, 1968. It is incorrect to say that I interrogated Capt. Huda for three hours on the 13th of January, 1968 at Rawalpindi Interrogation Centre. I do not know whether the accused officers were escorted to Pindi or they went of their own when they were called for interrogation to Pindi. I am not aware that the officers mentioned in Ext. DG(1) /4 and DG(1)/1 were first arrested and then interrogated in Pindi. I am not aware that Capt. Huda was also called to Pindi under a similar signal. It is incorrect to say that I was
Page: 97
appointed as G.S.11 Mujahid in late January, 1968 or early February, 1968. It is incorrect to say that I was only detailed on temporary duty in East Pakistan in November and December, 1967 with Lt. Col. Amir, Lt. Col. Hasan and Major Cheema. I saw these officers mentioned, for the first time in East Pakistan in December, 1967. It is incorrect to say that I in collusion with the other officers mentioned was trying to build up a case against Army Officers. In Pindi, I saw only Col. Hasan and not Major Cheema and Col. Amir. There was no specific written order to me for interrogation if Lt. Com. Moazzem Hossain and Sub. Abdur Razzak.
I questioned the persons concerned during interrogation, about their social activities as well as their private movements during the period concerned.
I do not know whether Capt. Huda was kept in Rawalpindi from 5th January to 23rd January, 1968; nor did I try to find out where he came to Pindi. It is incorrect to say that I tortured Capt. Huda during interrogation and that I was present when he was brutally tortured by the Interrogation Team in Rawalpindi. It is also incorrect to say that after the torture he was also threatened with the Firing Squad. Corps 0-11 is issued relating to all casualties.
The daily parade statement reflects the strengths of the battalion or unit. This will also show as to which officers are in the hospital and which officers are present. Every mess maintains a mess register. The names of the officers who take their lunch and dinner are entered in this register. If any guest officer is allowed to stay in the mess then his name also will appear in the register provided he stays for more than 4/5 days. In every mess, there is a Mess Secretary. It is not correct to say that I personally inflicted punishment on Std. Mujibur Rahman and tied him-up-side-down with ropes. Though the flight sergeants claim that they are of the rank of J.C.O’s, but according to our rules they are not. Flt. Sgt. Mafizullah is not entitled to be treated as J.C.O. for messing purposes. It is not correct to say that I am treating one of the accused persons who is a Flight Sergeant as J.C.O. for mess purposes. It is not correct to say that all the officers were placed under solitary confinement except Captain Shawkat Ali Mia and Capt. Abdul Alim
Page: 98
during the period from January to 23rd May, Sgt. Shamsuddin was not kept in the officers’ mess. He was in the same premises but not in the same building where the officers live. Apart from the rooms meant for the officers’ accommodation in the building there are also servants ‘quarters’ Sgt. Shamsuddin was kept in one of these Servants’ Quarters. For the Servants’ Quarters, the same kind of food from the ‘Langar’ mess is supplied. It is not correct to say that Sgt. Shamsuddin was housed in the officers’ mess and was given food from the same mess. Nor is it correct to say that this was done to provide an inducement to him to give evidence in favour of the prosecution. When a person is punished in the army, he is always kept in the quarter guard. It is not correct that I have been asking the accused not to engage any lawyers from outside but to ask for State lawyers for them. It is completely incorrect to say that I tried to persuade Flt. Sgt. Mafizullah to be a witness in this case and for that purpose, I produced him before Major Hasan on the 3rd May, 1968. Nor is it correct to say that when he refused to do so, then I got him identified by Lt. Mozammel Hossain. It is not correct to say that in the middle of February, 1968 Capt. Huda wrote an application alleging torture to the Central Government and next day I in the company of Lt. Col. Manik, A.Q. of the 14th Div. went to him and tore off that application in his presence saying that no such nonsense would be tolerated. I do not remember now how many names of the persons were given to me for being mentioned to the persons to be interrogated at Rawalpindi. It is incorrect to say that these names were given to me for implicating the accused persons with these persons. It is not correct to say that I interrogated Capt. Muttalib on the 12th and 13th January, 1968 and that I assaulted him at that time with kicks on his back and chest. Lt. Sharif was not present in this interrogation at Pindi. I do not know whether he was present at the time of interrogation at Dacca. He was allotted the duty of looking after the Navy Personnel’s administration as a Liaison Officer. Lt. Sharif used to help in maintaining liaison with the navy and for getting papers and documents from the Navy in connection with the detenus. I do not remember whether we had an officer of the Air force of similar rank
Page: 99
with us. Lt. Sharif had nothing to do with the administration of the Military custody. It is not correct to say that I and Lt. Sharif assaulted P.W. Kamaluddin when he was in detention. I know Ex-Naib Subedar Jalaluddin Ahmed. I met him only once or twice in the cantonment at the F.I.C. centre. He never lived in this centre. Nor did he leave his address with me. I do not know at what address he was informed to come and depose in this case.
It is not known to me whether he used to come in an Army vehicle to give evidence in this court. It is completely wrong to say that I kept him in my house. My house is in the cantonment Bazer area. I had been staying there since the arrival of my family on the 3rd or 4th May, 1968. There is no other officer to my knowledge staying in the cantonment bazar with the name of Major Aslam besides myself. I did not meet any witness named A. K. Roy in this case. No such witness was interrogated here to my knowledge. It is incorrect to say that A. K. Roy was brought into a room full of whips and I showed those whips to him. It is not correct to say that after inhuman torture on Capt. Huda, was given a prepared statement and he was forced to read out the same before a Magistrate. It is not correct to say that when he refused to do so, he was brought back and threatened with a firing squad and that after 40 minutes he was taken inside again and put up before the Magistrate. It is not correct to say that one of the forms of torture that was inflicted on those officers in Pindi was to keep them in the open with under-pants only in the month of January and then to through cold water over them. It is incorrect to say that all these confessions have been extracted from them by threat and inducement. It is not correct to say that all these confessions of these accused persons are false and not voluntary. It is incorrect to say that these confessions were obtained by torture, threat or inducement.
TO MR. ABDULLAH.
When I went to Pindi for interrogating the accused persons, I was deputed there on temporary attachment. I was there throughout the month of January, 1968. I was called there for this specific purpose. It is
Page: 100
not within my knowledge that the Commanding Officer of Capt. Shawkat Ali Mia did not know the reasons for his arrest although he arrested him. I do not know whether Capt. Shawkat Ali was taken to Pindi under Military escort from Malik. I do not know why these accused officers taken to Pindi for interrogation and then brought to Dacca. I do not know whether Capt. Shawkat was kept in a cell in Pindi and then interrogated. I do not know whether he was tortured mentally and physically for making a false confession. I do not know whether Capt. Shawkat was brought back to Dacca on 24.1.68 and then kept in the Officers’ mess in the Div. Headquarter. It is completely incorrect to say that Capt. Shaukat was tortured continuously for 3 days during the third week of February in the 14th Div. V.I.P. house by Lt. Sharif. It is completely incorrect to say that he was allowed to sleep for three days and that he used to become unconscious during the course of the torture. It is not correct to say that Capt. Shawkat Ali subsequent to the torture by Lt. Sharif, persuasion and promise of Major Hasan, agreed to become an approver and make a false confession.
I did not segregate the approvers from the rest while they were in military custody. I did not keep some of the approvers together in one room. It is not correct to say that Capt. Shawkat, Capt. Alim and Lt. Mozammel were put together in one room. It is not correct to say that these 3 officers were put together in room No.7A from 26.4.68 to 3.5.68. It is true that at the beginning these accused persons under military custody were not allowed to meet their family members. It is not correct to say that Capt. Alim was allowed to interview his wife on 23.2.68 and then again in the first week of April, 1968. It is incorrect to say that Capt. Shawkat was allowed to interview his wife on 10.3.68 and on 20.3.68. It is true that Lt. Sharif, Lt. Col. Sher Ali Baz and Major Hasan lived in the same Mess with detenus. Major Hasan was not a member of the Military Investigation Team. It is not known to me whether Major Hasan advised the Military Interrogation Team and the Investigation Team on the line of their interrogation Team and the Investigation. It is not known to me whether Major Hasan took Capt. Shawkat and Magistrate Mr. Kardi in a
Page: 101
jeep to the VIP room for recording the confession of Capt. Shawkat on 4.3.68. I came to know Mr. Khaleque, S.S.P, S.B. since last May or June or maybe a month before that.
I do not remember where I first saw him. During the first month, I used to see him in the Div. Headquarters in Cantonment Area. I used to contact Mr. Khaleque because I was told by Col. Sher-Ali-Baz that he was overall in-charge of the Investigation Team of this case and therefore anything concerning the detenus should be reported to him.
Page: 102
SPECIAL TRIBUNAL
Record of Proceedings
Present.
23.1.1969.
Mr. Justice S.A. Rahman, H.Pk., Chairman.
Mr. Justice M.R. Khan S.Pk., Member.
Mr. Justice Maksum-ul-Hakim, Member.
For the Prosecution ….. As before.
For the Defence ….. As before.
Accused present ….. As before.
Witness on oath ….. As before.
CROSS-EXAMINATION OF P.W. 247, MAJOR A.B. NASER CONTINUED
TO MR. ZULMAT ALI KHAN
The status of Manik Choudhury was determined not by me but by Col. Sher Ali Baz. I did not enquire from him as to how he had determined his status. It is not within my knowledge that in 1966 after an enquiry, Government had put him in Class I as prisoner under the D.P.R. My answer would be the same in respect of Mr. Bidhan Krishna Sen. When I took over the charge from Col. Sher Ali Baz I was not handed over any register showing the names and particulars of the detenus. Each
Page: 103
detention Camp had, however, a list of detenus detained there. I saw that list. In list, it is not mentioned when a particular detenu arrived at the camp. I do not say that the detenus arrived in the camp all at one time. I asked the Battalion administrator to forward the list of detenus concerned, which the Tribunal required. Manik Choudhury was given the status of the JCOs. Expect for the CSP officers the other civil accused were placed in the Category of JCOs.
I see here the Canteen Bills of Mr. Bidhan Sen and Mr. Manik Choddhury although they are described as Mess Bills. These are the charges for the extra things that might have been ordered. These are not the Bills for the regular ration food supplied to them. These Bills are now marked as Ext. DG(1) 75,6&7). Ext. DG (1) /6 does say that Rs. 20/- was paid as advance by Manik Choudhury. It is incorrect that Manik Choudhury complained to me that he was being given other ranks food and that in spite of protest I took no action. It is not correct that Manik Choudhury is getting his food even now from the other ranks Mess. The names of the accused persons who are supplied food from the JCOs Mess would not appear in the Mess Register. The particular cookhouse which supplied food through the waiters would be maintaining some accounts of how many people were taking food from their Mess. The accounts can be called through the Battalion administration. It is not my duty to go and see the accounts for the extra food supplied from the Mess. I see here another Bill handed over to me from the JCOs Mess which contains a special item for extra messing and an item which relates to charges for rations from 1st to 4th January, 1968 and from 12th to 17th January, 1968 Rs. 1.50 paisa’ per day to telling Rs. 23.32 paisa. I do not know marked as Ext. DG (1)/8). To my mind, if they do not take any extra food from the Mess, they should not be given any Bill.
It is not correct that I am suppressing the facts because the food was not supplied to Manik Choudhury from the JCOs Mess but from the other ranks Mess. I had the occasion to meet P.W. Amir Hossain from February, 1968 till the time the Tribunal seat. I did not take P.W. Amir Hossain out of the detention camp where he was being kept. I do not
Page: 104
remember if he was taken out from the detention camp in the month of May, 1968, as far as I can remember, Amir Hossain Mia was shifted from the Signal’s Mess to the Div. Mess in May, 1968. He is still in the Div. Mess. Both Manik Choudhury and Bidhan Sen were in the Battalion Mess in February, 1968. It is completely incorrect to say that I took Amir Hossain Mia to that Battalion Mess and showed Manik Choudhury and Bidhan Sen to him at that time. I met Capt. Sultan but not Sqdn. Leader Shamsur Rahman, Lt. Col. Amir Mohammad and Major Mustafiz in Dacca when I arrived here. I had also seen Lt. Col. Amir Mohammad when I came to Dacca. I do not think that I saw Major Hasan at that time at Dacca. I had also seen Col. Golam Hasan then. I did not see Brigadier Akbar at the Dacca Cantonment at that time. I am not aware of his posting in the Dacca Cantonment. It must have been at the end of December that I saw him the Dacca Cantonment. I do not know whether he had his office near the Kashmir Gate. I did not interrogate Bidhan Krishna Sen. I do not know Mr. A.Q. Choudhury, Magistrate, 1st Class, Dacca. I might have conveyed information to the S.S.P. about the T.I. parade and not directly to the Magistrate. I may have talked to the Magistrate when he may have come to the T.I. a parade where I took the Magistrate. I then set in the same building when the T.I. parade was held. I myself did not attend the T.I parade while it was being held. The T.I. parade was held in the detention camp in the battalion Lines. It was held in a room provided for that purpose. That room would be 30′ x 40′ ft. in dimensions. It is not correct that the adjacent rooms to that room were the custody rooms. I do not know Mr. Afsaruddin Ahmed, Magistrate, 1st Class, Dacca by name. I must have met 2 or 3 Magistrates in the Dacca Cantonment in connection with this case. I do not know the name of anyone of them. I do not know if Mr. Afsaruddin Ahmed, Magistrate, 1s’ Class, Dacca is of short stature, leaden and thin person. I did not take any Magistrate to the room of any detenu. I did not accompany Lt. Sharif to any detenu. It is incorrect that Manik Choudhury handed over to me a letter addressed to the United Bank Ltd. BPIDC Branch, Motijheel, Dacca and that I promised to deliver it involving himself and other
Page: 105
political leaders or involving P.N. Ojha. I am not aware of any such incident and I do not know if he was severely beaten for refusing to do so. I am not aware that on 16.12.1967 Major Mustafiz along with other officers mentioned above asked Manik Choudhury to make statement according to their wishes and on refusal Major Mustafiz jumped upon him and forced open his shirt and pajama and put him into a drum full of ice and water and asked the attendant to hold him there.
I am not aware whether any statement was taken by Major Mustafiz from Manik Choudhury and that he took his signature on a typed statement. It is incorrect that I was connected with the investigation of this case. It is incorrect that I went to Rajarbagh to interrogate some of the accused persons there. It is completely incorrect to say that although it is within my knowledge, I am suppressing the fact that the story about Manik Choudhury’s becoming a link between Mr. Ojha had been invented by the Investigating Team in order to provide a link between the Indian Embassy and the accused in this case because he is a Hindu. It is incorrect that it is within my knowledge and that I am suppressing the fact that B.k. Sen has been implicated because of this business relationship with Manik Choudhury and his connection with the Awami League. It is not within my knowledge that the Investigation team wanted to make B.K. Sen a false witness against the other accused. I had got the registers of C.M.H., Comilla and C.M.H., Dacca on requisition received from the Special Investigation Team. The requisition must be in my file in my office. I cannot remember the date on which it was received. Whatever papers were required from the military side by the investigation team, the requisition used to be sent to me.
I know Ris. Shamsul Huq but it is incorrect that he was second in command of my squadron. I do not know if he was a Squadron Technical Officer. I have heard about Major Ashraf. He was the Officer Commanding of the Squadron to which Ris. Shamsul Huq belonged. I am not aware if Ris. Shamsul Huq refused to adjust the private journeys of Major Ashraf in the accounts and therefore, he bore him a grudge. It is incorrect that Lt. Sharif and I had tortured Std. Mujibur Rahman and Flt. Sgt. Razzak from the 11th December to the 17th December, 1967. A
Page: 106
corporal is not an officer. I know that Amir Hossain Mia was an ExCorporal. I do not know on what basis he was kept in the Officer’s Mess. It is completely incorrect to say that I and Lt. Sharif tortured A. B. Khurshid from 18.1.1968 to 2nd of February, 1968. I know Capt. Mannan. He is the C.O. Field Interrogation Centre in Dacca. I think he is an East Pakistani. My answer would be the same if in respect of Flt. Sgt. Razzak the dates of alleged torture are altered to the 19th December to 29th December, 1967. I am not aware of the procedure for tender of pardon to an accused. It is not correct that I made a suggestion to Corpl. Serajul Islam to find out whether he would be willing to become an approver and when his consent was obtained I arranged for him to become an approver. It is incorrect to say that I told him that if he became an approver he would be discharged from the case provided he made a full disclosure of the facts in connection with this case. It is incorrect that I made this suggestion to him 2 or 3 times. I am not aware of any incident as alleged that on 24th January, 1968. Major Mustafiz, Major Hasan and Col. Amir Mohammad assaulted Manik Choudhury because he had sent an application to the Home Secretary, East Pakistan, alleging torture and that Major Hasan told him that his application to the Home Secretary had been thrown into the waste paper basket. A requisition was previously received by me asking for the alleged applications sent by Manik Choudhury but our reply was that we had not received any such application in our Hqrs. This requisition was made by the Special Team from the S. B. office. I sent this official reply to them. I do not remember the date when I sent this reply. The office copy of my reply would be in my file.
It is not correct to say that I am withholding deliberately the applications submitted by Manik Choudhury dated 18.3.68 and 28.3.68 addressed to the Commanding Officer, Security Control, 14″” Division Dacca. It is completely incorrect to say that after he had submitted such applications I came to Manik Choudhury and told him not to submit any such application in future and threatened him with serious consequences. On Wednesday in every week beef is supplied to the detenus. It is correct that on one occasion by mistake of the waiter, beef was supplied to
Page: 107
Manik Choudhury and Bidhan Krishna Sen, but when it was pointed out, the mistake was corrected and alternative food was supplied. This mistake was corrected then and there and not after it had been mentioned in this Court. It is completely incorrect to say that Manik Choudhury and Bidhan Krishna Sen had to go without food on several Wednesdays because of the serving of beef to them. I have brought the movement orders with regard to M.M. Rameez and Dr. Saidur Rahman Choudhury. The Movement orders were addressed to the Field Intelligence Unit which was placed in charge of the custody of these two persons when they were taken to Chittagong to see their sick relatives. The Field Intelligence Unit has its headquarters at Dacca but they have a branch in Chittagong. I am not aware that Major Hasan gave typed statement to Manik Choudhury to read out before the Magistrate and that he read it out before the Magistrate varying certain recitals therein, in order not to incriminate himself. It was yesterday that I issued a reply to the requisition made by Mr. Khaleque about these petitions of Manik Choudhury and my reply was that we had received no such application in our headquarters. The requisition said that the applications had been made to the Commanding Officer, Security Control, 14th Div. Dacca.
There is no such Commanding Officer in the 14th Div. and no such organisation as Security Control in this headquarters. Therefore, I only consulted the 14h Div. headquarters for such applications. I have not enquired from other offices about these applications because the requisition was addressed to me. There is G.O.C. in the 14h Division. This is a detachment of the Field Intelligence Unit at Chittagong. If I said in this Court before that their custody was transferred to the Naval authority at Chittagong, I must have mixed up matters. The correct position is that they were given into the custody of F.I.U. Lt. Sharif, Major Mustafiz, Capt. Sultan Hossain Shah, Sqdn. Leader Shamsur Rahman, Lt. Col. Amir Mohammad. Lt. Col. Hasan and Major Hasan are still in service and are in Pakistan. I was never in charge of the Field Intelligence Unit at Lahore. Lt. Sharif is a Pakistan Naval Officer. I see here a postcard addressed to Mr. Ali Reza purporting to be from his father. It must have been censored by me. The recital in it is to the effect
Page: 108
that twice money orders had been sent to him and were returned. Those, however, are incorrect. (The post-card is now marked Ext. DG 1/9.) It is completely incorrect to suggest that the papers showing the transfer to the custody of Dr. Saidar Rahman and Mr. Rameez to the Field Intelligence Unit have been manufactured by us after the question had been raised before this tribunal. I received a summons from this Tribunal some days back. I did not meet Major Hasan before coming to this tribunal to depose in this case. I did not talk to any other officer before coming to this Court as to what facts I shall have to depose to in this case.
TO MR. MD. FAZLUL KARIM
It is incorrect to say that I handed over a photograph of Sergeant Shamsul Huq, accused to P.W. Amir Hossain Mia in order that he may identify Sergeant Shamsul Huq before the Court. I did not put Sergeant Shamsul Huq in the quarter guard from the 6th March to 2nd July, 1968. I never put any question with regard to the alleged disparity between the two wings of Pakistan to any of the persons whom I interrogated at Rawalpindi.
(No other counsel wishes to cross-examine the witness.)
Admitted to be correct.
Chairman.
Member.
Member.
Page: 109
DEPOSITION OF P.W.248, MR. M. A. JALIL
ON SOLEMN AFFIRMATION
My name is M. A. Jalil, son of late Md. Abdur Razzaque, aged 35 years, by faith Muslim. I am Manager (Life), East Pakistan Co-operative Insurance Society Ltd., Dacca.
TO MR. T.H. KHAN
I am Manager (Life), East Pakistan Co-operative Insurance Society Ltd, Dacca. I was summoned by this Tribunal to bring some papers with me and I have brought them. The first sheet of the papers shown to me is known as the case summary sheet. (It is now marked Ext. P.W.248/1.) This concerns Policy No.4287 issued in the name of Abdus Samad of village Mithakhali, P.O. Mathbaria, Dist. Bakerganj. He is a son of late Enteali Mridha according to the proposal of the policy, which follows that sheet. (This proposal is marked Ext.P.W.248/2.) It is a life assurance proposal. The name of the nominee of the proposal is Habibur Rahman, his son aged 10 years. I see before me a temporary receipt in relation to this policy. (This is now marked as Ext. P.W. 248/3). This is dated. 5.7.67. The receipt is for an amount of Rs.85.27 paisa which is the halfyearly premium for the Life Insurance Policy. This is actually a renewal premium for the Policy which was taken out in June, 1965. Whenever we receive any correspondence from the Policyholder we keep these communications in the respective Policy file. The post-card now marked as Ext.P.W.248/4 relates to this Policy and it was written by the policyholder. This post-card now marked as Ext. P.W. 248/5 also relates to this Policy but was written by one Bazlur Rahman. He is apparently
Page: 110
the son of the Policyholder. I see here before me a money order couponnow marked as Ext. P.W.248/6. This relates to this Policy and concerns the remittance of premium which however was not adjusted because the Policy itself lapsed and some other formalities were required in this regard. These formalities have not yet been compiled with.
CROSS-EXAMINATION OF P. W.248.
TO MR. ZAHIRUDDIN
Mr. F. Haque was our Ex-Managing Director. He was also our General Manager at one time. He was the General Manager in 1965. At that time I was the Assistant Manager. Mr. Moidul Islam was the Manager at that time. Both Mr. Moidul Islam and Mr. F. Haque are alive and they are in Dacca. I am responsible now for the overall Life Department. As Assistant Manager also I had something to do with this Policy. I assessed this case.
TO MR. AMINUL HUQ
I see before me a Policy issued to one Mr. Ruhul Quddus, CSP of Road No.18, House No. 618A, Dhanmondi, Dacca, from our Company. (This is now marked as Ext. DH (1)/1.) This was taken out on 18.8.67.
NOTE: The receipt shown to the witness, Ext. P.W.248/3, is stated by Mr. T.H. Khan, learned Counsel for the Prosecution, to have been taken out from the pocket of the ‘RUPALI DIARY’ Ext. P.W.45/6.
(No other counsel wishes to cross-examine the witness).
Chairman.
Member.
Member.
Page: 111
CORRECTION
23.1.1969
P.W. 248, Mr. M.A. Jalil has read over his statement to himself and states that it has been correctly recorded.
Chairman.
Member.. Member.
Page: 112
DEPOSITION OF P.W.249 MD. ABDUL JALIL
ON SOLEMN AFFIRMATION
My name is Md. Abdul Jalil, son of late Munshi Mohammad Abed Ali, aged 39 years, by faith a Muslim, I am serving in the Office of the Deputy Comptroller, P & T Department as a Lower Division Assistant.
TO MR. T.H. KHAN
I am a Lower Division Assistant in the Office of the Deputy Comptroller, Post & Telegraph Department. I was summoned to this Court and was directed to bring some papers and I have brought them with me. These are the 2 money order paid vouchers which I have brought which are now marked as Ext. P.W. 249/1 and P.W. 249/2. These documents I have brought from my office wherein these are maintained in due course of official business. I see before me a receipt for money order which is now marked as Ext. P.W. 249/3.
(NOTE: Mr. T.H. Khan, learned prosecution counsel, took it out from the pocket of the ‘Rupali Diary’ Ext. P.W.45/6.
Mr. Zulmat Ali Khan, learned counsel for the Defence, states that he found no such receipt in the pocket of the ‘Rupali Diary’ when he inspected the Diary in June or July, 1968.) This is another receipt of the Post Office of Money order section now marked as Ext. P.W. 249/4. This receipt bears the seal of the Post Office. New Market, which is dated 6.7.67.
Page: 113
CROSS-EXAMINATION OF P.W.249.
TO MR. ABDUS SALAM KHAN
After payment, the payment vouchers are sent to the office of the Deputy Comptroller, Post &Telegraph (Audit) Department for audit purposes. These two Exts. P.W.249/1 and P.W. 249/2 do not bear any signature and writings of mine. The writings on these receipts are the writings of the remitters. I do not know the writings of the remitters. I do not know whose writing is on Ext. P.W.249/3 and P.W. 249/4. Telephones and Telegraphs are separate from the Postal Department.
(No other counsel wishes to cross-examine the witness).
Chairman.
Member.
Member
CORRECTION
23.1.1969.
P.W.249, Abdul Jalil has read over his statement to himself and now states that it has been correctly recorded.
Chairman.
Member.
Member.
Page: 114
DEPOSITION OF P.W. 250 MR. S.M. HAFIZUDDIN
ON SOLEMN AFFIRMATION
My name is S.M. Hafizuddin, son of late Mvi. S.M. Mofizuddin, aged 50 years, by faith Muslim, I am Superintendent of passport Office, Dacca.
I am now Superintendent of the Passport Office, Dacca. In my summons, I was directed to bring some documents which I have brought with me. I see here who Passport No. A-C .077348 issued in the name of Md. Ali Reza. (The Passport is now marked Ext. P.W. 250/1). I find on Page 15 of this Passport the endorsement No. 583/67 dated 10.4.67. (The page is now marked Ext. P.W. 250/2.) I find before me an application for endorsement of additional countries on the passport No. AC.077348 submitted by Mr. M. A. Reza on 5.4.67. I have brought this from my office and it is now marked Ext. P.W. 250/3. I find an order signed by Mr. K.B. Ahmed, Assistant Director, Immigration and Passport, Dacca on this document. This endorsement is dated 5.4.67. The writing shown to me is by Mr. Serajul Islam, the then Superintendent of our Office, I know his hand-writing. (This endorsement is now marked Ext. P.W. 259/4). The initial is by Mr. Serajul Islam, Superintendent of our Office. (This is now marked Ext. P.W. 259/5). This endorsement is made by an Assistant of our Office and the initials are of Mr. K. B. Ahmed, our Assistant Director. (This is now marked Ext. P.W.250/6). The initial is dated 11.4.67. The initials at the bottom of Ext.250/2. is of Mr. K.B. Ahmed who is the Assistant Director, Immigration & Passport, Dacca. These initials are dated 10.4.67.
Page: 115
CROSS-EXAMINATION
TO MR. ZAMIRUDDIN AHMED
In case of an application for a new passport, the same is sent to the police for verification. For an additional endorsement for other countries on a passport already existing the same is not sent for police verification. We issue them without making any inquiry. This document Ext. P.W. 250/3 contains an endorsement to the effect that ‘nothing is known against him’. This endorsement is given by our office after consulting our black-list. The endorsement, however, does not mention the black-list. This black-list is prepared on the basis of the report received from the Central Government. This black-list is to be consulted at the time of issuing a new passport as well as for making additional endorsement for other countries. The persons whose names are borne on the black-list are not issued passports. The black-list does not contain the name of any country for which that will be applicable.
(No other counsel wishes to cross-examine the witness.)
Chairman.
Member
Member.
Page: 116
DEPOSITION OF P.W. 251, MR.MOSTAQUE AHMED
ON SOLEMN AFFIRMATION
My name is Mostaque Ahmed, son of Mr. Rahim Bux, aged 42 years, by faith Muslim, I am Section Officer, Planning Division, Government of Pakistan, Islamabad.
I am Section Officer, Planning Division, Government of Pakistan, Islamabad. I see here an application for a salary of Mr. M.M.S. Rahman for the period from 1st to 14th April, 1967 addressed to the Secretary, president’s Secretariat, Planning Division, already marked Ext. P.W. 239/22. I am familiar with the handwriting and initials of Mr. Qamrul Islam, Secretary, Planning Division, President’s Secretariat. I see his endorsement and initials at the bottom of this document. This is now marked Ext. P.W. 251/1. This document also bears the initials of Mr. Faruq Amin our Deputy Secretary. (This is now marked Ext. P.W.251/2). The endorsement above the initials is also by him.
This document Ext. P.W. 239/22 was taken out from our file regarding the personal case of Mr. M.M. Shamsur Rahman, C.S.H. While handing over this document to an official of the Intelligence Bureau, we kept a copy of this document in our file. We also obtained a receipt from the official who took this document. I was not present when this receipt was taken. I can recognise to some extent the handwriting of Mr. K.M.S. Rahman because I have seen his writings in his personal file. Recently I received an application from Mr. K.M.S. Rahman regarding his salary. From those writings, I can say that this Ext. P.W.239/22 is in his hand. The signature on this document appears to me to be of
Page: 117
Mr. K.M.S Rahman. This is a note enclosing his salary bill for the period from 1st April to 14th April, 67. (This is now marked Ext. P.W. 251/3). I have also documents signed by K.M.S. Rahman regarding handing over of charge and relinquishing of charge in my file. I also find the initials of our Joint Secretary, R.C.D, Mr. Akbar Adil on this Ext. P.W. 239/22. (These initials are now marked Ext. P.W. 251/4). The file from which this document has been taken out is maintained in our office in due course of official business.
CROSS- EXAMINATION
TO MR. ABDUS SALAM KHAN
I belong to the Establishment Section of the Planning Division. I deal with the establishment cases of class 1 Gazetted Officers. Mr. Shamsur Rahman was Deputy Director-General, IPEC Secretariat, Jakarta. IPEC administration comes within the planning division. All technical matters of the IPEC go to the RCD Section as far as I know. All administrative matters of the IPEC Secretariat staff are dealt with in the Establishment Section of the Planning Division. I have never worked directly under Mr. K.M. Shamsur Rahman at any time. I do not remember to have taken any file personally to Mr. K.M. Shamsur Rahman for his orders or signatures. Mr. Shamsur Rahman never sent any communication directly to me or any communication anywhere through me. I have never received any communication directly from Mr. Shamsur Rahman.
CROSS-EXAMINATION OF P.W. 251
TO MR. ABDUS SALAM KHAN
Mr. Shamsur Rahman Khan was on Special Duty in the Planning Division, from November, 1966 to April, 1967. There must have been some officers working with him at that time. I do not remember exactly the correct designation of Mr. Shamsur Rahman Khan. The correct designation as suggested maybe Deputy Secretary general. IPEC.
Page: 118
TO MR. MD. ISMAIL
I recollect that when I was last examined in this court I had remarked that I was not a handwriting expert.
(No other Counsel wishes to cross-examine the witness).
Chairman
Member.
Member
The statement of Mr. Manzur Qadir, the Chief Prosecution Counsel is as follows:
I now close the evidence on behalf of the prosecution.
Chairman.
Member
Member.
Page: 119
SPECIAL TRIBUNAL
Record of Proceedings
28.1.1969 PRESENT
Mr. Justice S.A. Rahman, H.PK., Chairman.
Mr. Justice M. R. Khan, S.PK., Member.
Mr. Justice Maksum-ul-Hakim, Member.
For the prosecution ….. As before.
For the Defence ….. As before.
Accused Present ….. As before.
STATEMENT OF ACCUSED SHEIKH MUJIBUR RAHMAN UNDER SECTION 342 Cr. P.C.
Q. 1) Did you in the years 1964-67 (both years inclusive) conspire with your co-accused and persons mentioned in List “A” attached to the Complaint as well as other persons, to wage war against Pakistan and to deprive Pakistan of its sovereignty over the province of East Pakistan by means of criminal force in an armed revolt which was to be carried out mainly with weapons, ammunition and funds to be provided by India through Indian Officials?
Ans: This is absolutely false.
Q.2 Did you, in pursuance of the conspiracy aforesaid, attend the following meetings at which the implementation of that conspiracy was
Pagee: 121
discussed and plans made, details of which have been given by the P. W.s namely:
(a) meeting in September, 1964, at the house occupied by Kamal-uddin Ahmed in the school Teachers Co-operative Housing Society, Karachi, called by Lt. Com. Moazzem Hussain, which was also attended by him, Nur Muhammad, Mr. A. F. Rahman, Sultan-ud-din Ahmed, accused and Lt. Muzzammil Hussain, P.W.
(b) meeting at Lt. Commander Moazzem Hossain’s house in Karasaz Area held sometime between the 15th and the 21st January, 1965, also attended by Lt. Com Moazzem Hossain, Mr. A. F. Rahman, Nur Mohammad and Flt. Sgt. Mofizullah accused, besides Lt. Muzammil Hussain, P. W.
(c) meeting held at your house in Dhanmandi, Dacca on 29.8.65, at p.m. (the time of meeting having been fixed by you and communicated through St. Mujibur Rahman) which was also attended by Amir Hussain Miah, P.W. and accused Lt. Com. Moazzem Hussain, Steward Mujibur Rahman, Sultanuddin, and Mr. Ruhul Quddus who arrived there late. At this meeting, you are alleged to have offered Rs. 1,00,000/ in installments for party funds.
(d) meeting at the house of Mr. Tajuddin Secretary, Awami League in Dhanmandi Area on 12.3.66, which was also attended by accused Lt. Com. Moazzem Hussain, Steward Mujibur Rahman, Mr. Ruhul Quddus and Amir Hussain Miah, P.W. You are said to have given a lift in your car to these persons except for Mr. Ruhul Quddus to the place of meeting from the Bus Stop on Satmasjid Road, Dhanmandi. It is also alleged that after a Conference between you and Lt.Com Moazzem Hussain, the letter declared at this meeting that Hav. Daliluddin and a Captain from Joydevpur would be sent to negotiate the arms deal with the Indian authorities.
I did not attend any of these meetings. There was no such meeting at my house. There was no such meeting at the house of Mr. Tajuddin. Did you pay Rs.700/-on 1.9.65, Rs. 4,000/- on 9.9.65 and Rs.4,000/- on Baqr-Eid day which fell on the 3rd of April 1966, to Std. Mujibur Rahman,
Page: 122
as your contribution towards party funds? This is wrong, I have not paid any money as alleged.
Were you given the code name of “PARAS” or “PARASH”) for the purpose of the conspiracy vide Ex. P. W.3-18 and letters Ext. s. P. W. 332, 35 & 39 and were you also referred to as ‘Bafa Bhai’ in some letters exchanged between Steward Mujibur Rahman and Amir Hussain Mia, vide exhibits P.W. 3/6, 3/9 and 3/11 and between Sultan Uddin and Steward Mujibur Rahman vide Ext. P.W.3/12? Would you like to explain these references?
Ans. I do not know anything about these matters letters. These are just lies.
Q: 5) Did you induced Manik Choudhury accused and Dr. Saeedur Rahman Choudhury, P.W. to join the alleged separatist movement?
Ans This is not correct.
Q: 6) In February, 1966 did you, after attending meeting at Laldighi Maidan, Chittagong, pay a visit to Dr. Saeed-ur-Rahman Choudhury at his house in Chittagong where Steward Mujibur Rahman was also present and did you on that occasion, direct Dr. Saeed-ur-Rahman Choudhury to provide a place for meetings of the Military Personnel and to help the separatist organisation?
Ans: I have not visited the house of Dr.Saeedur Rahman Choudhury in my life and these allegations are all false.
Q:7. Did you in April 1966, tell Manik Choudhury at your house in Dacca that he should give money to Sultan-Ud-Din who was then present there, for party purposes, in pursuance of which Manik Choudhury gave Rs. 1,500/- to Sultan-Ud-din at his own house in Chittagong three or four days later?
Ans: This is incorrect.
Q.8. Were you ill during the period November to December, 1965 for some time, for which you obtained the treatment from Dr. Rab, P.W. among other doctors and medicines from M/S. Bham & Co. Dacca?
Ans: I cannot remember any such thing.
Page: 123
Q.9. In the alleged confession of Capt. Shawkat Ali Mian recorded by Mr. G. M. Qadri, Additional Distt. Magistrate, Dacca, on 4.3.68 and that of Bhupati Bhushan Choudhury accused before the same Additional Distt. Magistrate on 12.2.68, you are referred to as one of the leaders of the separatist movement. Do you wish to say anything with regard to these references in these confessions?
Ans: These are concoctions and lies.
Q.10. Do you wish to say anything else by way of explanation of the prosecution evidence against you?
Ans: I want to put in a written Statement which I like to read out here. (He submitted a written statement after reading it out to the court).
Q.11. Will you produce any evidence in your defence? Ans: No.
Chairman.
Member.
Member.
Page: 124
STATEMENT OF ACCUSED NO.2, LT.COMMANDER
MOAZZEM HOSSAIN UNDER SECTION 342, Cr. Pc.
Q.1. Did you in the years 1964-67 (both years inclusive) conspire with your co-accused and persons mentioned List “A” attached to the complaint as well as other persons, to wage war against Pakistan and to deprive Pakistan of its sovereignty over the Province of East Pakistan by means of criminal force in an armed revolt which was to be carried out mainly with weapons, ammunition and funds to be provided by India through Indian officials?
Ans. No.
Q.2. Did you, in pursuance of the conspiracy aforesaid, attend the following meetings at which the implementation of that conspiracy was discussed and plans made as explained by the P.W.s, namely:
(1) Meeting at your own house (D-77, K.D.A scheme No.1, Karachi) sometime between January and April, 1964 which was also attended by Lt. Muzammil Hussain, P.W and Sultan-Uddin, Nur Muhammad and Steward Mujibur Rahman, accused;
(2) meeting called by you in September, 1964, at the house occupied by Kamaluddin Ahmed in the School Teachers Co-operative Housing Society, Karachi, also attended by Lt. Muzammil Hussain, P.W. SultanUd-din, Nur Muhammad, Sheikh Mujibur Rahman and Mr. A..F. Rahman, accused;
(3) meeting at your house in Karachi in January, 1965, attended also by Sheikh Mujibur Rahman, Mr. A.F. Rahman, Nur Muhammad, Flt. Sgt. Mofizullah, Std. Mujibur Rahman, accused and Amir Hussain Miah, P.W.;
Page: 125
(4) meeting held at the house of Sheikh Mujibur Rahman accused in Dhanmandi, Dacca, on 29.8.65 for which meeting you are said to have arrived in Dacca along with Amir Hussain Mia, P.W on 28.8.65 by air and which was also attended by Std. Mujibur Rahman, Sultan-Ud-Din. Mr. Ruhul Quddus, Sheikh Mujibur Rahman accused and Amir Hussain Miah, P.W.;
(5) meeting at your own house in Karachi in December, 1965 attended also by Mr. Ahmed Fazlur Rahman, Samad and Nur Muhammad accused and Amir Hussain Mia P.W. It is stated that at this meeting Mr. A. F. Rahman offered to procure transistorised transmitters for the party through his brother who was in London.
(6) meeting in Ilako House at the flat of Mr. Ahmed Fazlur Rahman, C.S.P. in the last week of December, 1965, also attended by accused Lt. Com. Moazzem Hossain, Nur Mụhammad, Mr. Ahmed Fazlur Rahman and P.W.S K.G. Ahmed and Amir Hussain Miah.
(7) meeting held at the house of Mr. Taj-ud-ddin Secretary, Awami League, in Dhanmandi, Dacca. On 12.3.66 which was also attended by Amir Hussin Mia P.W. and Mr. Ruhul Quddus, Sheikh Mujibur Rahman and Std. Mujibur Rahman; accused; you are said to have announced at that meeting after a conference with Sheikh Mujibur Rahman in another room that Hav. Daliluddin and a Capt. from Jaydebpur would be sent to negotiate the Arms Deal with the Indian authorities.
(8) meeting at the house of Dr. Saeed-ur-Rahman Choudhury in Chittagong in or about May 1966, which was attended also by St. Mujibur Rahman, L.S. Sultan-Ud-din, A.B.M. Khurshid, Manik Choudhury accused and Dr. Saeed-ur-Rahman Choudhury P.W. but from which Manik Choudhury and Dr. Saeed-ur-Rahman were excluded by you on the plea that they were civilians ;
(9) and (10) two further meeting at the house of Dr. Saeed-urRahman, P.W. in Chittagong, which was also attended by St. Mujib, L.S. Sultan-Ud-Din A.B.M. Khurshid and Dr. Saeed-ur-Rahman;
(11) meeting between you and Mr. Rameez P. W. at your house in Chittagong in June or July 1968 at which you showed him a diary and
Page: 126
exercise book and a folder giving outlines of the independent Government to be set up in East Pakistan after the success of the separatist movement and at which you are also said to have shown him the proposed flag of the new state;
(12) meeting at the house of M. Rameez P.W. in Panchlaish, Chittagong, in June, 1966, which was also attended by St. MujiburRahman, A.B.M. Khurshid, Ris: Shamsul Huq, Hav. Aziz and some others;
(13) meeting at the house of Capt. Shamsul Alam at Comilla in June or July 1966, you having taken Rameez P.W. in your car to that place and which meeting was also attended by Capt. Muttalib. On that occasion, you are also alleged to have visited Capt. Shaukat Ali Mian in the Comilla Cantonment and to have promised to call a meeting soon at Dacca so as to satisfy Capt. Alim Bhuiyan and Capt. Huda about the plans of the separatist movement.
(14) meeting sometime in July 1966 held at the flat of M. Rameez P.W. in Dacca in Muhammadpur area which was also attended by Capt. Huda, Std. Mujibur Rahman accused and Capt. Alim Bhuiyan P.W.;
(15) meeting held in August 1966 at the flat of M. Rameez P.W. in Dacca attended also by Capt. Shaukat Ali Mian, Capt. Alim Bhuiyan, Std. Mujibur Rahman and Capt. Najmul Huda;
(16) meeting held at the flat of Rameez P.W in Dacca sometime in September 1966 attended also by accused Mr. K.M.S. Rahman, Capt. Shamsul Alam, Capt. Najmul Huda, Capt. Muttalib, Sultan-Ud- din and Std. Mujibur Rahman and P.W. Capt. Alim Bhuiyan ;
(17) meeting held at your house “Anchorage” in Chittagong in October, 1966 attended also by Rameez P.W. and accused Mr. K.M.S Rahman at which Col. Usmani was invited and informed about the separatist movement ;
(18) Meeting at the flat of Rameez P.W. in Dacca sometime in March, 1967, attended also by Std. Mujibur Rahman accused, and Rameez P.W. at which decision was taken to have a house for the party workers and to start business for the party through Lutful Huda, P.W.
Page: 127
(19) meeting held at the flat of Rameez P.W. on the 30th or 31st March, 1967, in pursuance of your telegram Ex.P.W.6/3 sent to him on 29.3.57
(20) and (21) meeting held at 13, Green Square, Dacca, Sometime in May, 1967, attended also by Rameez P.W. and Capt. Muttalib followed by other meetings at that very place which were held sometime in June 1967 and were also attended by Rameez P.W. Capt. Khurshid-Ud-ddin Ahmed, Ris. Shamsul Huq, P.W. Naib-Sub., J.U. Ahmed, Hav. Daliluddin, Sultan-Ud-din, St. Mujibur Rahman, Ali Raza and Samad. At one of these meetings, it is alleged that a decision was taken to send delegate to meet the Indian officials in India to negotiate the Arms deal and to obtain finances. Further in a restricted meeting according to the allegation it was decided to send Ali Reza and St. Mujibur Rahman as delegates to Agartala, India, to meet the Indian delegates and it was also decided that they would go and stay at Hotel Denofa in Feni during the night when Rameez P.W. would go in this car and take them towards the border.,
(22) meeting held on or about the 7th of July, 1967, at 13, Green Square, Dacca, attended also by St. Mujibur Rahman, Dr.Saeed-urRahman Choudhury, Manik Choudhury, Samad & Ghulam Ahmed, from which Dr. Saeed-ur-Rahman and Manik Choudhury were excluded by you in spite of Manik Choudhury protests ;
(23) meeting held at the flat of M. Rameez P.W. at Dacca in August, 1967, attended also by Capt. Shawkat Ali Mian, Capt. Najmul Huda and St. Mujibur Rahman.
Ans: These are all false allegations and I never attended any such meeting.
Q.3. (a) Did you sometime in April to June, 1966 ask Dr. Saeed-urRahman Choudhury P.W. to take an arms list to Mr. Ojha of the Indian High commission and did his decline to do so.
(b) Did he finally in July or August, 1966 at your instance take an arms list to Mr. Ojha in the refreshment room at Chittagong Railway Station and did he then come back and inform you that Mr. Ojha would like to meet you at Dacca by arrangement through Dr. Saeed-ur-Rahman Choudhury?
Ans. All these allegations are absolutely false.
Page: 128
Q.4. Did you have six meetings details of which have been furnished
specified below?
(i) In August 1966 Dr. Saeedur Rahman and you were picked up by Mr. Ojha in his car from near the ceremonial arch close to Sakure restaurant as arranged and taken to his residence in Dhanmandi Dacca where you discussed the question of Supply of arms and ammunition by India. You were then dropped back by Mr. Ojha in his car near the second Captial :
(ii) You met him in the company of Dr. Saeed- ur Rahman Chowdhury in September, 1966 again at his house by arrangement as before;
(iii) In October/November, 1966 there was another meeting between you and Mr. Ojha at his house when Dr. Saeedur Rahman Choudhury accompanied you ;
(iv) In March, 1967, there was a meeting between you, Dr. Saeed-urRahman P.W. and Manik Chowdhury accused and Mr. Ojha at the latter’s house for which you were taken by Mr. Ojha in his car as arranged ;
(v) On 31.1.1967, Manik Chowdhury, Dr. Saeed-ur-Rahman and you yourself again met Mr. Ojha at his house in Dhanmandi being taken there by him in accordances with previous arrangement. On this occasion, it is alleged that Mr. Ojha asked for delegates from the separatist organization to be sent to India at one of three specified places which included Agartala and that you promised to send particulars of the delegates later;
(V1) On 23.7.67, you were again picked up by Mr. Ojha by arrangement and taken to his house for a meeting along with Dr. Saeedur- Rahman and Manik Chowhdury.
Ans. These allegations are all false. I have never met anybody by the name of Ojha or even heard of him before the case started.
Q.5. Did you yourself or through Manik Chowdhury receive from Mr.
Ojha a total sum of Rs. 2,000/- ;Rs. 10,000/- on one occasion and Rs. 5000/- each on two occasions in cash?
Ans No This is wrong, I never received any such money.
Page: 129
Q.6. Did you induce Amir Hussain Miah P.W. to join the separatist movement in Karachi at your house where he was brought by St. Mujibur Rahman and Sultan-Ud-din accused in December, 1964, or January, 1965 and did he have frequent contacts with you thereafter?
Ans: No.
Q. 7: Did you leave for Dacca by air with Amir Hussain Miah P.W. on 26.8.65 to attend the meeting to be held at Sk. Mujibur Rahman house in Dhanmandi, Dacca, on 29.8.65? Were you received at Dacca Airport by Sultan-Ud-din and St. Mujibur Rahman in the jeep of Kamaluddin Ahmed P.W. and taken to “Alya”, the Residence of your relative, Dr. Khaleque, where you stayed?
Ans. No. These allegations are all false. At that time the armed forces were under alert and the question of my coming over to Dacca does not arise.
Did you receive the following sums of money collected for party funds and would you like to explain to them:
(i) Rs. 1500/- given to you by Amir Hussain Miah, P.W. and Rs. 500/- by L.S. Nur Muhammad, accused, at Karachi, which sums were alleged to have been received from Sultan-Ud-din accused between 18th and 20th August, 1965 for purchase of Air Tickets for you and others for Dacca for attending a meeting there;
(ii) Rs. 4,100/- from Amir Hussain Miah, P.W. at Karachi sometime in September, 1965, out of the two sums contributed by Sk. Mujib-urRahman accused, namely, Rs. 700/- 1.9.65 and Rs. 4000/- on 9.1.65;
(iii) Rs. 2,200/- in January 1966, along with two letters from Amir Hussain Miah which had been received by L.S. Nur Muhammad, accused at Karachi to whom they were sent by St. Mujibur Rahman from Chittagong through a steward of a ship. It is alleged that you were annoyed on receiving only Rs. 2,200/- out of the sum collected by Mujibur Rahman accused.
(iv) Rs. 5,000/- out of a sum of Rs. 5,500/- contributed by Mr. A.F. Rahman accused by Bank Draft Ext. P.W.3/53 sent to you by Amir Hussain Miah on 31.3.66 through the National Bank of Pakistan;
Page: 130
(v) Rs. 8,000/- from Amir Hussain Miah at the residence of Dr. Khaleque at ‘Alya’ Dhanmandi in Dacca in April May. 1966, out of which you gave back Rs. 1,500/- to the approver Amir Hussain Miah for meeting expenses already incurred. On this occasion, it is alleged, Amir Hussain Miah dissociated himself from the organization as he had quarreled with you over the question of condition of accounts. You are alleged to have threat ended him with death if he revealed anything of the conspiracy to anybody and to have asked Sultan-Ud-Din & Std. Mujibur Rahman who were present, to watch him.
Ans. These allegations are all false about my receiving any money excepting the draft of Rs.5,000/-which was sent by Amir Hussain for ornaments for the marriage of a friend of Amir Hussain in East Pakistan. When I came on transfer to East Pakistan. I never stayed in Dacca. 1 went straight to my home at Barisal and then I went straight to Chittagong to join my post. I have called for the documents to show that I had taken a concession voucher to go to my home and comeback. When received they
Q.9. Did you pay:
(i) Rs. 25,000/- to M. Rameez P.W. through St. Mujibur Rahman in March, 1967, out of party funds? Did Rameez out of this amount give Rs. 5,000/- to Lutful Huda, P.W. for starting a business on behalf of the party;
(ii) Rs. 5,000/- in cash to Rameez P.W. as contribution towards the price of a Fiat Car. No. 1100-D Purchased in August/ September, 1966, from the Motor Corporation of Pakistan, Chittagong, for party purposes on the name of Rameez P.W.
Ans: These allegations are all false. I never received any money and I never paid any such money to those people.
Q.10. Did you purchase Hillman Car No. EAF 9591 and later Moscovitch Car. No. EBC 7976 out of Party funds for party purposes and did you place the Hillman Car at the disposal of Steward Mujibur Rahman at Dacca after the Moscovitch car had been purchased? Did you write the letter, Ext. P.W.6/11 dated 28.3.67 to Messrs Elahi Bakhsh & Co. with a copy endorsed to Rameez P.W. regarding change of tires of the Moscovitch Car?
Page: 131
Ans: I did purchase these two cars from my own funds for my own purpose. I did also write the letter referred to Messrs Elahi Baksh and Co. But it is wrong that I placed any car at the disposal of Std. Mujibur Rahman at Dacca. The Hillman car had been sold to my brother before I purchased the Moscovitch car. I had obtained Government permit to buy the Moscovitch car. This letter was endorsed to M. Rameez, P.W. because he was a friend of the Manager, of Messrs. Elahi Baksh and Co. and it was he who had taken me to them to purchase that car.
Q.11. Did you a few days after the meeting held in December 1965, at the flat, of Mr. A. F. Rahman in Ilako House, Karachi send Amir Hussain Miah to get the promised letter from Mr. Ahmed Fazlur Rahman for his brother Shafiq-Ur-Rahman in London with a view to obtain transistorized transmitters and was the letter brought and handed over to you? Did you then send it to the addressee in London?
Ans: This is completely wrong. I do not even know Mr. A.F.Rahman at the time alleged. I obtained no such letter and did not ask Amir Hossain to obtain such letter.
Q.12. The letter Ex. P.W. 3/6 alleged to have been written by St. Mujibur Rahman to Amir Hossain Miah P.W., makes reference to some difference between you and St. Mujibur Rahman over remittances of money. Do you wish to say anything about this?
Ans: This is absolutely false. Question on any difference of opinion between myself and Std. Mujibur Rahman does not arise. He was only a steward and I was an officer.
Q. 13.a) Did you assume the code name “ALO” for the purposes of the conspiracy, vide Ext. P.W.3/18 in dairy P.W.3/14 and were you referred to as such in letter Ex. P.W.3/32, Ex. P.W.3/35 and Ex. 3/39, said to have been written by you to Amir Hussain Mia P.W.?
b) It is further alleged that you were referred to as “Bara Bhai” in letters exchanged between your co-accused vide letters Exts. P.W. 3/8, P.W 3/9 P.W. 3/11 said to have been written by St. Mujibur Rahman to Amir Hussain Miah P.W. and letter Ext. P.W. 3/12 alleged to have been written by Sultan-ud-Din accused to Amir Hussain Mia P.W. Do you wish to say anything about this?
Page: 132
(c) It is stated that Mr. Anwar Zahid is husband of your mother’s sister as referred to in the letter Ex. P.W. 3/6. Do you wish to say anything about it?
Ans.(a) I do not know anything about such letters. I never wrote any such letters to Amir Hossain. I do not know anything about these code names.
(b) These are all false allegations. I was never referred to in these letters.
(c) I never heard of Mr. Amir Zahid till the case started. He is the husband of my father’s distant cousin and not the husband of my Mother’s sister. I have never met him in my life.
Q.14 (a) Did you hand over to Amir Hussain Miah P.W. when he was leaving Karachi for Dacca in February, 1966, three diaries, one being Ex. 3/14 with loose sheets P.W.s. 3/15 to 3/17, 3/24 and 3/25, and pages marked Exs. P.Ws. 3/18 to 3/22, containing code names of prominent persons in the organization, lists of arms and ammunitions and instructions to Amir Hussain Miah etc. along with Map Ex.P.W.3/63?
(b) Did you have Scooter No. K.A.H. 4768 which is mentioned in entry at P. Marked Ext. P.W.3/19 in the diary Ex. P.W.3/14?
Ans. (a) No I never handed over any such thing.
(b) I had a scooter but I do not remember the number. I sold it on my transfer to East Pakistan.
Q.15 (a) Did you write the letters Exs. P.W.3/32, P.W .3/35, P.W.3/39, P.W.3/41, P.W.3/48, P.W.3/49, P.W.3/50, P.W.3/54, P.W.3/64, most of them being under the code names of ‘Alo’ to Amir Hussain Mia, P.W. who was described in some of them as ‘ULKA’ and would you like to explain their contents?
(b) Did you send the two telegrams, Exs. P.W.3/52 and P.W.3/60 to him? Do you wish to explain them?
(c) Did you also receive the telegram Ex.D.B./2 from Amir Hussain Miah P.W.? Would you like to explain it?
(d) Is Shipu referred to in some of the letters above mentioned your daughter?
Ans.(a) These allegations are absolutely false and I was never in correspondence with Amir Hossain, P.W.
Page: 133
(b) I never sent any such telegram. (C) I never received any such telegram.
(d) My daughter’s name is Wadia, but her nickname is Shipa and not Shipu.
Q.16 (a) Did you phone the week of March, 1966, telling him to arrange for a job Samad accused and accordingly he took him to Mr. A.F.Rahman who gave him a job at Green view Petrol Pump at Dacca?
(b) Did you telephone him at Hotel Arzoo, Dacca on 3.3.66 in mentioned in letter Ext.P.W.3/35 said to have been written by you to him?
Ans.(a) This allegation is false. (b) This allegation is also false.
Q.17. Did you go to Dacca by Air of 12.3.66 and were you taken from Dacca Airport in a taxi by Amir Hussain Miah P.W. to “Aleya “, the residence of Dr. Khaleque, in Dhanmandi area? Did you later send St. Mujib to Sheikh Mujibur Rahman to fix time for a meeting and were you, St. Mujib-ur-Rahman and Amir Hussain Miah picked up from the Bus Stand on ‘Sat Manzil’ or ‘Set Masjid’ Road by Sheikh Mujibur Rahman in his car to the house of Mr. Tajudding for a meeting?
Ans: This is absolutely false. 1 never met Sk. Mujibur Rahman accused in my life till the start of this case and on the alleged date I never came to Dacca.
Q. 18. Did you in March, 1966, send a letter addressed jointly to Amir Hussain Miah P.W and Mr. A.F. Rahman accused along with the chit in your hand Ex. P.W. 3/45. to Amir Hussain Miah, asking for money to be sent to you and did you receive the Bank Draft Ex. P.W.D./43. for Rs. 5000/- Dt. 31.3.1966 sent through the National Bank of Pakistan, Dacca, In accordance with your instructions?
Ans: I never wrote any such letter or chit. But I have already explained about the bank draft which I did receive.
Q. 19. On or about 2.7.67 did Shamsuddin Ahmed P.W. enquire on phone from you at ‘Aleya’ Dacca, whether Lt. M.M. Rahman was required at Dacca or not and did you answer in the affirmative?
Ans: This is false. I never received any such telephone call.
Page: 134
Q. 20. Were Dr. Saeedur-Rahman, St. Mujibur Rahman, A.B.M. Khurshid and Sultan-ur- Rahman, St. Mujibur Rahman, Your house in Nasirabad Society Chittagong and in “Anchorage” Chittagong?
Ans: No. This is false.
Q. 21 Did you go to Dacca in August, 1966, in your Hillman Car with St. Mujibur Rahman and Dr. Saeed-ur-Rahman Chowdhury and did you on the way meet Capt. Shamsul Alam at Comilla?
Ans: No this is false.
Q. 22. Did you induct M. Rameez P.W. into the separatist movement at your house in Nasirabad Colony, Chittagong, in May, 1966, when Rameez P.W. Khurshid and you yourself having called at his house in Panchlaish, Chittagong, earlier?
Ans: This is completely false and I was not residing in Nazirabad colony in May, 1966. I have called for certain document which has not yet been received. When received they may be read as part of my statement.
Q. 23. Did you and Rameez P.W. induct Capt. Nuruzzaman accused into the separatist movement in June/July, 1966 at a dinner meeting at the house of Rameez P.W. in Chittagong?
Ans: This is completely false. I have never met Captain Nuruzzaman nor I visited Rameez’s house in Chittagong.
Q. 24. Did you some time in or after August, 1966, go to the house “Psyche” in Dacca where you met Ghulam Ahmed P.W. and Sub. Ashraf Ali Khan?
Ans: No, The allegation is false.
Q. 25. Did Ghulam Ahmed P.W. see you twice thereafter at your house “Anchorage” Chittagong seeking employment and you referred him first to Rameez P.W. and then to Sub. Ashraf Ali Khan, who was the staying in Hanafia Boarding House, Dacca? Did Ghulam Ahmed P.W. report back to you in Chittagong in September, 1966?
Ans: No. This allegation is false.
Q. 26. Did you a few days later send Ghulam Ahmed P.W. on an exploratory mission to the Smuggler’s Depot, Karnaphuli, along with one
Page: 135
Masudur Rahman of the Navy and did he report back failure to you regarding the prospects of smuggling arms from India?
Ans: No. This allegation is also false.
Q. 27. Did you take Rameez P.W in your Hillman Car in July /August, 1966, to Dacca and did you two meet Capt. Najmul Huda, Capt. Alim P.W. at the flat of the former on Green Road, Dacca, did you induce them to join the separatist movement and did you then fix up a meeting of the party at the flat of Rameez P.W. in Dacca?
Ans: No. This is false.
Q. 28. Did Ghulam Ahmed P.W. convey to you any information about J.C.O’s. And N.C.O’s in January/February, 1967, at Dr. Khaleque’s house ‘Aleya’ in Dhanmandi, Dacca?
Ans: No, This is false.
Q. 29. Did you in March/April, 1967, suggest to Ghulam Ahmed P.W. at Dr. Khaleque’s house in Dacca that he should open a shop at Darasana Boarder to provide a liaison centre for party messages?
Ans: No. This allegation is false.
Q.30. Did you provide accommodation to Ghulam Ahmed P.W. at 13, Green Square in Dacca, in July, 1967, where Corporal Samad, Sub. J.U. Ahmed & St. Mujibur Rahman & Hav. Daliluddin were already staying for party purposes and where you fréquently paid visits and had meetings with Rameez P.W. Sub. Shumsul Huq, Capt. Khurshid-ud-Din Ahmed and Ali Raza to discuss party matters?
Ans: This is also false. I never visited 13, Green Square. I do not know where this house is.
Q.31. Did St. Mujibur Rahman and Ali Raza accused after their visit as delegates to Agartala, India, come to Barisal to report to you the result of their mission on or about the 13th July, 1967?
Ans: No.
Q.32. Were phone calls put through on 5.3.66, 7.3.66, 26.3.66., 27.3.66 and 30th March, 1966, to your Karachi phone No. 41195 from Dacca phone No. s. 82431/ 82452 vide phone call tickets Ext. P.W. 86/2-8?
Ans: I never received any such telephone calls. These are all false allegations.
Page: 136
Q.33. Did you in August, 1966 drop into the room of Capt. Alim Bhuiyan, P.W. at the Ordnance Mess, Dacca, when you Capt. Huda St. Mujibur Rahman, Capt. Shawkat Ali Mian and you decided to have a meeting at the flat of P.W. Rameez next day in Dacca?
Ans: These are all false. I never met Capt. Alim till I saw him in Court in this case. I never visited the mess as alleged.
Q.34. Did you in June /July, 1966, as the result of a meeting at 13, Green Square, Dacca, depute Ex-sub. J.U. Ahmed to go on a recruiting tour on behalf of the party of Comilla, Chittagong, Khulna, Jessore and Kushtia?
Ans: No. As I have already said, I never visited 13, Green square and I do not know where it is.
Q.35 Is Ext. P.W. 55/2 your joining report in the I.W.T.A., Dacca and is it signed by you?
Ans: Yes, This report is signed by me. This is my joining report in the I.W.T.A.
Q.36(a) Is it correct that the writing in the Diary Ext. P.W. 3/14 and marked Ext. P.W. 3/18 containing the code names of several of the accused persons and of Amir Hussain P.W. is in your hand?
(b) Is it correct that the writings on pages marked P.W.3/18 to P.W. 3/22 and P.W.3/15, P.W.3/17 P.W.3/24 and P.W. 3/25 are
in your hand? (a) Ans: No. This is not in my hand. The diary belonged to me. I do not know how it came to Amir Hossain or the prosecution.
(b) This diary Ext. P.W. 3/14 belongs to me, as I have already explained. In this diary, my only writing is on page marked P.W. 3/19 and on the page marked DB/10. The other entries or those which are on the loose sheets are not in my hand,
Q.37 Were maps Exts. P.W.142/6 to P.W. 142/10 and a diary Ext. P.W. 142/5 along with some other articles which included some cartridges and a revolver seized during searches of your house in No.3, I.W.T.A. Colony, Barisal, on 13.12.67 by P.W. 142, Ghulam Mehdi Choudhury?
Ans. The diary is really a guest book and belongs to me. But the maps are not mine. I was not present at the time of the alleged search. I had revolver at my house. Unless I see that revolver, I cannot say
Page: 137
whether that belongs to me. The one I had a part in my uniform. I am allowed to keep it without licence.
Q.38. Did you submit the T.A. Bills Ext. P.W. 146/2 to P.W.14 6/13, to the I.W.T.A. and do they bear your signatures? Are the writings the right hand Col. of Ext. P.W. 146/3, marked Ext. P.W. 187/5, that in the last Col. of Ext.P.W. 146/4, that in the last Col. & that in the first 2 Cols. except for the loop line in Ext. P.W.146/5, that in the last Col. of Ext. P.W. 146/6 & in the first 2 cols. except for the loop line the entire writing on the front page of Ext. P.W. 146/7, the writings on the front page of Ext. P.W. 146/9, the writing on the front page of Ext. P.W. 146/1lwritting on the front page of Ext. P.W. 146/12 writing in last coll. of Ext. P.W.146/13 in your hand?
Ans. The signatures on those documents are mine. The writing in the right hand column marked P.W 187/15, the writing in the last column of P.W. 146/4, & the first to column excepting the typed line of P.W. 146/5, in the last column of P.W. 146/6 and first to column excepting the typed line the entire writing on the front page of P.W. 146/7 and the writing on the front page of P.W.146/9 the writing on front page of P.W. 146/11 and the writing on the front page of P.W. 146/12 and in the last column of P.W. 146/13 are not in my hand. Only my signatures appear on these documents.
Q.39. Several entries in Diary Ext. P.W. 27/2 said to be of Ali Raza accused apparently contain references to you. Your attention is invited to entries dated 5th April, 16th April, 3rd May, 8th September, 11th Sept., 13th Sep. 4″ Oct., 9th Oct., 10th Oct. & 30″, Oct., 67, Would you like to say anything with regard to them?
Ans. This is not my diary. I do not know anything with regard to the entries in this diary. I have seen all the entries. I cannot say anything about another man’s diary. But regarding the entries dated 9th October and 10th October, 67, I can say that they contain no words reading as Moazzem’ or Lt. Commander. What has been read by the prosecution as ‘L’ is to my mind only the word “and written in Greek form. I am never referred to as M. Hossain or Moazzem I am addressed by my friends by my full name Moazzem Hossain or by nickname which happens to be ‘Lal Mia’.
Page: 138
Q.40. Did you receive the letter Ext. P.W. 163/2, dated 18. 5. 66 from Capt. Khurshiduddin Ahmed while you were at Chittagong? If so would you like to say something about it.
Ans. I never received any such letter. This is addressed to some ‘chief by which I do not know what is meant.
29.1.1969. Q.41. Your attention is drawn to the entry marked (i) Ext. P.W. 111/7 in register Ex. P.W. 111/2 relating to Car. No. EBC 7976 crossing from Dacca towards Chittagong on 8.5.67;
(II) In the Register marked Ext. P.W. 111/3 the entry marked P.W. 111/8 dated 14.1.67 crossing towards Chittagong;
(III) In the Register Ext. P.W. 111/13 the entry marked Ext.P.W. 111/22 of the same car dated 8.5.67 coming towards Dacca;
(IV) In the Register Ext. P.W. 111/15 the entry marked Ext. P.W. 111/26 the same car crossing towards Dacca on 10.3.67;
(V) In the Register Ext. P.W. 111/4 the entry Ext. P.W. 111/5 regarding Car. No. EBA 9591 on 8.8.66 towards Baushia.
Do you wish to say anything about them?
Answer: I have come to Dacca many times on official duties and to leave on some occasions. My car did not bear any English number but only Bengali number. The digits were only in Bengali and not in English. The digits as well as the words of the number of my car were all in Bengali and not in English. It was never “EBC’. My car had the number ‘Chattagram’ -7976 in Bengali, Regarding the entry in Ext. P.W. 111/2 marked Ext. P.W. 111/7. I can say this that after joining IWTA on deputation I had never been to Chittagong from Dacca.
I had a Hillman car bearing number EBA 9591 but after I sold it in August, 1966 I do not know who may have been using it.
Q. 42 It is stated that you accompanied Std. Mujibur Rahman to the house of Lt. Com. Shahidul Huq in May, 1966 in order to persuade him to
……………… Statement of accused No.2 (partial) documents missing………………….
Page: 139
STATEMENT OF ACCUSED NO. 3, STD. MUJIBUR
RAHMAN UNDER SECTION 342, Cr.P.C
(The question has been explained to Std. Mujibur Rahman, accused, by Mr. Atiar Rahman, Asstt. Registrar, Special Tribunal, in Bengali as the accused does not understand English).
Q.I. Did you in the years 1964 -67 (both years inclusive) conspire with your co-accused and persons mentioned in List “A” attached to the Complaint as well as other persons, to wage war against Pakistan and to deprive Pakistan of its sovereignty over the province of East Pakistan by means of criminal force in an armed revolt which was to be carried out mainly with weapons, ammunition and funds provided by India through Indian officials?
Ans: This is entirely false.
Q.2. Did you, in pursuance of the conspiracy aforesaid, attend the following meetings at which the implementation of that conspiracy was discussed and plans made as explained by the P.W. namely:
(1) meeting at Lt. Commander Moazzem Hossain’s house, D/77, K.D.A. Scheme No. 1, Karachi, in January, 1964 with Lt. Moazzem Hussain, Sultanuddin, Nur Muhammad accused and Lt. Muzammil Hussain, P.W.;
(2) meeting at Sheikh Mujibur Rahman’s house in Dhanmandi, Dacca. on 29.8.65 at about 3 P.M. along with Sheikh Mujibur Rahman, Lt. Moazzem Hussain, Sultan-Ud-din, Mr. Ruhul Quddus (who arrived late) and Amir Hussain Miah, P.W.
Page: 140
(3) (a) meeting in Room No. 4, Hotel Mishka, Chittagong, on 5.2.66 with Amir Hussain Miah, P. W. (who had come there on your phone call from Dacca), Sultanuddin, A.B.M. Khurshid, Petty Officer Rahman and Lt. Huq;
(b) Did Amir Hussain Miah give you a telegram to be sent to Moazzem Hussain accused at Karachi after the meeting;
(4) meeting on 6.2.66 at Hotel Mishka, Chittagong with Amir Hussain Miah, P.W. Sultanuddin, A.B.M. Khurshid, Manik Chowdhury, B.C Sen, Sub. Razzaq of E.B.R. and Dr. Saeed-ur-Rahman Chowdhury, P.W. It is stated that Manik Choudhury gave Rs. 3, 000/- for the party to Amir Hussain Miah, P.W. on or about that occasion.
(5) meeting at the house of Mr. Tajuddin in Dhanmandi, Dacca, on 12.3.66 along with Sheikh Mujibur Rahman Lt. Moazzem Hussain Mr. Ruhul Quddus and Amir Hussain Miah, P.W. It is stated that you were taken to this meeting by Sheikh Mujibur Rahman accused, all except Mr. Ruhul Quddus, in his car from the Bus Stand on ‘Sat Masjid’ Road;
(6) In May 1966, meeting at the other house of Dr. Saeedur Rahman Chowdhury, P.W. in Chittagong with Sultan-Ud-din, A.B.M. Khurshid, Lt. Moazzem Hussain and it is stated that Dr. Saeedur Rahman and Manik Chowdhury were excluded from this meeting by Lt. Moazzem Hussain on the plea of their being civilians.
(7) & (8) two further meetings at Dr. Saeed-ur-Rahman Chowdhury’s house in Chittagong in June, 1966, along with Lt. Moazzem Hussain, Sultanuddin, A.B.M. Khurshid and Dr. Saeed-urRahman Chowdhury;
(9) In June, 1966, meeting at the house of Rameez P.W. in Panchlaish, Chittagong, with Lt. Moazzem Hossain, A.B.M. Khurshid, Ris Shamsul Huq, Hav. Aziz and others;
(10) meeting at the flat of Rameez P.W. in Dacca or about July, 1966, with Lt. Moazzem Hossain Capt. Najmul Huda and Capt. Alim Bhuyian;
Page: 141
(11) meeting in August, 1966, at the Dacca flat of Rameez P.W. with Capt. Alim Bhuyian, Capt. Shawkat Ali Mian, Lt. Moazzem Hussain and Capt. Najmul Huda ;
(12) meeting in September, 1966, at the flat of Rameez P.W. in Dacca, with Rameez P.W? Mr. Rahman, Lt. Moazzem Hussain , Capt. S.Alam ,Capt. Alim Bhuiyan, Capt. N. Huda , Capt. Muttalib and Sultanuddin;
(13) meeting in March, 1967, at the flat of Rameez P.W. in Dacca with Lt. Moazzem Hussain and Rameez P.W.;
(14) meeting on 30th March, 1967, at the Dacca flat of Rameez P.W. with Mr. K. M. S. Rahman, Lt. Com. Moazzem Hussain, Capt. Muttalib, ex-Corporal Samad and Rameez P.W.;
(15) a number of meetings at 13, Green square, Dacca , in May and June, 67, where you were said to have taken up residence along with Lutful Huda, Sub. J.U. Ahmed, Corporal Samad and Hav. Daliluddin. These meetings were alleged to have been attended among others by Lt. Moazzem Hussain, Ris. Shamsul Huq, Naib Sub-J.U Ahmed, Hav. Daliluddin, Sultan-Ud-din Ali Raza, Samad and Rameez P.W. In one of the meetings, it is alleged that a decision was taken to send you and Ali Raza as delegates to Agartala, India, for meeting the Indian Officials.
Ans. (1) It is false that I attended the meeting at Lt. Com. Moazzem Hossain’s house at Karachi in January, 1964. (2) with regard to the alleged meeting of 29th August, 1965, I say that I
did not know the house of Sk. Mujibur Rahman and I did not know the names of the persons mentioned in the question nor did I attend any such meeting with them.
(3) (a) The allegations about my attendance in the meeting at Hotel ‘Mishaka’ Chittagong, on 5.2. 66 is false.
(b) I did not send any such telegram as mentioned in the question to Lt. Com. Moazzem Hussain in Karachi,
(4) I never attended the meeting at Hotel ‘Mishka’ on 6.2.66. and I
never heard the names of the persons mentioned in connection with that meeting. I am not aware of the alleged payment of Rs. 3,000/- by Manik Choudhury to Amir Hussian Mia, P.W.
Page: 142
(5) It is also false that I attended the meeting at the house of Mr. Tajuddin in Dhanmandi on 12.3.66 along with the persons named.
(6) The allegations about my attendance in a meeting in the month of May, 1966 at the outer house of Dr. Saeedur Rahman Choudhury in Chittagong are entirely false and I never knew the house of Dr. Saeedur Rahman Choudhury.
(7), (8) & (9) I did not attend any further meeting at Dr. Saeedur Rahman Choudhury’s house in June, 1966 nor did I attend any such meeting in June, 1966 at the house of Mr. Rameez, P.W. in Panchlaish, Chittagong as alleged along with the persons mentioned.
(10) & (11) It is also false that I attended two meetings at the flat of Mr. Rameez, P.W. in Dacca, with the persons mentioned in the questioned-one in the month of July, 1966 and the other in the month of August, 1966. Nor did I know where his flat was.
(12) It is entirely false that I attended any meeting at the flat of Mr. Rammez, P.W. in the month of September, 1966.
(13) & (14) Nor did I attend any meeting as alleged in the flat of Mr. Rameez, P.W. in Dacca, in March, 1967 or on the 30th March, 1967 along with the persons named in the question.
(15) It is also wrong to say that I have ever lived in 13, Green square, Dacca, with the persons mentioned nor I attended any such meetings as alleged nor it is correct to say that I was selected to go to Agartala with Mr. Ali Reza to meet the Indian officials there. I do not know Agartala.
Q.3(a) Did you and Sultanuddin accused canvass Amir Hussain Miah, P.W to join the separatist’s movement in December 1964/January 1965, at Karachi, and since he was reluctant, did you take him for further inducement to Lt. Moazzem Hussain who successfully persuaded him;
(b) Did you successfully canvass Ghulam Ahmed, P.W in December 1964/Junuary 1965 at Karachi to join the separatist movement?
Ans: It is wrong that Sultanuddin and I tried to persuade Amir Hussain Mia, P.W to join the Separatist movement in December, 1964/ January, 1965 and that he was taken to Lt. Com. Moazzem Hussain who
Page: 143
successfully persuaded him to join the movement. It is also wrong that I persuaded Golam Ahmed, P.W. at the same time to join the movement.
Q.4. Did you and Sultanuddin accused receive Lt. Moazzem Hussain and Amir Hussain Miah when they arrived by air at Dacca Airport, from Karachi, on 28.6.65 and did you take them in the jeep of Kamaluddin P.W. first to “Aleya”, Dhanmandi where Lt. Moazzem Hussain got down and the rest went to Dacca Hotel?
Ans: These are all false allegations.
Q.5. Did you receive Rs. 700/- on 1.9.65 and Rs. 4000/-on 9.9.65 from Sheikh Mujibur Rahman and did you pass on the two sums to Amir Hussain Miah, P.W. who was the Treasurer of the party funds? Did Amir Hussain Miah give you and Sultanuddin Rs. 300/- out of these amounts for expenses?
Ans: This is totally false.
Q.6. Did you send the letter Ex. P.W. 3/6 addressed to Amir Hussain Mia and P.W.37 to Nur Muhammad accused in envelop to Amir Hussain Mia at Karachi written on your behalf by A. B. M. Khurshid with the initial “N” at the end standing for your name? Did you write the letters, Ex. P.W. 3/9 dated 29.11.65 and P.W. 3/11 dated 6.12.65 in your own hand to Amir Hussain approver at Karachi?
Ans: I did not get the letters, P.W. 3/6 and P.W. 3/7 written by A.B.M. Khurshid on behalf of myself to Amir Hossain Miah nor did I write the letters, P.W.3/9 and P.W.3/11 to Amir Hussain P.W.
Q. 7. Did you send two letters with Rs. 2200/- in cash out of the sums collected by you for the party through the Steward of a ship for Chittagong to L.S. Nur Muhammad at Karachi who delivered the money and the letters in the presence of Amir Hussain Miah P.W. to Lt. Moazzem Hussain in January, 1966?
Ans: This is false.
Q.8. Did you on being called on phone from Chittagong to Dacca by Amir Hossain Miah P.W. go with him to Sk. Mujibur Rahman’s house on Baqar Id“ day which falls on 3.4.66 and did you receive Rs. 4000/from Sheikh Mujibur-Rahman and pass it on to Amir Hussain Miah? Did
Page: 144
you also receive Rs. 2000/- the same day from Mr. Ruhul Quddus accused and give it to Mr. Amir Hussain Maih. P.W.? Were these amounts then given to you by Amir Hussain, P.W to be sent to Karachi to Lt. Moazzem Hussain from Chittagong?
| Ans: This is all false. I did not know the persons whose names have been mentioned in the question.
Q.9. In April/May, 1966 were you present with Lt. Moazzem Hussain at “Alya” in Dhanmandi, Dacca, when Amir Hussain Miah P.W. came there and made over Rs. 80000/- along with account books of party funds to Lt. Moazzem Hussain who gave him back Rs. 1500/- to meet expenses already incurred? was there a quarrel between them over the rendition of accounts and did Amir Hussain declare that he was leaving the organization and on this did Lt. Moazzem Hussain threaten him on pain of being killed to keep his lips sealed about the party affairs and did to hell you and Samad who was also there, to watch him?
Ans: This is all false. I did not know the house ‘Aleya or Lt. Commander Moazzem Hussain at the relevant time.
Q.10: In December, 1965, did you accompany Manik Chowdhury accused to the dispensary of Dr. Saeed-ur-Rahman Chowdhury P.W. at Chittagong to request him to provide a meeting place for military personnel in your organization?
Ans: This is entirely false. I did not know the dispensary of Dr. Saedur Rahman Choudhury at all of his house.
Q. 11. Did you also visit his dispensary in Febraury, 1966 and invite him to meet Amir Hussain Miah at Hotel Mishka the same evening and he actually did so along with Manik Chowhdury. B.C. San, Sultanuddin and A.B.M Khurshid?
Ans: This is entirely false.
Q.12. Were you present at the house of Dr. Saeedur Rahman Chowdhury at Chittagong when Sheikh Mujibur Rahman accused after a public meeting held at Laldighi Maidan in February, 1966, visited the house of Dr. Saeedur-Rahman? Did Sheikh Mujibur Rahman on your whispering something into his car tell Dr. Saeedur-Rahman Chowdhury
Page: 145
to provide a meeting place for military personnel and help the separatist organization?
Ans: I have already stated that I do not know Dr. Saidur Rahman or his house. This is false.
Q.13 In May, 1966 did you again visit Dr. Saeedur-Rahman at Chittagong in the company of Manik Chowdhury and ask him for a meeting place and the Doctor then offered his outer house for the purpose?
Ans: This is false. I was not there.
Q.14 Were you a frequent visitor at the house of Lt. Moazzem Hussain when he was living in Nasirabad Society in Chittagong and later at “Anchorage” Chittagong, along with A.B.M. Khurshid and Sultanuddin in 1966?
Ans: No.
Q.15. Did you accompany Lt. Moazzam Hussain and Dr. Saeedur Rahman Choudhury in the former’s Hillman Car to Dacca in August, 1966 and on the way did you stop at Comilla at the residence of Capt. S. Alam?
Ans: This is false.
Q.16. In July 1979, did you convey a message from Lt. Moazzam Hussain to Dr. Saeed-ur-Rahman asking him to go to Dacca for a meeting and did Dr. Saeedur Rahman and Maink Chowdhury go to Dacca on 23.7.67?
Ans: No.
Q.17. In May, 1967, did you along with Lt. Moazzem Hussain and A.B.M Khurshid call at the residence of Rameez P.W. in Panchalish, Chittagong and when he returned the call at the house of Lt. Moazzem Hussain and a fortnight later, did you and Lt. Moazzem, Hussain and A.B.M. Khurshid induct him into the separatist movement?
Ans: No.
Q.18. Were Capt. Najmul Huda and Capt. Alim Bhuyian induced to join the movement in July/August, 1966, at the flat of Capt. Huda on Green Road, Dacca, by Rameez P.W. and Lt. Moazzem Hussain, accused in your presence?
Ans: This is false.
Page: 146
Q.19 Did you two or three days after the meeting at the flat of Rameez P.W. in Dacca held on 30th March, 1979, received from him Rs. 25000/- and did you take it to Rameez P.W. at this flat for stating business on behalf of the party in the presence of Lutful Huda? Did Rameez give you Rs. 5000/- out of this amount to be passed on to Lutful Huda for the business?
Ans: This is all false.
Q. 20. Did you and Ali Raza, Corporal Samad and Hav. Daliluddin go to Feni on the morning of the 11th July, 1967 and stay at Hotel Denofa where rooms had been booked for you all by Naib-Sub. J.U Ahmed, P.W.?
Ans: This is false.
Q. 21. Did you on 11.7.67 phone up Rameez P.W at Chittagong from Feni asking him to come over and did he come there in the evening in his P.I.A. Dodge Dart Car KAE 3194 with Anwar Hussain, P.W.? Did you all dine together, Feni, for a few hours rests while the others including Anwar Hussain stayed at Hotel Denofa?
Ans: This is false.
Q. 22. Did Rameez P.W. pick up all of you except Daliluddin from the Hotel at 2.30 a.m. on 12.7.67 in his car and did he drop you all except Anwar Hussain near Belonia close to the Indian Border?
Ans: This is false.
Q. 23. Did Ali Raza and you cross over to Agartala, India, on that night and have a meeting with some Indian officials there? Did you return on the following day and then go to Barisal to report the result of your mission to Lt. Com. Moazzem Hussain?
Ans: This is all false.
Q. 24. Did Corp. Sirajul Islam meet you in house in Magh Bazar, Dacca, occupied by Sultanuddin in the presence of Lt. Moazzem Hussain in December 1967?
Ans: This is all false.
Q.25. Did you meet M. Ghulam Ahmed P.W. in village Jaffarabad, East Pakistan, when both of you had gone to your home and did you advise him to contact ex-corp. Samad at Dacca for employment?
Page: 147
Ans: This is false. I only knew Golam Ahmed, because he was my co-villager and served in the navy.
Q. 26. Did you employ M. Ghulam Ahmed P.W as a messenger for party messages and did you keep him at the house “Psyche” in Dacca, for party purposes on payment to him of conveyance charges only, in August, 1966?
Ans: This is false. I do not know the house “Psyche”.
Q. 27. Did you use to visit M. Ghulam Ahmed when he was living at Naval Fleet Club, Strand Road, Chittagong, in the end of August, 1966? Did you take him twice to Lt. Com. Moazzem Hussain for help in finding him a job and was he sent by Lt. Com. Moazzem Hussain first to Rameez P.W. and then to Sub. Ashraf Ali Khan at Dacca a message in September, 1966?
Ans. This is entirely false.
Q.28. Did you call M. Ghulam Ahmed again to meet Lt. Com. Moazzem Hussain a few days later as the latter wanted to send him on a mission to the Smuggler’s Depot in Karnaphuli?
Ans. This is false.
Q.29. Did you in February, 1966, along with A.B.M. Khurshid take Lt. Commander Shahidul Huq P.W. when he was taking tea in Hotel Mishka, Chittagong to the room of Amir Hussain Miah in the Hotel to meet him and was he canvassed to join the separatist movement but he declined to do so?
Ans. This is entirely false.
Q. 30. Did you call on Lt. Commander Shahidul Huq to canvass him to join the separatist movement at his office in Dacca in East Pakistan W.A.P.D.A. in March, 1964, along with A.B.M. Khurshid for the second time again at his house no. 295, Road 25, Dhanmandi, in April, 1966, along with Khurshid and Sultanuddin and for the third time at his house in Dacca along with Lt. Com. Moazzem Hussain in May, 1966, and is it true that each time he declined to join the separatist movement?
Ans. This is false. Q. 31. Did you in July, 1966, approach Lt. Commander.
Shahidul Huq P.W. in his office at Dacca to seek help in getting a motor launch for smuggling arms and ammunition through the
Page: 148
Sunderban area and is it true that he got infuriated and turned you out of his office?
Ans. This is false.
Q.32. In March, 1967, did Lutful Huda P.W. drive you in Hillman Car EBA 9591 at the instance of Rameez P.W. from Dacca to Faridpur and did you at that place meet Mr. Siddiqur Rahman, Deputy Commissioner, Faridpur, with a letter from Mr. K.M.S. Rahman, of which you had got a photostat copy prepared from the Dacca Photographer Mukul Chandra Datta, P.W. 198?
Ans: I did not go to Faridpur, all the other allegations are false.
Q.33. Did you receive cheque Ext. P.W. 157 from Lutful Huda P.W. for Rs. 500/- dated 12.10. 67 in our favour?
Ans: I received this cheque from him, as I was a carrying contractor under Lutful Huda for carrying his goods and furniture from Fakirapool, Dacca to different Places.
Q. 34 In May, 1967 did you go with Lutful Huda by air to Chittagong and stay at the house of Mr. Talukdar on Monin Road, Chittagong as stated by P.W.62, Daliluddin Ahmed? Did you bring Rs. 10,000/-from Manik Choudhury on that occasion and then did you both return to Dacca by air?
Ans: This is all false.
Q.35. Were you introduced by Lutful Huda, P.W. to the National Bank Pakistan, Dacca, for opening a Savings Bank Account and did you open an account on the application from Ext. P.W. 15/9? Is Ext. P.W. 73/3 in Bank Ledger Ext. P.W. 73/2 your account and do the copy of the account Ext. P.W. 106/2, the S.B. Account Card Ext. 73/4 and the S.B. Credit Voucher Ext. P.W. 73/7 relate to your account in that Bank?
Ans: The account opening form Ext. P.W. 15/9 bears my signature. The writing on it was done by Lutful Huda. This account was opened in order to facilitate my business as a carrier ext. P.W.73/3 and Ext. P.W.73/4 relates to that account of mine. On this document Ext. P.W. 73/4 my address is given as 13, Green Square. I never lived there. The address was given by Lutful Huda. His office was at 13, Green Square. With regard to the credit voucher Ext. P.W. 73/7, I can say nothing.
Page: 149
Q.36 Did you and Corp. Samad accused go with a chit from Capt. Muttalib accused of Ex. Sub. Jalaluddin Ahmed, P.W. 14, at his lawyer’s residence 128, Green Road, Dacca, inviting him to 13, Green Square, Did J.U. Ahmed take up residence at 13, Green Square thereafter on the persuasion of Capt. Muttalib?
Ans: I do not know Capt. Muttalib. The entire allegation is false.
Q.37. Did you become a deserter from the Navy vide warrant of arrest issued against you Ext. P.W. 137/5 dated 28.3.67?
Ans: I am not aware of this warrant of arrest. I got an intimation from my home that my mother was seriously ill. I showed that letter containing the news of her illness to my Commanding Officer who refused leave to me and I went away to my village here without taking any leave. About a week later when I returned to Chittagong, I met a Navy man at the Railway Station who told me that I had already been discharged from service.
Q.38. (a) Were you given the code name of “Murad” vide Ext. P.W. 3/18 and were you referred to as such in some of the letters that allegedly passed between Lt. Com. Moazzem Hussain and Amir Hussain Miah vide the letters Ext. P.W. 3/35 dated 25.2.66 and Ext. P.W. 3/39 dated 4.3.66 which purported to be from “Alo” to Amir Hussain Miah, P.W. as “Ulka” and letter Ext. P.W.3/49 dated 6.4.66?
(b) It is alleged that this is reference to you as “Mujibur Rahman” on “Mujibur” in letters Ext. P.W. 3/1 & P.W. 3/3 & 3/6 . Do you wish to say anything about this?
Ans: (a) I had no such code name. Nobody ever called me by the name “Murad’ and I know nothing about these letters. I know nothing about the other letters mentioned in part (b) of the question.
Q. 39. Did you in August, 1967, meet Dr. Saeed-ur-Rahman Choudhury and Manik Choudhury in Hotel Casseri Dacca and tell them that you and Ali Raza had gone to Agartala to meet Indian officials and that the mission was successful?
Ans: It is entirely false. I did not go to Agartala, nor do I know the persons mentioned
Page: 150
Q.40. Did you receive Rs. 5000/- by cheque Ex. P.W. 6/6 dated 26.6.67 on Eastern Mercantile Bank and Rs. 3000/- by cheque dated 8.5.67 Ex. P.W 64/2 on National and Grindlay’s Bank, Chittagong from Rameez P.W. out of party funds?
Ans: Mr. Rameez, P.W had given me a contract to put up boundary walls and supply all the materials for the construction of the walls is his land in Mohamadpur Housing. This was also a garage with tin-sheds created by me. For this, he paid me Rs. 5000/- by cheque Lutful Huda got me that contract. I do not know anything about the cheque marked Ext. P.W. 64/2.
Q.41. Did you in August, 1966, go with Lt. Com. Moazzem Hussain and Capt. Najmul Huda to the room of Capt. Alim Bhuyian in the ordnance Mess, Dacca, and meet Capt. Shawkat Ali Khan there and then you all decided to have meeting at the flat of Rameez P.W. in Dacca next day?
Ans: This is wrong.
Q.42. Was rent deed regarding 13, Green Square, Dacca, Ext. P.W 15/3, signed by you as a tenant? Was the name of Lutful Huda P.W. inserted in the deed as tenant and was it later substituted by your name with the consent of both?
Ans: The signature marked P.W 79/1 at the end of the document Ext. P.W. 15/3 is not mine. I am not aware of the change, in the name of the tenant in the body of the document. I never executed any document as a tenant under the landlord of 13. Green Square.
Q.43. Did you on or about 18.8.65 send by a telegraphic Money order Rs. 500/- to L.S. Nur Muhammad at Karachi from Tejgaon Airport
Post Office? Ans: This is false.
Q.44. Is Ext. P.W. 106/2 a statement of your account with Madaripur Branch of the National Bank of Pakistan?
Ans: I had an account with the Madaripur Branch of the National Bank of Pakistan Ext. P.W. 106/2 is the statement of that account. I had sold some land and I had deposited the money in that Bank.
Page: 151
Q. 45. Was the Jimmanama Ext. P.W. 165/6 executed by you regarding custody of Truck W.A.E. 695 and does it bear your signatures?
Ans: Yes. I signed that Jimmanama. I had hired that truck as a contractor.
Q. 46. In the alleged confessions by Capt. Najmul Huda dated 20.1.68, of Major Shamsul Alam, dated 26.1.68, both being recorded by Mr. Ejaz Muhammad Khan, A.D.M. Rawalpindi and in those of Capt. Shawkat Ali Khan dated 4.3.68 and Bhupati Bhusan Choudhury Alias Manik Chowdhury dated 12.2.68 recorded by Mr. G.M. Qadri, Additional Distt. Magistrate, Dacca, you are referred to as one of the members of the Separatist organization. Do you wish to say anything about this?
Ans: I do not know any of these persons named in the questioned and these allegations are false.
Q.47. You are alleged to have been referred to as “Mujibur ” in Ext. P.W. 3/21, the instructions contained in diary Ext. P.W. 3/14 and said to been given by Lt. Com. Moazzem Hussain to Amir Hussain P.W. when the latter was leaving Karachi for Dacca. Do you wish to explain this? Ans: I know nothing about his.
Page: 152
SPECIAL TRIBUNAL
Record of Proceedings
30.1.69.
Present :
Mr. Justice S.A. Rahman, H.Pk., Chairman.
Mr. Justice M.R. Khan S.Pk., Member.
Mr. Justice Maksum-ul-Hakim, Member.
For the Prosecution: As before.
For the Defence: As before.
Accused present: As before.
EXAMINATION OF ACCUSED STEWARD MUJIBUR RAHMAN SECTION 342, Cr. P.C CONTINUED
Q. 48. In the diary said to be of Ali Reza accused Ext. P.W. 27/2, apparently references to as exist as “Rahman ” and also as ” R.M.” and probably also as “M.R.” vide entries dated. 13.3.67, 3rd April, 4th April, 5th April 7th April, 8th April, 9th April , 15th April, 18th April, 20th, 21st, 24th April 6th 7th, 9th, 12th, 26th, 27th, 29th, to 31st, May, 1st, 2nd, 6th, 7th, 16th, 19th, 23rd, 25th, 27th to 29th June, 7th, 9th, 12th, 14th, to 16th, 22nd July, 2nd, 3rd, 14th, 19th August, 2nd, & 9th September, would you like to offer some explanation for them?
Ans: I do not know anything about these entries in this diary of another man. I am not called ‘R. M’I am not aware who Mr. Jhonson is. I do not know Muttalib, Samad Babu and M.R. There was no house in
Page: 153
my name in Green Square. I had never been to Barisal. I do not know J. Ahmed also whose name is mentioned in this diary. I am not known as Rahman.
Q.49. Do you wish anything else to explain the Pros. evidence led against you?
Ans: I am submitting written statement in Bengali.
(The statement was read out and interpreted into English by the Asstt. Registrar. I wish to add this. I started from my home at 4.P.M on the 8th December, 67 and reached Dacca at 9.A.M. on the next morning. I came by launch. As soon as I got out of the launch terminal at Dacca 4/5 plain clothes people surrounded me and asked me to halt there. They arrested me and took me and my luggage in a jeep to Rajarbagh. They made me sign on a D.P.R. form and then took me to Dacca Central Jail. On the 11th December, 67, I was again brought back to Rajarbagh. Lt. Sharif and some other high officers were there. Lt. Sharif told me that I had been discharged from the navy and said that if I follow their instructions they would do something for me and would help me in obtaining Government contracts etc. They wanted me to make a statement in English on the basis of some typed papers prepared in English. They wanted me to make a statement against some officers and others whom I did not know. I declined to do it. From that room, I was taken to another room where two tall Urdu speaking men beat me with ruler. They also abused me. Another tall gentleman came there whose name I subsequently learned as Col. Amir Ahmed and he asked those two, whether I had agreed to make a statement as desired. They said I had not agreed. They again started assaulting me and inserted pins into nails. When I started to sit they made me kneel and again beat me on the back. This lasted for about half an hour and then I was lying down on the floor. When I was lying down on the floor I had to stretch out my legs and arms and a man sat on my chest. Another man was standing on my legs. Then they turned me upside down, stretched my legs and inserted ruler into my rectum and they again abused me and asked me to make the statement they wanted, otherwise, they said, they would finish me and
Page: 154
nobody would know what happened to me. I was fasting and due to assault I became senseless and had to breakfast. Then at 8 P.M. Lt. Sharif, Major Naser, Lt. Col. Hasan and some 2/3 other officers whose names I do not know came there. Lt. Col. Hasan began to console me and said, “it does not matter, everything will be alright.” My clothes became soaked with blood. They called a doctor. D.S.P.s Yunus, Karim, and Lutful Rahman were also there. The doctor was called who gave medicine and advised that I should take full rest and he told those people not to assault me further. I was lying in a blanket. At about 4 A.M. Major Naser along with a D.S.P. came into my room. The other man went out while Major Naser stayed with me and made me sit on my bed told me to become friendly with him. When I declined to fall in with their wishes he gave me a slap. At about 8 A.M. in the morning, I was brought to the cantonment. Then I was taken to an air-conditioned room where an old gentleman told me to help the government and I would get all the benefits. Subsequently, I came to know that he was Brigadier Akbar. From that room, I was taken to the Naval Intelligence room where I found Capt. R. A. Momtaz, Director, Intelligence, Navy, Lt. Sharif was also there with him. I was again asked to make a statement according to their wishes but I refused. From there I was again taken to Rajarbagh Centre. No arrangement was made for keeping my fast there. About 2 to 3 hours later Major Naser, Lt. Sharif and 24 other officers came there. They also threatened to deal with me severely unless I would make a statement according to their wishes. Major Naser began to assault me with a ruler. He gave me a kick also in my back for which I am still under treatment. There has been a fracture of a bone. I become senseless and Major Naser lifted me up. Water was poured over me and I regained senses. I found a doctor by my side who advised the others not to assault me any further otherwise I would die. The doctor attended me twice daily. On the 14th December, 1967 I was taken to an upper room where I was photographed. On the 16th morning Lt. Sharif, Major Naser and some other officers also came there and again tried to persuade me to make a statement and on my refusal, they began to assault me. On the
Page: 155
18th morning, I was again taken to another room where I was made sit on two slabs of ice without my clothes. I was kept on them for 10 minutes and my whole body began to get stiff due to cold. I was then removed from there to another room and kept on a blanket. At about 9 a.m, on the 19th of December. Lt. Col. Hasan, Lt. Col. Amir Ahmed, Lt. Sharif and Major Naser came to my Place and told me that if I did not agree to what they wanted to do then I would be condemned for life. On the same evening at about 8 P.M. I was taken to Comilla by train. I was detained there for 6 months in the Comilla Jail under D.P.R. On the 14th of January, 1968 at about 8 a.m. I was intimated by the Jailer that I was released. As I came out from the jail gate with my clothes, I was arrested by Military authorities there and was taken to Chittagong by air. At Chittagong I was given meals and Lt. Com. Mehdi Khan, Lt. Sharif, Lt. Shamim and Commander Shafique sat around me and advised me to follow their instructions otherwise I would bear the consequences. I refused and on the 18th I was brought back to the Dacca Cantonment. From there I was taken in a jeep by Major Naser to 17 F.F Lines. I was kept in a closed room which had only one door and one ventilator. There I was asked by Major Naser, Major Hasan, Lt. Sharif and others to make a confession before a Magistrate. I refused and they threatened me with death. They allowed me to ease myself only once in 2 days and to pass water only once in a day. When taken for relief purposes my hands were tied behind me and I was pushed from behind my back. They allowed only 2/3 minutes for my relief and then they dragged me by a rope by which I was bound. On occasions, I had to come out from the latrine without washing and finishing easing myself. Subsequently, when I wanted to say my prayer in my room, Major Naser and Major Hasan told me that a Bengalee Muslim need not do so. I was not given sufficient food. I was subjected to pressure 15 or 16 times to make a statement according to their wishes but always I refused. Finally, I was told by Major Naser that unless I would make a statement according to their wishes I would be settled with. I was taken to another room where I found a soldier with a moustache who was told by Major Naser to take
Page: 156
me to another room and he would settle me. I was taken to another room where I was tied up to a beam in the ceiling and my head was kept downwards and my two hands were tied behind my back. While I was in that Position, Major Naser and that Subedar began to hit me on my lips and after sometime I vomited.
I was then brought back to my former room. Major Naser told me that he would give me a last chance. Sometime in March, I was taken in a jeep to the Cantonment where I was shown to some people who were in different rooms there. I was on this occasion taken to 2/3 different messes and shown to various people. I was then taken to a mess where I found an old gentleman who identified himself as a Magistrate. He asked me to give some specimen writings. He took different specimen writings from me. I was then taken to the place where I was originally detained. In April, 1968 some specimen writings were also taken from me
I am innocent and not aware of anything in connection with this case.
Q. 50. Will you produce any defence evidence?
Ans: No.
NOTE: The learned Counsel for the Defence pointed out that Std. Mujibur Rahman while making his statement had at times choked voice and had tears in his eyes.
Chairman.
Member.
Member.
Page: 157
STATEMENT OF ACCUSED NO. 4, L.S. SULTANUDDIN AHMED UNDER SECTION 342, Cr.P.C.
Q. 1. Did you in the years 1964-67 (both years inclusive) conspire with your co-accused and persons mentioned in List “A” attached to the Complaint as well as other persons to wage war against Pakistan and to deprive Pakistan of its sovereignty over the Province of East Pakistan by means of criminal force in an armed revolt which was to be carried out mainly with weapons, ammunition and funds provided by India through Indian officials?
Ans: This is false.
Q.2. Did you, in pursuance of the conspiracy aforesaid, attend the following meetings at which the implementation of that conspiracy was discussed and plans made as explains by the P.W.S namely:
(i) meetings at Karachi in January, 1964, also attended by Lt. Moazzem Hossain, Nur Muhammad, St. Mujibur Rahman and Lt. Muzammal Hussain, P.W. at the house of Lt. Moazzem Hussain at D/77, K.D.A. Scheme No. 1, Karachi;
(2) meeting held in September, 1964 at the house occupied by Kamaluddin Ahmed in School Teachers Cooperative Housing Society, Karachi, attended also by Lt. Moazzem Hossain, Nur Muhammad, Sheikh Mujibur Rahman, Mr. A.F. Rahman and Lt. Muzammil Hussain, P.W.;
(3) meeting at Sergeant Mofizullah’s quarter in Korangi Creek in the occupation of Warrant officer Mosharraf Hussain, P.W. 13, attended also
Page: 158
by Mosharraf Hussain, Sergeant Mofizullah Sergeant Fazlul Huq and Sergeant Shamsuddin Ahmed etc.
(4) meeting on 29.8.65 at the house of Sheikh Mujibur Rahman in Dhanmandi, Dacca, also attended by Sheikh Mujibur Rahman, St. Mujibur Rahman, Lt. Moazzem Hussain, Amir Hussain P.M. ah, P.W. and Mr. Ruhul Quddus accused who arrived late;
(5) meeting at Miska, Hotel, Chittagong, on 5.2.66 attended also by Amir Hussain P.W., St. Mujibur Rahman, A.B.M. Khurshid, petty officer Rahman and Lt. Huq;
(6) meeting at Hotel Mishka, Chittagong, on 6.2.66 attended also by St. Mujibur Rahan, A.B.M. Khurshid accused, Dr. Saeedur Rahman and Amir Hussain Miah, P.Ws. and accused Manik Chowdhury, Bidhan C. Sen and sub. Razzaq of E.B.R.;
(7) meeting at the house of Dr. Saeed-ur-Rahman in Chittagong, sometime in May, 1966, also attended by Dr. Saeedur Rahman, St. Mujibur Rahman A.B.M. Khurshid, Lt. Moazzem Hussain and Manik Choudhury, were excluded on the plea of being civilians by Lt. Moazzem Hussain;
(8) and (9) two meetings at the house of Dr. Saeedur Rahman Choudhury in Chittagong in June, 1966 attended also by Lt. Moazzem Hussain, A. B. M. Khurshid and Dr. Saeed-ur- Rahman;
(10) meeting at the Dacca Flt. of Rameez P.W in September, 1966, also attended by Lt. Moazzem Hussain, Capt. Alim Bhuiyan, Capt. Najmul Huda Capt. S. Alam, Capt. Muttalib, St. Mujibur Rahman, Mt. K.M.S. Rahman and Rameez P.W.;
(11) meetings at Green Square, Dacca, in June, 1977, attended by Rameez P.W, Lt. Moazzem Hussain, Ris. Shamsul Huq, Naib-SubJalaluddin Ahmed, St. Mujibur Rahman, Hav. Daliluddin Ahmed, Ali Raza Samad when Anwar Hussain was sent away before the meeting was held. This was followed by other meetings at Green Square at one of which it was decided to send St. Mujibur Rahman and Ali Raza as delegates to meet the Indian Officials at Agartala:
Page: 159
(12) meeting held in July 67 at home of Mahbubuddin Ahmed attended also by Lt. Rahman, Pilot Officer Mirza, S. M. Ali., Flt. Sgt. Mofizullah, Chowdhuy Zainulabedin, Corporal, Serajul Islam.
Ans. All these allegations are false.
Q.3. In or about January, 1948, did you inform Ly. Muzammil Hussain P.W. at Karachi of the formation of a revolutionary group organized by Lt. Moazzem Hussain with the object of separating East Pakistan from the Government of Pakistan? Did you and St. Mujibur Rahnan try to persuade Corp. Amir Hussain Miah in December 1964/January 1965 to join the separatist movement and did you eventually take him to Lt. Moazzem Hussain who persuaded him to join it?
Ans: This is false. I did not know Lt. Com. Moazzem Hussain before this case started.
Q. 4. Did you write to Amir Hussain Miah P.W. the letter marked Ext. P.W. 3/1 dated 13.8.65, the letters Exs. P.Ws 3/2 and 3/3 without dates and the letter Ex. P.W. 3/12, with the letter Ex. P.W. 3/3 a pamphlet Ex. P.W. 3/4 being enclosed?
Ans: I never wrote these letters. I am not aware of the pamphlet P.W. 3/4.
Q.5. Did you along with St. Mujibur Rahman receive Lt. Moazzem Hussain and Amir Hussain Miah P.W. at the Dacca Airport on 28.8.65 and take them in the jeep of Kamaluddin Ahmed, P.W. driven by Nawab Ali, P.W.99 first to “Aleya” in Dhanmandi, where Lt. Moazzem Hussain got down and then the rest of you to Dacca Hotel?
Ans: This is a false allegation.
Q.6. Were you present when St. Mujibur Rahman received Rs. 4,000/- From Sheikh Mujibur Rahman on 9.9.65 at the latter’s house in Dhanmandi, Dacca? Was this money brought to Amir Hussain Miah and did Amir Hussain Miah pay you and St. Mujibur Rahman Rs. 300/- out of this sum for expenses?
Ans: This is false.
Q.7. Were you given the code name of “Kamal” as mentioned in the document Ext. P.W. 3/18 in the diary Ext. P.W. 3/14 and in the letters
Page: 160
Exts. P.W.3/32, P.W.3/35, P.W.3/39, P.W.3/46 and, P.W. 3/49 were you’ referred to by this name for the purposes of party work?
Ans: I do not know anything about these allegations.
Q.8. Were you on or about 5.7.67 at the house occupied by Kamaluddin Ahmed P.W. at 29/3, Outer Circular Road, Magh Bazar, Dacca, when Shamsuddin Ahmed. P.W. 4 came there and did you send for Lt. M.M. Rahman from the base camp Dacca, through one, Ghulam Ahmed, to meet him?
Ans: This is false.
Q.9. In or about August, 1967, were you sent to Dacca from Karachi by Lt. M.M. Rahman to bring two workers of the movement from there to Karachi for talks? Did you tell Shamsuddin Ahmed P.W. at Dacca that no workers were willing to go to Karachi?
Ans: This is false
Q.10. On 30 August, 1967, were you present at the party House on Road No.18, Dhanmandi, Dacca, when Dr. Saeedur Rahman and Manik Choudhury came there and met Ali Reza.
Ans: This is false.
Q.11. In December 1965/January 1966, did you and Sgt. Shamsul Huq canvass Corp. Jamaludddin Ahmed P.W.6 in the room of Sgt. Shamsul Huq in Block 16, P.A.F. Dacca to join this movement?
Ans: This is false.
Q.12. Did you along with St. Mujibur Rahman and A.B.M. Khurshid sometime in April, 1966, visit Lt. Com. Shamsuddin Huq, P.W. 14 at his house on Eid Day at No. 395 Road No. 25, Dhanmandi, Dacca and canvassed him to join the separatist movement?
Ans: This is false.
Q.13. Was there a search of house No. 29/3, Magh Bazar, Dacca, occupied by you and Kamaluddin Ahmed P.W. in your presence by P.W. 45, Raghu Nandan Saha, Sub-Inspector on 9.12.67 and was “Salim College file”, Ext. P.W. 45/2, recovered therefrom among other things?
Ans: I was sick on that day. I am not aware whether the house was searched or not.
Page: 161
Q.14. Is the Bengali letter Ext. P.W. 238/14 (Q.16 and 16A) and writings in “Salim College File”, Ext. P.W. 45/2) marked as Q 18 and 18A and Q 21, in your hand and were they written by you.?
Ans: The letter, as well as the writings in ‘Salim College file’, marked Q/18, Q18A and Q/21 are not in my hand.
Q.15. Did you send by telegraphic money order Rs. 500/- on 18.8.65 to L.S. Noor Mohammad at Karachi from Tejgaon Airport, P.O. the sender’s name being mentioned as “M. Rahman” which name you are alleged to have assured as mentioned in Letters Ext. P.W. 3/1, 3/2 & 3/3?
Ans: I never sent any such money order.
Q.16. In April, 1966, was Manik Choudhury accused told by Sheikh Mujibur Rahman accused at the latter’s House in Dacca to give money to you for the party and did you three or four days later receive Rs. 1500/from Manik Chowdhury at his house in Chittagong for the party?
Ans: This is false.
Q.17. Did you, in collaboration with Naib-sub. Asharaf Ali Khan hires the house called “Psyche” at Dacca at 160/3, Azimpur Road for party purposes and did you and Ashraf Ali Khan begin residing there from May, 1966?
Ans: This is false.
Q.18. You are referred to as one of the members of the separatist organization in this case in the alleged confessions of Bhupati Bhushan Chowhdury Alias Manik Chowdhury dated 12.2.68, of Capt. Shawkat Ali Khan dated 4.3.68, both recorded by Mr. G.M. Qadri, A.D.M., Dacca of Major Shamsul Alam dated 20.1.68 recorded by Mr. Ejaz Muhammad Khan, A.B.M. Rawalpindi. Do you wish to say anything about it?
Ans: I know nothing about it. I did not know Manik Chowhdury, Capt. Shawkat Ali Mian or Major Shamsul Alam till this case was started.
Q.19. It is alleged that there are references to you, as “Sultan” in the letters Exts. P.W.3/9 and P.W.3/6 said to have been written by St. Mujibur Rahman to Amir Hussain Mia P.W. and also in the writing Ext. P.W. 3/21 in diary Ext. P.W.3/14 say to have been given to Amir
Page: 162
Hussain P.W. by Lt. Com. Moazzam Hussain. Do you wish to say anything in this regard?
Ans: I know nothing about these matters.
Q.20. There are apparently references to you in the diary Ext. P.W. 27/2 said to belong to Ali Raza accused vide entries dated 17.3.67 the 10th, 18th & 19th July and 8th September and 14th November, 1967. Would you like to offer any explanation for them?
Ans: I know nothing about these entries. I have got no house in Dacca and I did not know Mr. Ali Raza before the starting of this case.
Q.21. Do you wish to say anything else in explanation of the evidence led in this case?
Ans: I retired from the Pakistan Navy in September, 1967 and came back home. In the first part of November, 1967 I came to Dacca to reside with my brother-in-law, Kamaluddin Ahmed. We had some ancestral property which is just contiguous to the Second Capital at Dacca. The government had already acquired that land for extension of the 2nd Capital. As my father is in service. in Sylhet, I had to look after that affair. I got Typhoid while exhausting myself in pursuing this matter. I recovered towards the end of November, 1967 but the Doctor advised me complete rest in bed even after that. On the 9th of December, 1967 I was told by my brother-in-law, Kamaluddin Ahmed that some army and police officers had come and wanted to talk to me. From there Kamaluddin and I were taken to Rajarbagh by those persons. There I was shown a detention order under D.P.R, for six months and I was sent to Dacca Central Jail. The following day I was admitted in the hospital by the jail doctor. For a week I was admitted to the hospital. In the third week of December. 1967 I was again taken to Rajarbagh, I found in a room there Lt. Col. Sher Ali Baz, Lt. Sharif of the Navy, Lt. Shamim, Capt. Sultan, Col. Hasan, Ahsanullah, D.S.P. and some others whom I do not know. Lt. Sharif there told me that if I work according to their wishes then he would help me and my brother-in-law with money and other things, and as an Ex-serviceman, I would be given some lands to manage in Dacca in the 2nd Capital area. I was also told that I would be decorated on the 23rd of March with Tamghah. If I refused that would entail
Page: 163
miseries to me and my family. Lt. Col. Sher Ali Baz tried to console me for my condition for which I was lamenting and then he showed me some typed paper and told me that I would have to make a statement on the basis of this typed statement before a Magistrate. I found the names of some politicians; Military officers and civil officers and others whom I did not know. They told me that these persons named in the typed paper had started a conspiracy to overthrow the established Government and I would have to depose against them. I refused. Lt. Sharif then dragged me by the car to another room. There are four persons who jumped on me in that room which was dark and deprived me of the clothes on my body. They also abused me, slapped me and spit on my face. I fell on the ground due to weakness. I felt there were broken pieces of ice spread on the floor. I was thrown on my face, two persons sat on my back, two held my legs and something like an iron rod was thrust into my rectum.
Some powder was thrown into my eyes and I felt some smarting sensation. As I was going to shout someone thrust a cloth into my mouth to gag me. I lost consciousness. When I came to I found a man sitting by my side. I was then laid on a chouki and wrapped in a blanket. He said he was a Doctor and on explaining my condition he gave me some lotion for my eyes and some ointment for my injuries. I was not given any food during that time and Lt. Sharif saw me and enquired of me whether I was ready to make a statement according to their desire. This continued for three to four days. I was again taken to my former room where I found Lt. Col. Sher Ali Baz, Major Hasan, Naser, Capt. Sultan, D.S.P. Lutfur Rahman, Lt. Sharif and some others whose names I do not know, D.S.P. Lutfur Rahman asked me whether I knew a lady called ‘Ila Mitra’. The D.S.P. told me about the torture that the lady was subjected to Lt. Sharif threatened me that my sister would be subjected to similar torture. He also told me that my brother-in-law was already under their custody and they would also arrest my other brothers. I again lost consciousness. During the night when I came to found the same Doctor with me who gave me some hot tea and medicine to warm me up. Next night I was again taken to the Central jail. Dacca. I was kept in a damp cell. The next day I was taken to the jail gate and met my father who informed me that
Page: 164
my sister had already lodged a writ petition on my behalf in the High Court. He also informed me that my sister also prayed for a medical board to examine me. I was taken to the Dacca Medical College under police escort that night. I was kept in a room under guard and two or three days’ letter some persons came in and they said they were Doctors. I showed them my injuries but one of the Doctors told me that they had nothing to do and asked me to pray to Allah’. On the 31st December, I was again brought back to the Dacca Central Jail and kept in a small cell. On the night of 18th January, 1968 I was shown a form by the D.I.G. of Prisons who told me that I was being released. I was brought to the jail gate where I found Lt. Sharif and some other army personnel. I was taken in a jeep to a place which I subsequently learned to be F.F. Lines where I was placed in a room which had no windows and ventilators. There was only one steel door.
At about 8/9 A.M. in the next morning I was visited by several persons including Lt. Sharif, Lt. Col. Amir Mohammad, Col. Hasan, Major Hasan, Major Naser and some others. These others told me that they were from Rawalpindi and if I conceded to their wishes I would be benefited. Lt. Sharif told me that previously I had been in the custody of Bengali officers and now I was under Punjabees and I would see how many hours make a day. I was then ordered to be assaulted by some other persons who were there. Two or three guards who were there began to assault me, spat on my face and gave me abuses in Urdu and Punjabi. I was not given boiled rice during the day and in the evening I was given some chapatio which I refused to take and I asked for rice when they threatened that I would have to take rice from the backside. I was subjected to this kind of treatment for more than a month. I was taken to relieve myself only once a day having a chain tied to my waist. One man used to drag me by the chain while someone from behind used to prod me from behind with the bayonet.
The Sepoys told me that they knew how to rules over Bengal and that is why they had come from West Pakistan. On one occasion I was dragged out of the latrine before I finished easing myself and without washing. On one occasion while I was being brought out of the latrine
Page: 165
another person was passing at a distance of 1000 yards off from me and the Sepoys thought that I had made a sign to him and for this, that man was assaulted. As I was allowed only once in the day to ease myself. I was given a chamber pot in my room and I had to do everything there and the room became insanitary. As a result of that, I was attacked with chickenpox. I was provided with one blanket only and made to sleep on the damp floor. When I demanded anything from the guard men, they struck my head against the wall and sap ton my face and they said that this is what I deserved. Lt. Sharif used to visit me occasionally and pressed me to say whether I was ready to make a statement according to their wishes in which case he said that I would be taken to the officer’s mess. Sometime in April, 1968 Lt. Sharif came and told me that brotherin-law Kamaluddin had turned approver and said that I should do so as well.
He told me that my sister also desired me to do it. Lt. Sharif asked me to make a statement before a Magistrate saying that a man can murder a man for Rs. 5/- and if I make a statement before the Magistrate, I would receive more benefits. I refused. A few days later Lt. Sharif brought another gentleman to my room who gave himself out as Magistrate Qadri. Mr. Qadri asked me to make statement before him as desired by the army people otherwise my parents and other relations would be made to disappear. I refused. Major Hasan told me one day before the proceedings of the tribunal started that I would be produced before the Court. I do not know anything about this case lastly. I say that I am completely innocent and I have been subjected to this case because I am a Bengali.
Q.22. Do you wish to produce defence evidence?
Ans: No.
Chairman.
Member
Member.
Page: 166
STATEMENT OF ACCUSED NO. 5 L/S NUR MOHAMMAD
UNDER SECTION 342 Cr.P.C
Q.1. Did you in the years 1964-67 (both years inclusive) conspire with your co-accused and persons mentioned in List “A” attached to the complaint as well as other persons to wage war against Pakistan and to deprive Pakistan of its sovereignty over the province of East Pakistan by means of criminal force in an armed revolt which was to be carried out mainly with weapons, ammunition and funds provided by India through Indian officials?
Ans: This is categorically false.
Q.2. Did you in pursuance of the conspiracy aforesaid attend the following meetings at which the implementation of that conspiracy was discussed and plans made as Explained by P.W.’s namely:
(i) dinner meeting at the house of Lt. Moazzem Hussain at 77/D, K.D.A. Scheme No. 1, Karachi, in January, 1964, attended by Lt. Muzammil Hussain, P.W. St. Mujibur Rahman and Sultanuddin;
(ii) meeting at the house occupied by Kamaluddin Ahmed P.W. in School Teachers Co-operative Housing Society, Karachi, in September 1964, attended by Sultanuddin, Lt. Moazzem Hussain, Sheikh Mujibur Rahman, Lt. Muzammal Hussain P.W. and Mr. A.F. Rahman;
(iii) meeting at the house of Lt. Moazzam Hussain in Karsaz’ area in Karachi in January, 1965 attended also by Sheikh Mujibur Rahman, Mr. A.F. Rahman, Flt. Sgt. Mofizullah, Lt. Moazzem Hussain and Lt. Muzammil Hussain P.W.;
Page: 167
(iv) meeting at Lt. Moazzem Hussain’s house at Karachi in November, 1965, attended also by Lt. Moazzem Hussain. Mr. A.F. Rahman, ex-corp. Samad and Amir Hussain Miah P.W., at which Mr. A.F. Rahman is said to have offered to procure transistorised transmitters from London through his brother there;
(v) meeting at the flat of Mr. A.F. Rahman in Ilako House, Karachi, in November 1965 attended also by Mr. A.F. Rahman, Lt. Moazzem Hussain, Amir Hussain Mian P.W. and at a later stage by Mr. D.G. Ahmed, P.W.
(vi) meeting at the house of Sgt. Mofizullah in Abysinnia Lines, Karachi, in July/August, 1966, attended also by Warrant officer Musharraf Hussain, Corporal Jamaluddin Ahmed Corporal Sirajul Islam, S.A.C. Mahfuzul Bari and Sgt. Mofizullah;
Ans: These allegations are all false. I never met Lt. Moazzam Hussain, Sk. Mujibur Rahman, Mr. A.F. Rahman, CSP Sgt. Mafizullah, K.G. Ahmed Samad, or Amir Hussain, P.W. before I came to this Court. I did not visit Mr. A.F. Rahmans house nor Lt. Commander Moazzem Hussain’s house or the house of Kamaluddin or that of Sgt. Mofizullah.
Q.3. Did you receive Rs. 500/- by telegraphic money order from Dacca in August, 1965, sent to you by Sultanuddin accused for party purposes vide Telegram advice Ext. P.W. 84/1 and postal confirmation Ex. P.W. 84/2 and delivery entry Ex. P.W. 84/3?
Ans: I do not remember the time but I did receive Rs. 500/- from Sultanuddin. I cannot remember whether it was sent by a telegraphic money order or not. That money was borrowed by Sultanuddin for his marriage purpose. As the marriage did not take place he sent back the money on my demand.
Q.4. Did you receive the letter Ex. P.W. 3/7 through Amir Hussain Mia from St. Mujibur Rahman accused written in the hand of A.B.M. Khurshid and addressed to you as “Nooru Bhai” and signed at the end as “M “?
Ans: I know nothing about this letter.
Q.5 Did you receive two letters and Rs. 2200/ through a steward of a merchant ship sent by St. Mujibur Rahman from Chittagong in the third
Page: 168
of fourth week of January, 1966 and did you take them to Lt. Com. Moazzem Hussain accused in the presence of Amir Hussain Mia P.W. and was Lt. Com. Moazzem Hussain annoyed at receiving only Rs. 2200/- out of the money collected?
Ans: This is all false. It is wrong that I received any such money from Std. Mujibur Rahman or any such letters. I do not know St, Mujibur Rahman or till I came to this Court.
Q.6. Were you given the code name of “Subuj” or “Sabaz” for party purposes vide document Ext. P.W. 3/18 in diary Ext. P.W. 3/14 and was a reference to “Sabaz” of “Sabuj” in letters said to have been exchanged between some of the accused persons vide Exts. P.W. 3/32 and P.W. 3/35, intended for you? Do you wish to explain this?
Ans: I know nothing about it. This is all false.
Q.7. It is alleged that there is a reference to you as Noor Mohammad in the letters, Ext. P.W. 3/5 and P.W. 3/11 from St. Mujibur Rahman to Amir Hussain Mia, Ext. P.W. 3/39 from Lt. Com. Moazzem Hussain Mia, Amir Hussain Mia P.W. dated 4.3.66, Ext. P.W. 3/3 from Sultanuddin accused to Amir Hussain Mian P.W. and Ext. P.W. 3/49 from Lt. Com. Moazzem Hussain Mian to Amir Hussain Mia P.W. Do you wish to say anything about it?
Ans: I do not know anything about this?
Q.9. Do you wish to say anything else with regard to the evidence led against you in this case?
Ans: I have prepared a statement which I wish to read out and submit in the Court. (Statement read out).
Q.9. Do you wish to produce defence evidence?
Ans: No.
Chairman.
Member.
Member
Page: 169
SPECIAL TRIBUNAL
Record of Proceedings
PRESENT
31.1.1969
Mr. Justice S.A. Rahman, H. Pk., Chairman.
Mr. Justice M. R. Khan, S. Pk., Member
Mr. Justice Maksum-ul Hakim, Member
For the Prosecution ……….. As before
For the Defence……………. As before
Accused present…………….As before
STATEMENT OF ACCUSED NO. 6, Mr. AHMED FAZLUR RAHMAN, C.S.P. UNDER SECTION 342 Cr. P.C.
Q.1. Did you in the years 1964-67 (both years inclusive) conspire with your co-accused and persons mentioned in List ‘A’ attached to the complaint as well as other persons to wage war against Pakistan and to deprive Pakistan of its sovereignty over the Province of East Pakistan by means of criminal force in an armed revolt which was to be carried out mainly with weapons, ammunition and funds provided by India through Indian officials?
Ans. This is absolutely false.
Q. 2. Did you, in pursuance of the conspiracy aforesaid, attend the following meeting at which the implementation of that conspiracy was discussed and plans made as stated by the P.W.’s namely:
Page: 170
(i) meeting held in September, 1964, at the house occupied by Kamaluddin P.W. in School Teachers Cooperative Housing Society, Karachi, attended also by Lt. Moazzam Hussain, Nur Muhamad, Sheikh Mujibur Rahman and Lt. Muzammil Hussain, P.W.;
(ii) meeting held at the house of Lt. Moazzam Hussain accused in Karaz area in January, 1965, attended also by Sheikh Mujibur Rahman, Lt. Moazzam Hussain, Nur Muhanmad, Flt. Sgt. Mofizullah and Lt. Muzammil Hussain, P.W.;
iii) meeting held at the house of Lt. Moazzam Hussain in Karachi in November, 1965, attended by Lt. Moazzam Hussain accused, Corporal Samad, Nur Muhammad and Amir Hussain Mia P.W. At this meeting, you are alleged to have offered to procure transistorised transmitters from London through your brother who was there?
(iv) meeting held in December, 1965, at your flat in Ilako House, Karachi, which was also attended by Amir Hussain Mia P.W., Nur Muhammad, Lt. Moazzam Hussain and at a later stage by K.G. Ahmad P.W.
Ans. These allegations are all false. In those days I know only
Sk. Mujibur Rahman and none of the other persons mentioned in this question.
Q.3 Did you give a letter addressed to your brother in-London to Amir Hossain Mia asking him to help in procuring transistorised transmitters a few days after the meeting at your flat? It is alleged that the said letter is referred to in the letter of Lt. Comd. Moazzam Hussain to Amir Hussain Mia, P.W. Ext. P.W. 3/35 dated 25.2.1966. Do you write to say anything about it?
Ans. This is absolutely false. In the letter mentioned in the question, it is stated that my brother had changed his London address. This incorrect and the documents which I tender her will show it clearly. These are letters from him and also a registered deed executed by him in London which will show that he had not changed his address from the beginning of 1965 till the end of 1966. The reference in this letter P.W.3/35 is not to me.
Page: 171
Q.4. (a) Were you given the code name of ‘Tusher’ for party purposes vide the writing the diary P.W. 3/14, marked Ex. P.W. 3/18 and was the reference to ‘Tushar’ in the letters, Ext. P.W. 3/32 said to have been written by Lt. Moazzem Hussain to Amir Hussain Mia P.W. dated 9.2.1966 and Ext. P.W. 3/54 from Lt. Comd. Moazzem Hussain to Amir Hussain Mia dated, 8.4.66 intended for you?
(b) It is alleged that the words (Rahman’ or “Mr. Rahman” or “Rahman Saheb” occurring in letters Ext. P.W. 3/43 dated 14.3.1966, Ext. P.W. 3/46 dated 1.4.1966 and Ext. P.W. 3/49 dated 6.4.1966 from Lt. Comd. Moazzem Hussain to Amir Hussain Mia refer to you. Do you wish to say anything about it?
Ans: All these allegations are false. I was never known as Rahman or Rahman Saheb. I am always called either Ahmed Fazlur Rahman or A. F. Rahman.
Q.5 Did Amir Hussain Mia P.W. on receiving a phone call from Moazzam Hussain accused in the 2nd or 3rd week of March, 1966, bring to you Corporal Samad and did you give him a job as Manager of the Green View Petrol Pump belonging to your wife?
Ans. It is absolutely false. I came from Karachi to Dacca on the 22nd of January, 1966 and since then I have never met Amir Hossain Mia. Corporal Samad was given a job by my brother-in-law and not by myself. He was the Manager of the Petrol Pump and he employed him as he (Samad) represented himself as an experienced man having experience in accounts. He was after about 6 months dismissed because he was found to be unsatisfactory as an Accountant.
Q.6. Did Amir Hussain Mia P.W. on the 30th of March, 1966, bring to you a letter said to have been written by Lt. Moazzam Hussain jointly to him and you on 30th March, 1966 and did you on the 31st of March, 1966, pay Rs. 5500/- in cash to Amir Hussain P.W. for party purposes in pursuance of that letter?
Ans. This is absolutely false.
Q.7 You are referred to as one of the members of the separatist organization in this case in the alleged confession of Capt. Shawkat Ali
Page: 172
Mian accused recorded on 4.3.68 by Mr. G.M. Qadri, A.D.M., Dacca. Do you wish to say anything with regard to it?
Ans. This is absolutely false. I was never a member of the Conspiracy as alleged.
Q.8 In this letter to Amir Hussain Mia P.W. dated 8.4.66 (P.W.3/54) by Moazzam Hussain accused it is recited that Amir Hussain should inform you about the order transferring Moazzam Hussain to Chittagong. Do you wish to say anything?
Ans. This is incorrect. The reference could not be to me as I did not know Lt. Moazzem Hossain so intimately. I met him only once in January, 1966 for the first and last time before coming to this Court.
Q. 9 Do you wish to say anything else in respect of the evidence led against you in this case?
Ans. I wish to read out a written statement (The written statement was read out in the court. Mr. A.F, Rahman while reading out his statement, broke down twice or thrice).
Q.10 Do you wish to produce evidence in defence?
Ans. No.
Page: 173
EXAMINATION OF ACCUSED NO.7, FLT. SGT.
MAFIZULLAH U/S 342-Cr.P.C.
Q. 1 Did you in the years 1964-67 (both years inclusive) conspire with your co-accused and persons mentioned in List ‘A’ attached to the Complaint as well as other persons to wage war against Pakistan and to deprive Pakistan of its sovereignty over the province of East Pakistan by means of criminal force in an armed revolt which was to be carried out mainly with weapons, ammunition and funds provided by India through Indian officials?
Ans. This is absolutely false.
Q.2 Did you in pursuance of the conspiracy aforesaid attend the following meeting at which the implementation of that conspiracy was discussed and plans made details of which have been fully given by the P.Ws. namely;
(1) meeting held at your quarter in Korangi Creek, Karachi, in December, 1964, the quarter being in the actual occupation of Warrant officer Mosharraf Hossain, P.W.13, with your permission which was also attended by Flt. Sgt. Fazlul Huq, Sgt. Shamsuddin Ahmed, P.W., Warrant Officer Mosharraf Hossain and Sultanuddin; you are said to have given the name of ‘Bengal Liberation Army’ to the movement on this occasion.
(2) meeting held in January, 1965, at Lt. Moazzem’s house in Karsaz, Karachi attended also by Lt. Moazzem Hossain, Sheikh Mujibur Rahman, Mr. A.F. Rahman, Nur Mohammad and Lt. Muzammel Hussain, P.W.;
Page: 174
(3) meeting at the house of Lt. M. M. Rahman in Karsaz, Karachi in April/May, 1967 which was attended also by Shamsuddin Ahmed, P.W.4, Lt. M.M. Rahman, Corpl. Sirajul Islam, Mahbubuddin Ahmed, S.A.C. Mahfuzul Bari and others;
(4) meeting held at the house of Sgt. Jalil in Clayton Road Quarters, Karachi in May, 1967 attended also by Sgt. Jalil, Corpl. Serajul Islam, P.W. 4, Shamsuddin Ahmed, S.A.C. Mahfuzul Bari, Sgt. Shamsul Huq, Corpl J.U. Ahmed P.W. It is stated that on this occasion you produced a dummy hand-grenade for practice by the members which you had
house of Sgt. Jalil for practice by the members;
(5) meeting held in October, 1967 at the quarter occupied by Mahbubuddin Choudhury at Karachi attended also by Lt. M. M. Rahman, Lt. Rouf, Shamsuddin Ahmed P.W.4, Corpl. Serajul Islam etc.,
(6) meeting held in July/August, 1966 at your house in Abysinnia Lines, Karachi, attended also by Corpl. J.U. Ahmed P.W.8, S.A.C. Mahfuzul Bari, Warrant officer Mosharraf Hossain, Corpl. Serajul Islam and Nur Mohammad;
(7) meeting held in September/October, 1966, at your house in Abysinnia Lines, Karachi, attended also by Warrant Officer Mosharraf Hossain, Corpl. Jamaluddin Ahmed, Corpl. Serajul Islam and S.A.C. Mahfuzul Bari;
(8) meeting held in February, 1967 at the shop of Ex-Flt. Sgt. Razzak in Dacca which was also attended by Sgt. Shamsul Huq, Ex-Flt. Sgt. Razzak and Corpl. Serajul Islam whom you had invited to his meeting when he came and received you in January/February, 1967 at the Dacca Airport on your arrival from Karachi;
(9) meeting held in April/May, 1967 at the house of Lt. M.M. Rahman in Karsaz area, Karachi to which you were given a lift in a taxi by Corpl. Serajul Islam, Sgt. Shamsuddin Ahmed and Mahbubuddin Choudhury and the meeting was also attended by all of you and Lt. M.M. Rahman;
Page: 175
(10) Meeting held in June, 1967 at the house of Lt. M.M. Rahman in Karasaz, Karachi, attended also by Corpl. Serajul Islam, Sgt. Shamsuddin Ahmed, Mahbubuddin Choudhury, Lt. M.M. Rahman, S.A.C. Mahfuzul Bari and Sgt. Shamsul Huq. It is stated that at this meeting Shamsuddin was charged with the duty of finding out from Lt. Moazzem Hussain at Dacca whether Lt. Rahman was wanted at Dacca and if so, to send a telegram to Lt. Rahman ;
(11) meeting held in July, 1967 at the quarter occupied by Mahbubuddin Choudhury in Karachi attended also by Lt. M. M. Rahman, Mahbubuddin Choudhury, Corpl. Serajul Islam, Pilot Officer Mirza, S. M. Ali and Choudhury Jainul Abedin;
(12) meeting held in July, 1967 in the house occupied by Mahbubuddin Choudhury in Martin Quarters, Karachi, some 12/15 days after the last meeting, attended also by Corpl. Serajul Islam. Sgt. Shamsul Huq, Mahbubuddin Choudhury, S.M. Ali. Joynal. Chuodhury Jaynul Abedin, S.A.C. Mahfuzul Bari, Lt. Rouf, Lt. Rahman and Sgt, Zahur;
(13) meeting held in July/August, 1967 at the house of Sgt. Jalil in Karachi attended also by Corpl. Serajul Islam, Sgt. Jalil, Lt. Rouf, Lt. M. M. Rahman, Joynul, Choudhury Zainul Abedin, Siddiqur Rahman, Corp. Sahabubuddin, Corpl. Aftab and others.
Ans: These are false allegations. In 1964, I did not take possession of any married quarters in Karachi. Mosharraf Hossain was not staying in any quarter of mine in Karachi in 1964.
I did not know Sultanuddin Ahmed at that time nor did I know Sk. Mujibur Rahman, Mr. A.F. Rahman, Lt. Mozammel Hussain, L.S. Noor Muhammad. Sgt. Shamsuddin. Corpl. Serajul Islam, Corpl. Jamaluddin, Mr. Mahbubuddin Choudhury, Lt. Rouf Sgt. Jalil, Lt. Moazzem Hussain and all the other persons mentioned in the question. I only saw them in this Court. I did not know the quarter of Lt. Com. Moazzem Hussain at all and I was on leave to East Pakistan from 3rd January, 1965 till 7th February, 1965.
Page: 176
Q.3. In December, 1964, did you approach Sgt. Shamsuddin P.W.4 at Mauripur Mess and request him to help in retaining your companion at Korangi Creek Establishment? Did you also canvass him to join the separatist movement on the occasion?
Ans: These are all false allegations. Shamsuddin Ahmed had nothing to do with postings and no question arose of my approaching him for retaining my companion in Karachi.
Q.4. In May, 1966, did you canvass P.W.9, Corpl. Serajul Islam who came to have accounts checked from you as N.C.O. In charge, Accounts, P.A.F. Drigh Road, Karachi, to join the separatist movement while you gave him a cup of tea in the canteen?
Ans: This is false.
Q.5. Does the entry dated the 16th of May, 1967 and 28th of May, 1967 in the diary Ext. P.W. 27/2 said to be of Mr. Ali Reza, accused, refer to you as ‘
Mafiz’? If so, would you like to explain it? Ans: I do not know anything about these entries. I was in West Pakistan at the relevant time.
Q.6 Do you wish to say anything else to explain the evidence led against you in this case?
Ans: I went to put in a written statement which I will read out. (Statement read out before submission).
Q.7. Do you wish to offer any evidence in your defence?
Ans: No.
Chairman.
Member.
Member
Page: 177
STATEMENT OF ACCUSED NO. 8, EX-CORPORAL ABM
ABDUS SAMAD UNDER SECTION 342, Cr. P.C.
Q.1. Did you in the years 1964-67 (both years inclusive) conspire with your co-accused and persons mentioned in List ‘A’ attached to the Complaint as well as other persons to wage war against Pakistan and to deprive Pakistan of its sovereignty over the Province of East Pakistan by means of criminal force in an armed revolt which was to be carried out mainly with weapons, ammunition and funds provided by India through Indian officials?
Ans. No.
Q.2 Did you in pursuance of the conspiracy aforesaid attend the following meetings at which the Implementation of that conspiracy was discussed and plans made, details of which have been given by the P.W.’s namely:
(1) meeting held in November, 1965, in the house of Lt. Moazzem Hussain in Karachi, attended also by Lt. Moazzem Hussain, Nur Muhamnad, Amir Hussain Mia, Mr. Ahmed Fazlur Rahman was stated to have promised to procure Transistorised Transmitters from London through his brother who was there at this meeting;
(2) meeting held in March, 1966, at Mohakhali Dacca near the Dacca Airport, attended also by Mujibur Rahman, E.P.R.T.C. Clerk, Yousuf Compounder, Razzaque, E.P.R.T.C. Security Officer, Flt. Sgt. Huq, LA.C. M.A. Nawaz, J.T. Z. A. Choudhury, Sgt. Mian, Sgt. Shamsul Huq and Amir Hussain Mia, P.W.;
Page: 178
(3) meeting held on the 30th of March, 1967, at the Dacca Flat of Rameez P. W. attended also by Lt. Moazzem Hussain, Rameez P.W., Mr. K. M. S. Rahman, St. Mujibur Rahman and Capt. Muttalib;
(4) meeting held in June, 1967, at 13, Green Square, Dacca, attended also by Lt. Moazzem Hussain, Ris. Shamsul Huq, Naib-Sub, J.U. Ahmad, Sultanuddin, St. Mujib-ur Rahman, Ali Raza and Rameez P.W. from which Anwar Hussain P.W. was sent away on an errand;
(5) another restricted conference following the mentioned meeting at 13, Green Square, Dacca, along with Ali Raza Rameez P.W. Capt.
Moazzem Hussain to finalize the selection of delegates to met Indian Officials at Agartala, Indian and to decide where the border was to be crossed. It is stated that St. Mujib-ur Rahman and Ali Raza were chosen as the delegates to met Indian officials.
Ans. These are all false allegations. In November, 65 I was posted at Badin which is 200 miles away from Karachi. It was emergency time and it was not possible for me to go to Karachi without any leave. My service book will prove that I did not take any such leave. I did not attend any of the other meetings mentioned in the question either.
Q. 3 Did you in February, 1966 bring four recruits to the separatist movement to Amir Husain Mia P.W. including ex-Havildar Clerk Mujibur Rahman, E.P.R.T.C.?
Ans. I did not know Amir Hossain Mia. I never brought any person to him for recruitment. This is all false.
Q.4 Were you taken by Amir Hussain Mia P.W. to Mr. Ahmad Fazlur Rahman accused to give you a job as Manager of Green View Petrol Pump in pursuance of a phone call from Lt. Commander Moazzem Hussain in the 2nd or 3rd week of March, 1966? Did you remain employed there till about September, 1966?
Ans: This is also false. I got employment through one of my district fellows called Mr. Jabbar. The appointing person was Mr. Anisur Rahman who was Manager of the pump station and he was known to
Page: 179
Mr. Jabbar I did not know Mr. Ahmed Fazlur Rahman till I got employment. I was provisionally employed there and remained there till September, 66 and was then dismissed.
Q.5 In April/May, 1966, were you present along with St. Mujibur Rahman and Lt. Moazzem Hussain at the house called “Alya’, Dhanmandi, Dacca, when Amir Hussain Mia, P.W. came and paid Rs. 8,000/- to Lt. Moazzem Hussain in cash out of party funds he was paid Rs.1,500/- by Lt. Moazzem Hussain to clear the expenses incurred and because of dispute over accounts Amir Hussain Mia declared that he was leaving the organization? On this, did Lt. Com. Moazzem Hussain threaten him not to reveal anything about the party to anyone on pain of being killed and told you and St. Mujib-ur Rahman to watch him?
| Ans: This is also false. I have never visited the house in question. I do not know where it is.
Q.6 Were you present at 13, Green Square, Dacca, on 7.7.67 when Dr. Saeed-ur Rahman Chowdhury and Manik Chowdhury came there and met Lt. Moazzem Husain St. Mujib-ur Rahman, Ghulam Ahmed and some others and did Manik Chowdhury have heated discussion with Lt. Moazzem Hossain for his and Dr. Saeedur Rahman Chowdhury exclusion from the secret meeting on the plea of their being civilians? Where you residing at 13, Green Square along with Naib-Subedar, J.U.Ahmad, Lutful Huda, St. Mujibur Rahman and Hav. Daliluddin?
Ans. I was only working for Lutful Huda and I never resided in 13, Green Square. I never knew Dr. Saidur Rahman Chowdhury and Manik Chowdhury before I came to this Court. I never met them before. Lutful Huda had his office at 13, Green Square.
Q.7 Did you go with St. Mujibur Rahman, Ali Raze, and Hav. Daliluddin on the morning of the 11″ July, 1967 to Feni and did you all stay in Hotel Denofa, where Naib-Subedar J.U. Ahmad had booked rooms for you? Did Rameez P.W. come there in the evening accompanied by Anwar Hussain P.W. in his P.I.A. Dodge Dart Car and did you all dine at Hotel Denofa after which Rameez P.W. retired to the dak bungalow at Feni while the rest of you remained at the Hotel?
Page: 180
Ans: I never visited Feni along with the persons named. I did not even know them. But I had visited Feni otherwise and other cities of East Pakistan in connection with my business.
Q.8 Did Rameez P.W. pick you all up from the Hotel except for Daliluddin at 2.30 A.M. on 12.7.67 in his car and did he drop you near Belonia Border, all except Anwar Husain?
Ans. This is false.
Q.9 Did Ali Raza and St. Mujibur Rahman cross over to Agartala across the border and did the rest of you return to Hotel Denofa? Did you when Ali Raza and St. Mujibur Rahman returned, go back with then to Dacca accompanied by Daliluddin and Naib-Subedar J.U. Ahmed and them did you accompany the delegates. Lt. Com. Moazzem Hussain at Barisal to report about the mission?
Ans. This is false. I never met those persons mentioned at any time till the commencement of this trial.
Q.10 In August, 1966, did Ghulam Ahmad P.W. 10 meet you at Green View Petrol Pump, Dacca as advised by St. Mujibur Rahman seeking a job and did you advise him to go and live at the house ‘Psyche’ Dacca at 100/3, Azimpur Road, which was a house taken for party purposes?
Ans. No. This is a false allegation. I did not know Ghulam Ahmad before the commencement of this trial.
Q.11 In October, 1966, did you and St. Mujibur Rahman takes Capt. Muttalib’s chit to ex-Sub J.U. Ahmad, P.W.16, at his lawyer’s house 128, Green Road, Dacca, inviting him to 13, Green Square? Did he come there and was he persuaded to stay there by Capt. Muttalib?
Ans. No. This is false.
Q.12 Were you present at your house No. 543, Nayatala, Magh Bazar, Dacca, on 9.12.67 when a search was made of the premises by Raghunandan Saha P.W., S. I. and were the diary Ext. P. W. 45/6, the discharge certificate Ext. P.W. 45/7, Airman’s service book Ext. P. W. 45/8, Police report Ext. P.W. 45/9, and P.W. 45/10 seized there from among other things including the document Ext. D. J/1? Were you residing in that house along with St. Mujib?
Page: 181
Ans: I was not residing at the house in question. When I was coming back from the business tour at Dacca Station I was arrested by the Police and taken to that house. This diary had and the discharge certificate and the airman’s service book were in my bag at that time. I do not know anything about the two reports Ext. P. W. 45/9 and P. W. 45/10. They were not in my bag. Nor they were recovered in my presence from that house. Nor do I know anything about this document, marked D.J./1.
Q.13. Did you along with Ext. Sub. Jalaluddin Ahmed P.W. 80 on a recruiting tour behalf of the party in June/July, 67, to Comilla, Chittagong, Khulna Jessore & Kushtia?
Ans: No.
Q.14. (a) Are the writings in the Rupali Diary Ext. P.W. 45/6 and marked therein as Q.1 in your hand? Your attention is especially drawn to entries under the dates 11th July 67 to 16th July 67. Would you like to explain this to them.?
(b) Did you take out insurance policy 4287 from E.P. Co-operative Society Dacca vide Ext. P.W.248/1 & 248/2?
Ans: a) The entries shown to me in this diary in are my hand. I had been to several places in connection with my business on tour and I do not remember the details of dates now.
b) Yes. I did take out this policy.
Q.15. a) Does the Discharge Certificate Ext. P.W. 45/7 bear your signatures?
b) Are the signatures in Registers of Green View petrol Pump marked Q40 (in the, Register Ext. P.W. 43/3, marked Ext. P.W. 43/12 over the stamp), Q42 (in register Ext. P.W. 43/2 on the revenue stamp on page September, 1966), Q43 (in register Ext. P.W. 43/4 already marked Ext. P.W. 54/5), Q44 (in register Ext. P.W. 43/4 on page dated 12.5.66). Q46 (in Register Ext. P.W. 43/4 on page dated already marked Ext. P.W. 54/8) yours?
Ans: a) Yes. This certificate is signed by me at page 5. b) Yes. These signatures are all mine.
Q.16. Are the four entries in the Denofa Hotel register, Feni, marked Ext. P.W. 59/1 bearing serial numbers 46/49 and marked Q19, in your hand?
Page: 182
Ans: No, They are not in my hand. I never stayed at Hotel Denofa in Feni or for the matter that in any hotel in Feni.
Q.17. You are referred to one of the members of the separatist organization in the alleged confession of Bhupati Bhushan Chaudhury alias Manik Choudhury recorded on 12.2.68 by Mr. G. M. Qadri, A.D.M. Dacca. Do you wish to say anything in regard to it?
Ans: The allegation with regard to this is false. I did not know Manik Choudhury till I came to this court.
Q.18. It is stated that you are referred to as (Samad in the letters Exts. P.W. 3/32, P.W. 3/35, P.W. 3/41, P.W. 3/46, alleged to have been written by Lt. Com. Moazzem Hussain to Amir Hussain Mia and in the instructions marked Ext. P.W. 3/21 in the Diary Ext. P.W. 3/14 said to have been given by Lt. Com. Moazzem Hussain to Amir Hossain Mia when he was leaving Karachi. Would you like to say anything about his?
Ans: I have no knowledge about these letters or the entries in the diary mentioned.
Q.19. Do the entries in the diary Ext. P.W. 27/2 said to be of Ali Reza accused contain references to you as “Samad” under the dates 17th & 19th, April, 13th 16th & 17th May, 6th, 12th, 17th to 19th, 21st & 27th June, 7th & gth July, 15th August, 7th & 11th September & 15th October? If so, would you like to explain them? Ans: I cannot say anything about the entries of another man’s diary.
man s diary. Q.20. Do you wish to say anything else with regard to the evidence led in this case against you?
Ans: I wish to read out a written statement. (A written statement was read out to the Court & submitted).
Q.21. Do you wish to produce evidence in defence? Ans. No.
Chairman Member, Member.
Page: 183
STATEMENT OF ACCUSED NO. 9. EX-HAVILDAR
DALILUDDIN UNDER SECTION 342, Cr. P.C.
Q1. Did you in the years 1964-67 (both year inclusive) conspire with your co-accused and persons mentioned in List “A” attached to the Complaint as well as other persons to wage war against Pakistan and to deprive Pakistan of its sovereignty over the Province in East Pakistan by means of criminal force in an armed revolt which was to be carried out mainly with weapons, ammunition and funds provided by India through Indian officials?
Ans. This is wrong. I am completely innocent of any such conspiracy
Q.2. Did you take up residence along with Lutful Huda, Naib-Sub, J.U. Ahmed, Corp. Samad and St. Mujibur Rahman at 13, Green Square, Dacca, after that house was taken over for purposes of the separatist or organization in March, 1967?
Ans. I did not know the persons named in the question before I saw them in this Court. I did not know 13, Green Square, Dacca.
Q.3. Did you in pursuance of the conspiracy aforesaid attend the meeting of the separatist organization in June, 1967 at 13, Green Square, Dacca along with Rameez P.W., Lt. Com. Moazzem Hussain, Ris. Shamsul Huq, Naib-sub, J.U. Ahmed, Sultanuddin, St. Mujibur Rahman. Ali Raza, Samad when Anwar Hussain P.W. was sent away?
Ans. I had never been in 13, Green Square not do I know the persons named in the question. It is only in the Dacca Central jail that I came to know Mr. Rameez who sat by my side at the time of saying Eid prayer.
Pagee: 184
Q.4. Did you also attend the meeting then that followed at which Ali Raza and St. Mujibur Rahman were selected as delegates to go to Agartala, India, to meet the Indian officials?
Ans: This is absolutely false.
Q.5. Did you on the morning of the 11th of July, 1967 go with Ali Raza, St. Mujibur Rahman and Corp. Samad to Feni and stay there in Hotel Denofa where Naib-Subedar J.U. Ahmed had booked rooms for all of you?
Ans: This is absolutely false. I have never been in Feni.
Q.6. Did Rameez P.W. come there in the evening in his P.I.A. Dodge Dart Car with Anwar Hussain P.W. and did you all dine at hotel Denofa after which Rameez retired to the dak bungalow Feni while the rest of you stayed at the Hotel?
Ans: It is wrong.
A.7. Did Rameez P.W. pick up all except yourself from the Hotel at 2.30 a.m. on 12.7.67 in his car and take them towards Belonia Boarder?
Ans. It is absolutely false. I know nothing about it.
Q.8. Did you return to Dacca along with Ali Raza and St. Mujibur Rahman after they had returned from Agartala on or about the 14th of July, 1967, along with Naib-subedar J.U. Ahmed and did you then go from Dacca with Ali Reza and St. Mujib to Barisal where they reported the result of their mission to Lt. Com. Moazzem Hussain?
Ans; No. This is false.
Q.9. Your attention is drawn to entries in diary Ex. 27/2 said to be of Ali Raza in under the dates 19th May and 2nd October, 1967 in which there is apparently referring to you. Do you wish to say anything about it?
Ans: I did not now Ali Reza until I came to this Court. I was never a member of E.P.D. I was in the Pak. Army. I have nothing to do with these entries.
Q.10. Do you wish to offer any explanation for the other evidence led against you in this case?
Ans: On the 15th of December, 1967 when I was working near a point in my village home, two constables came there and told me to go to the thana. When I reached the thana, the O/C told me that I was under
Page: 185
arrest. This was at the Bakerganj P.S. When I asked him why I was arrested he said that the upper authorities had ordered it. They brought me to the D.I.B. office at Barisal. DIB (1) there told me that I was under arrest. I asked about the reason for my arrest and he told me that I was arrested under the order received from Dacca. I was kept for one day in the Barisal Jail and then I was transferred to the Dacca Central Jail. After 4 or 5 days I was taken to the Rajarbagh Centre in the evening. In the night I was interrogated about the particulars of my service but I declined to answer those questions. As I was being questioned about my service as a Command, I told them that I would not say anything about that. Next evening I was sent back to the Dacca Central Jail. On the night of 18th January, 1968, I was intimated that I was being released. When I came to the Jail gate, I saw some Army personal there in a Jeep who told me that I was under arrest and was being taken to the Army custody. My hands were tied behind and my eyes were blind-folded with a piece of cloth. I was then brought to the 16 F.F. lines in the Cantonment Area and was confined in a small room. I had to pass the night in the same condition. In the morning I asked for water but nobody came to me. But in the evening some officers of the 3rd Punjab Regiment came to me in plain dress. They untied my hands and they gave me tea. They brought out a typed English statement and asked me to read it. I told them to translate it into Urdu so that I could follow. That statement contained the names of about 200 persons. They asked me to make a statement before a Magistrate about those persons and to sign such a statement. I refused to do so. On this, I was made naked and my hands and legs were tied. In that condition, I was beaten with a ruler on the back at the joints. They also twisted my legs. (The accused showed his right ankle which appears to have a little welling. He also showed his back but there is no mark visible). In the morning I regained my senses and found myself wrapped in a rag. At noon time I was given ‘chapati’ and ‘dal’ which were placed on the floor. I was told to drink my urine. In the evening the Magistrate and other officers again came to me and proposed me to make the statement as desired by them failing which I would be put to death. I refused to follow their wishes even them. They again tied my hands.
Page: 186
One of them stood on my legs while another man inserted the needle into my thumb below the nail. (A black mark is shown in the middle of the nail going up to the root). I again fainted and regained my senses on the following day. I had to live in a room and had to do all-natural acts also therein. I developed skin-disease in about a month’s time and Dr. Raul came to my room to treat me. On his instruction, my room was changed and a ventilator was opened. I was given ointment to apply on my body and some tablets to use. I had also tonsillitis due to cold. When I regained my health a little bit I was taken to a latrine at a distance of two furlongs but after I sat on the latrine, within 2/3 minutes I was drugged out by the rope by which I was tied before I finished easing myself. Four or five days later when Major Naser and Major Hasan passed by my room I heard cries coming from the next room which was occupied by A.B.M. Khurshid and Major Hasan abused us by saying ‘These are all Harami Bangalees’. When I wanted to go to pass water I was not allowed to do so but I was kept waiting for 2/3 hours. They used to supply me with burnt ‘chapaties’ and said that these areas fit food for them. They are all Hindus. When I was taken to latrine they used to ask me to run and as I could not do so they goaded me with the butts of their rifles. I being confined in a dark room my vision has been affected. The doctor advised glasses for me on which Major Naser told me that they would purchase the glasses for me after collecting the money from the Awami League fund.
I have served in the Army for 24 years. On being released, I came to my village home and hardly passed six months when I was arrested. Due to this torture, I have lost my ability to work. I am completely innocent and know nothing about this case.
Q.11. Do you wish to produce defence evidence?
Ans: No.
Chairman.
Member.
Member
Page: Page: 187
SPECIAL TRIBUNAL
Record of Proceedings
Present
3.2.1969
Mr. Justice S. A. Rahman, H.Pk., Chairman.
Mr. Justice M. R. Khan, S.Pk., Member.
Mr. Justice Maksum-ul-Hakim, Member..
For the Prosecution …. As before.
For the Defence … As before.
Accused present …. As before.
STATEMENT OF ACCUSED NO. 10, MR. RUHUL QUDDUS, C.S.P.
UNDER SECTION 342, Cr.P.C.
Q.1. Did you in the Years 1964-67 (both years inclusive conspire with your co-accused and persons mentioned in List “A” attached to the Complaint as well as other persons to wage war against Pakistan and to deprive Pakistan of its sovereignty over the Province of East Pakistan by means of criminal force in an armed revolt which was to be carried out mainly with weapons, ammunition and funds provided by India through Indian officials?
Ans: This is absolutely false. I never joined any such alleged conspiracy.
Page: 188
Q.2. Did you in pursuance of the conspiracy aforesaid attend a meeting of the separatist organization at the house of Sheikh Mujibur Rahman in Dhanmandi, Dacca. On 29.8.65 which was also attended by Sk. Mujibur Rahman St. Mujibur Rahman, Lt. Moazzem Hussain, Sultanuddin and Amir Hussain Mia, P.W.? It is stated that you reached at the place of the meeting rather late.
Ans: This is absolutely false. I never went to the house (I never met Lt. Moazzam Hussain, Sultanuddin of Sk. Mujibur Rahman (and Std. Mujibur Rahman till I came to this Court.
Q.3: Were you given the code name of “Sekhar” or ” Shekhan” as mentioned in Ext. P.W. 3/18 in the Diary Ext. P W. 3/14 and were you referred to as such in letter Ext. P.W. 3/32 said to have been written by Lt. Com. Moazzem Hussain under the code name of “Alo” to Amir Hussain Mia P.W. under the code name of “Ulka” on 9.2.66. Would you like to explain this?
Ans: This is absolutely false. I never joined any organisation and conspiracy as alleged which might require code names. I never saw or met Lt. Moazzem Hossain in my life before coming to this Court.
Q.4: Did You pay Rs. 2,000/- for party purposes to St. Mujibur Rahman on or about 3.4.66 at Dacca?
Ans: I went out of Dacca on the 30th March, 1966 on official tour and left for Chittagong by 10-30 P.M. train and reached there on the 31st March, 1966 and stayed at Chittagong Govt. house on the 31st of March and 1st of April, 1966 and I inspected the Branch and 1st of April, 1966 and I inspected the Branch offices of the East Pakistan Agricultural Development Corporation in and around Chittagong on those days. I left for Cox’s Bazar on the afternoon of the 1st April, 1966 and reached Cox’s Bazar the same evening. I halted at Cox’s Bazar on the 2nd, 3rd and 4th April, 1966 at Motel No. 3. …………….. Statement of accused No. 10 (partial) documents missing ………….
25 minutes earlier as the President arrived at 8 P.M. I had left my house at 7-30 P.M. and reached at Shahbagh Hotel at 7-40 P.M. I was in that dinner up to 10.20 P.M. and got back home at 10.30 P.M. It was therefore physically impossible for me to attend that meeting on that
Page: 189
occasion. I never went to the house of Mr. Tajuddin in my life and even now I do not know where his house is situated. Till the charge was read over to me in this Tribunal I did not even know that Mr. Tajuddin had a house at Dacca.
Q.7. You are referred to as one of the members of the separatist organisation in the alleged confession of Capt. Shawakat Ali Mian recorded on 4.3.68 by Mr. G.M. Quadri, A.D.M. Dacca, Do you wish to say anything with regard to it?
Ans: I never heard the name of Capt. Shawakat Ali Mian before I came to this Court. The allegation is false.
Q.8. Do you wish to say anything else to explain the evidence led against you in this case?
Ans: I worked as Director of Finance in the East Pakistan Agricultural Development Corporation from the 1st of November, 1966 up to 14th April, 1967. I was then appointed as Vice Principal of the Administrative Staff College, Lahore, where I joined on the 28th April, 1967. The East Pakistan Agricultural Development Corporation advertised for the post of an Economist While I was the Members of Finance. This advertisement was published in the middle of September, 1965 in the Pakistan Observer and other dailies of East Pakistan and West Pakistan. I was also a Member of the Selection Committee and also a Member of the Board of Directors which is the final authority for appointment to such post. A few days after the advertisement, Amir Hossain Mia with my cousin Mr. Mohsin appeared in my office and pressed me to appoint Amir Hossain Mia for the same Post. On this, I said to them that the Board will appoint the best candidate available for the post. They saw me on 3/4 consecutive days. At least I got annoyed with them and I shouted them out of my room. While leaving my room. Mr. Amir Hossain Mia uttered a veiled threat to me. In consequence of this false evidence was given by Amir Hossain Mia against me in collection with the investigating staff. On the 28″” December, 1967, after my Eid marketing, I returned to my house at about 1 P.M. when I found one DSP. Mr. Mokhlesuddin Ahmed waiting at the gate. He told me that I was wanted by the Chief Secretary at the Govt. House immediately. I at
Page: 190
once drove my car to the Govt. House with whatever money I had with me after marketing and I left it in my car and I was then arrested. As I had been called in the Govt. House on a false pretext. I had no occasion to leave money with my wife so that even a servant might go out to inform a friend or relation about what had happened to me. Even my car was detained on false pretext so that my wife could not go out to see what had happened to me.
During the long detention of 5 months, we did not know what was happening in the country. The sun actually had not risen during those days for us. For 2 months my family was completely unaware of my detention and they did not know whether I was alive or dead. For 5 months my family did not even know my where about. I was subjected to humiliation, mental torture, degradation and sufferings during this period.
I wish to read out a written statement. (The statement was read out to the Court.)
Q. 9. Do you wish to produce evidence in defence?
Ans: No.
Chairman.
Member.
Member
Page: 191
STATEMENT OF ACCUSED NO. 11, FLT. SGT. M. FAZLUL
HUQ.UNDER SECTION 342, Cr.P.C.
Q. 1. Did you in the years 1964-67 (both years inclusive) conspire with your co-accused and person mentioned in List “A” attached to the Complaint as well as other persons to wage war against Pakistan and to deprive Pakistan of its sovereignty over the province of East Pakistan by means of criminal force in an armed revolt which was to be carried out mainly with weapons, ammunition and funds provided by India through Indian officials?
Ans: This is absolutely false.
Q. 2. Did you in pursuance of the conspiracy aforesaid attend the following meetings at which the implementation of that conspiracy was discussed and plans made, details of which have been fully given by the P.Sc., Namely:
(1) Meeting held in December, 1964, at the quarter of Sgt. Mofizullah in Korangi Creek. Karachi, the said quarter being in the occupation P.W. 13 Mosharraf Hussain which was also attended by Sgt. Shamsuddin Ahmed P.W.4, Flt. Sgt. Mofizullah, Sultanuddin and Mosharraf Hussain P.W.;
(2) meeting held in March, 1966, at Mahakhali Dacca, near the Airport which was also attended by SM. Ashraf Ali Khan, Mujibur Rahman, E.P.R.T.C. Cleark, Yusuf Compounder, Razzaque, E.P.R.C.T. Security officer, L.A.C. M.A. Nawaj, J.A. Choudhury, Sgt. Mian Sgt. Shamsul Huq and Amir Hussain Mia P.W.;
(3) meeting at a house near Aulad Hussain market, Dacca, arranged by Ex. Flt. Sgt. Abdur Razzaque in October, 1967 and attended also by Shamsuddin Ahmed P.W. 4, Warrant officer Zakir Ahmed Sgt. Halim
Page: 192
etc. It is stated that you informed Shamsuddin Ahmed of this meeting prior to its being he old?
(4) meeting held in November, 1967 at the house of Ex. Squadron Leader Moazzam Hussain Choudhury in Dacca to which you are alleged to have taken Corp. Jamaluddin Ahmed P.W.8, the meeting was said to have been attended among others by Ex-Flt. Sgt. Razzaque, Warrant officer Zakir Ahmed, Sgt. Malik, Sgt. Shamsul Huq and Sgt. Halim P.W. 12.
Ans: All these ailegations are false. I never attended any such meetings as alleged. I gave no such information to anybody as alleged here.
I never met Sultanuddin until I came to this Court. I saw Sgt. Shamsuddin Ahmed only in the middle of 1967, when he was posted at Dacca, I know the warrant Officer Mr. Musharaf Hussain. Mr. Mushafraf Hossain and myself were the Educational Instructors in the College of Electronics PAF Korangi Creek. I also saw Ft. Sgt. Mofizullah sometime at Korangi Creek.
Out of the persons mentioned in connection with the meeting of March 1966, I did not know anyone except Sgt. Shamsul Huq who was at PAF Dacca.
In respect of the 3rd meeting, I would say that I did not know Ft. Sgt. Abdur Razzaque till I came to this Court. Nor did I know his house.
In connection with the 4th meeting, I would say that I never saw Sgt. Malek and Sqdn. Leader Moazzem Hussain Choudhury. I never attended any meeting at the latter’s house as alleged.
Q. 3. Do you wish to say anything else to explain the others evidence led against you in this case?
Ans: I wish to read out a written statement. (Statement was read out to the Court.)
Q.4. Do you wish to produce evidence in defence?
Ans: No.
Chairman.
Member.
Member
Page: 193
STATEMENT OF ACCUSED NO. 12, MR. BHUPATI BHUSHAN CHOUDHURY ALIAS MANIK CHOUDHURY
UNDER SECTION 342 Cr.P.C
Q.1. Did you in the years 1964-67 (both years inclusive) conspire with your co-accused persons mentioned in List “A” to the Complaint as well as other person to wage war against Pakistan and to deprive Pakistan of its sovereignty over the Province of East Pakistan by means of criminal force in an armed revolt which was to be carried mainly with weapons, ammunition and funds provided by India through Indian officials?
Ans: These are all false allegations.
Q. 2. Did you in pursuance of the conspiracy aforesaid attend the following meeting at which the implementation of that conspiracy was discussed and plans made, details of which have been fully given by the PWs, namely:
(1) meeting held at Hotel Mashka, Chittagong on 6.2.66 attended also by Amir Hussain. P.W. St. Mujibur Rahman, L.S. Sultanuddin, A.B.M. Khurshid, Dr. Saeedur Rahman Choudhury, Bidhan Chandra Sen and Sub, Razzaque of EMR. You are stated to have contributed Rs. 3000/- in cash to Amir Hussain Mia. P.W. for party work in this occasion:
(2) meeting held at the house of Dr. Saeedur Rahman Choudhury in Chittagong in May, 1966, attended also by St., Mujibur Rahman, L.S. Sultanuddin, A.B.M. Khurshid and Lt. Moazzem Hussain, from which you and Dr. Saeedur Rahman Choudhury were excluded by the lastnamed on the plea of your being civilians:
Page: 194
Ans: These allegations are absolutely false. I did not know the persons mentioned. I did not know the persons mentioned in connection with these meetings except Dr. Sayeedur Rahman and Bidhan Krishna Sen before coming to this Court.
Q. 3. Did you canvass Dr. Saeedur Rahman Choudhury. P.W. to join the separatist movement in December, 1965 at Chittagong and did you promise to introduce him to the military personnel who were running the movement?
Ans: This is absolutely false.
Q. 4. Did you in December, 1965 give Rs. 1500/- in cash to St. Mujibur Rahman for party purposes at Chittagong?
Ans: This is absolutely false. I did not know Std. Mujibur Rahman before coming to this court.
Q. 5. Did you in December, 1965 take St. Mujibur Rahman to the dispensary of Dr. Saeedur Rahman Choudhury P.W. at Chittagong and did St. Mujibur Rahman asks the Doctor to provide a place for meeting of the military personnel belonging to the separatist movement?
Ans: This is absolutely false. I am not aware of any such thing.
Q. 6. Did you again go with St. Mujibur Rahman to Dr. Saeedur Rahman Choudhury in May, 1966 and ask him to provide a meeting place for military personnel of the separatist movement and did he then offer his outer house for the purpose?
Ans: This is absolutely false. I never had any such talk with Dr. Saeedur Rahman. Dr. Saeedur Rahman has got no other house.
Q. 7. Did you go to Dacca on or about the 19th of May, 1966 and stay at Hotel Green while Dr. Saeedur Rahman Choudhury had also gone to Dacca and stayed at Hotel Arzoo with the object of attending the Awami League Meeting held at Sheikh Mujibur Rahman’s residence on 20th May, 1966. While going to that meeting place did you take Dr. Saeedur Rahman Choudhury on the way to the Indian Deputy High Commissioner’s Office and did you introduce him to Mr. Ojha, the first Secretary of the Indian Deputy High Commissioner’s Office?
Ans: This is absolutely false. I never knew Mr. Ojha before I came to the Court. I only heard his name in this Court.
Q. 8. Did you go with Dr. Saeedur Rahman Choudhury to Dacca on or about the 9th March 1967 when you both stayed at Hotel green, Dacca,
Page: 195
and did you make the entry Ex. P.W. 5/5/ in the Hotel Green Register in your hand?
Ans: This is false. The entry is not in my hand.
Q. 9. Did you fix an appointment with Mr. Ojha of the Indian Deputy High Commissioner’s Office for 10.3.67 and were you and Dr. Saeedur Rahman Chowdhury and Lt. Com. Moazzem Hossain picked up by Mr. Ojha as arranged by you from near the ceremonial arch close to Shakura Restaurant, Dacca and taken to his house in Dhanmandi
Ans: at about 9 p.m. on 10.5.67. Did you Mr. Ojha have a private talk. with Lt. Moazzem Hussain in another room and then separately with you and were you given Rs. 5000/- by Mr. Ojha for party work which you passed on to Lt. Moazzem Hussain next day? Did Mr. Ojha drop you all near the Second Capital in his car?
Ans: This is a false and fictitious story. I never received any such money.
Q. 10. Were you three again picked up on 31.3.67 as arranged by you from near the Tejgaon Railway Crossing at 9 a.m. and taken to his residence in Dhanmanhdi, Dacca by Mr. Ojha? Did Mr. Ojha invite Lt. Moazzem Hussain to name some delegates to go to meet Indian officials at one of three name places which included Agartala in Indian. Did Mr. Ojha drop you near the Second capital? On this occasion, it is alleged that you stayed at Hotel Green vide the entry ext. P.W 5/7 in the Hotel Register stated to be in your hand. This time it is alleged Mr. Ojha gave you Rs. 10,000/- which you passed on to Lt. Moazzem Hussain.
Ans: This is a false and concocted story. I did not stay in that hotel on the occasion alleged. Nor did I make any entry in that Hotel Register, I never received any such money form, Mr. Ojha.
Q. 11. Did you and Dr. Saeedur Rahman Choudhury again visit Dacca, in July 1967 and did you stay at Hotel Green on 6.7.67 vide entry alleged to have been made by you in Green Hotel Register, Ext. P.W. 5/9. Did you both next day go to 13, Green Square, Dacca and did you meet there Lt. Moazzem Hossain, St. Mujib, Corp. Samad, Ghual Ahmed and another person when you insisted on excluding you both for the meeting on the Ground of your being civilians?
Page: 196
Ans: This is false. I never stayed at Hotel ‘Green’ on the occasion alleged. Nor did I make any entry in that Hotel Register. I never went to 13, Green Square of which I had no idea at all.
Q. 12. Did you again come with Dr. Saeedur Rahman Choudhury to Dacca on 22.7.67 and stay at Hotel Green, Dacca? Did you arrange a meeting with Mr. Ojha for 23.7.67 and were you two again picked up along with Lt.Com. Moazem Hussain by Mr. Ojha as arranged from near the Second Capital and taken to his house in Dhanmandi? Did Mr. Ojha say at this meeting that he had not yet received information from his Government of the outcome of the delegate’s meeting at Agartala and did he talk to you and Lt. Moazzem Hussain separately from each other in another room.? Were you dropped them by Mr. Ojha near the Second Capital?
Ans: This is also a false and concocted story.
Q. 13. Did you and Dr. Saeedur Rahman come to Dacca again in August, 1967, and you stayed in Hotel Casserina while Dr. Saeedur Rahman Chowdhury stayed in Hotel Green? Did St. Mujibur Rahman meet you both at Hotel Casserina and on inquiry told you that he and Ali Raza had gone to Agartala and had been successful in their meeting with Indian officials?
Ans: This is absolutely false. From the 15 of August, 1967 I had hired a house at Abheye Das Lane, Dacca where I was residing along with my family and Mr. Bidhan Krishna Sen and as such, the question of my stay at hotel does not arise. The allegation is completely false.
Q. 14. Did you again visit Dacca in the company of Dr. Saeedur Rahman Choudhury on the 30th of August, 1967 when the Dr. stayed at Hotel Green while you stayed at Hotel Cassarina the entry in the Hotel Cassarina Register, Ex. P.W. 5/12 being made by you? Did you both go to the Party House on Road No. 18, Dhanmandi, Dacca, where you met Raza and Samad?
Ans: This is a false allegation and concocted one. I did not know Ali Reza before I came to this Court.
Q. 15. Did you tell Dr. Saeedur Rahman Choudhury sometime in August, 1967 that you had received in all from Mr. Ojha Rs. 5000/- on
Page: 197
each of two occasions and Rs. 10,000/- on a third occasion and that you had passed on all this money to Lt. Com. Moazzem Hussain?
Ans: This is absolutely false. I had no talk with Dr. Saeedur Rahman nor did I received any such money.
Q. 16. Did you receive a P.I.A. credit air ticket for the journey between Dacca and Chittagong from Rameez P.W. through Anwar Hussain P.W. on or about the middle of 1967?
Ans: This is absolutely false.
Q. 17. Did you in May, 1967, pay Rs.10,000/- for party funds to St. Mujibur Rahman at Chittagong?
Ans: This is false.
Q.18.(a) Was your houses in Chittagong searched by Atiar Rahman Choudhury S.E./P.W.148 and the documents. Exts. P.W. 148/27-31 recovered therefrom?
(b) Do you signatures appear on Exts. P.W.148/27 and P.W 148/28?
Ans:(a) &(b) I did not know anything about the search. I was under arrest at that time and I did not know whether there was any search made or not. My signatures do not appear on Exts. P.W. 148/27 & P.W. 148/28. On the first search of my house, they found nothing and they prepared a nil seizure list.
Q. 19 Did you on 12.2.68 make the judicial confession Ex. P.W.205/8 before Mr. G.M. Qadri, A.D.M., Dacca, P.W. 205? Do you wish to explain it?
Ans: This was not my confession but it was a prepared statement given to me by Major Hasan. I made some variations while making confession to the Magistrate. I made this statement before the Magistrate to save myself from torture.
Q. 20. Did you take or rent a flat in the house of Waliullah, P.W. 206, at 13/B, Abhoy Das lane, Dacca, in August, 1967 and did you reside therein with Bidhan Chandra Sen accused?
Ans: Yes I did take that house at I did business at Dacca and also I was living in that house with my family.
Q. 21 Were you told in April, 1966, by Sheikh Mujibur Rahman accused at the latter’s house in Dacca in the presence of Sultanuddin accused
Page: 198
to give money to the latter for party purpose and did you give Rs. 1500/- to Sultanuddin at your house in Chittagong three or four days later?
Ans: It is absolutely false. I never knew Mr. Sultanuddin Ahmed before I came to this Court. Sk. Mujibur Rahman was the President of Awami League and I was an ordinary member of the Awami League. I had no such meeting with Mr. Sk. Mujibur Rahman and the allegation about my giving any money is absolutely false.
Q. 22. Did you in April, 1967 convoy an envelope given to you by Lt. Com. Moazzem Hussain containing names of delegates for Agartala, the code work and names of places where the crossing of the border was to take place to Mr. Ojha, First Secretary of the Deputy High Commission for India in Dacca.?
Ans: This is absolutely false. I never know Lt. Com. Moazzem Hussain before I came to this Court.
Q.23. Do you wish to anything else to explain the other evidence led against you in this case?
Ans: I want to read out a written statement. (The statement was read out to the Court.)
I wish to add something to this connection. During the last National Assembly Election, there was a mandate from COP’ to support the candidate nominated by COP. Dr. Sayeedur Rahman being the VicePresident of the City Awami League, Chittagong, worked against the candidate of COP in favour of the rival candidate. So in a joint meeting of the City and District Awami League, disciplinary action was taken against him. The resolution against him was moved by me and was second by Mr. Bidhan Krishna Sen. Mr. Bidhan Krishna Sen and I worked against him in the course of election of Chairman B.D.’s and he was defeated.
Q. 24. Do you wish to produce evidence in defence?
Ans: No.
Chairman.
Member.
Member
Page: 199
STATEMENT OF ACCUSED NO. 13, BIDHAN KRISHNA SEN UNDER SECTION 342 OF CRIMINAL
PROCEDURE CODE.
Q.1. Did you in the years 1964-67 (both years inclusive) conspire with you co-accused and persons mentioned in List “A” attached to the complaint as well as other persons to wage war against Pakistan and to deprive Pakistan of its sovereignty over the Province by India through Indian means of criminal force in an armed revolt which was to be carried out mainly with weapons, ammunition and funds provided by India through Indian officials?
Ans: This is absolutely false.
Q. 2. Did you in pursuance of the aforesaid conspiracy attend a meeting of the separatist organization details of which have been given by P.W.s. At Hotel Mishka, Chittagong on 6.2.66 which was also attended by Amir Hossain Mia, P.M. Std. Mujibur Rahman, L.S. Sultanuddin, A.B.M. Khurshid, Dr. Saeedur Rahman Choudhury, Manik Choudhury and Subedar Razzaque?
Ans: This is absolutely false. I attended no such meeting at Hotel Mishka. I did not know anyone mentioned in this question except for Dr. Saeedur Rahman Choudhury and Manik Choudhury.
Q.3. Did you go to Dacca in April, 1966 with Dr. Saeedur Rahman Choudhury and did you and Dr. Saeedur Rahman Choudhury visit Amir Hossain Mia P.W. at his house in Dacca and did you go with him the next day to Joydevpur in baby taxis where you met two or three army personnel? Did you on this occasion stay at Hotel Green wherein you made entries regarding your stay and that of Dr. Saeedur Rahman Choudhury vide Exts. P.W.5/3 and P.W.5/1?
Page: 200
Ans: This is false. I did not know Amir Hossain Mia so the question of meeting him does not arise. I did not come to Dacca on the occasion as alleged. I had never been to Joydevpur in my life as alleged. The entries marked Ext. P.W. 5/3 and P.W. 5/1 are not in my hand. I had not come to Dacca on that date.
Q.4. Was your house at Chittagong searched by Mr. Atibur Rahman Choudhury P.W. 148, S.I. and were the documents Exts. P.W. 149/19 and P.W. 148/25 recovered there from?
Ans: I do not know anything about the alleged search as I was in custody at that time.
Q.5. Do your signatures appear in the entries in the Hotel Green Registers, marked Ext. P.W. 239/51 at Hotel Green Register page 119, Ext. P.W. 239/52 at page 127, Ext. P.W.239/53 on page 128.?
Ans: The entries marked Ext. P.W. 239/51, 239/52, 239/53 in the Hotel Green Register are not in my hand,
Q.6. You are referred to as one of the members of the separatist organization in the alleged confession of Bhupati Bhusan Choudhury accused dated 12.2.68 recorded by Mr. G.M. Qadri, A.D.M, Dacca. Do you wish to say anything about it?
Ans: The reference to me is false. I have no knowledge about it.
Q.7. Do you wish to say anything else with regard to the other evidence led in this case against you?
Ans: I wish to read out a written statement. (The statement was read out.)
I wish to add further that Dr. Saeedur Rahman Choudhury was not loyal to the Awami League and his expulsion resolution was moved in a joint meeting of the City and the District Awami League, Manik Choudhury having moved it and it being seconded by me. He was also suspended from the membership of the Provincial Awami League. Manik Choudhury and I also did not support him in the last B.D. Chairman’s election and he lost the election.
Q.8. Do you wish to produce evidence in defence?
Ans: No.
Chairman.
Member
Member
Page: 201
STATEMENT OF ACCUSED NO. 14, SUB. ABDUR RAZZAQUE UNDER SECTION 342 OF CRIMINAL
PROCEDURE CODE.
(As the accused does not know English thereto were questions as well as the answers thereto were interpreted by Mr. Atiar Rahman, Assistant Registrar.)
Q.1. Did you in the years 1964-67(both years inclusive) conspire with your co-accused and persons mentioned in List “A” attached to the complaint as well as other persons to wage war against Pakistan and to deprive Pakistan of its sovereignty over the Province of East Pakistan by means of criminal force in an armed revolt which was to be carried out mainly with weapons, ammunition and funds provided by India through Indian officials?
Ans: This is absolutely false.
Q.2. Did you in pursuance of the conspiracy aforesaid attend a meeting of the separatist organisation details of which have been furnished by the P.Ws. on 6.2.66 at Hotel Miskha, Chittagong which was also attended by Amir Hossain Mia, P.W. Std. Mujibur Rahman L.S. Sultanuddin, A.B.M. Khurshid, Dr. Saeedur Rahman Choudhury, Manik Choudhury and Bidhan Krishna Sen?
Ans: This is false. I never attended any such meeting. I did not know the persons named in the question before I came to this Court.
Q.3. Do you wish to say anything else with regard to the other evidence led in this case against you?
Page: 202
Ans: I wish to read out a written statement. (The statement was read out in Bengali and Mr. Atiar Rahman; Assistant Registrar interpreted it in English.)
Q.4. Do you wish to produce evidence in defence?
Ans: No.
(Note: The accused bared his back and showed a protuberance on his left shoulder.)
Chairman.
Member.
Member.
Page: 203
STATEMENT OF ACCUSED NO.15, EX-HAVILDER CLERK MUJIBUR RAHMAN UNDER SECTION
342 Cr.P.C.
Q.1. Did you in the years 1964-67(both years inclusive) conspire with your co-accused and persons mentioned in list “A” attached to the complaint as well as other persons, to wage war against Pakistan and to deprive Pakistan of its sovereignty over the Province of East Pakistan by means of criminal force in an armed revolt which was to be carried out mainly with weapons, ammunition and funds provided by India through Indian officials?
Ans: This is absolutely false.
Q.2. Did Samad accused bring you as one of the four recruits to the separatist organization to Amir Hossain Mia, P.W. in February, 1966 at Dacca?
Ans: This is false. I did not know Amir Hosain Mia before coming to this Court
Q. 3. Did you, in pursuance of the conspiracy aforesaid attend a meeting details of which have been furnished by the P.Ws. at Mahakhali, Dacca, in March, 1966 which was also attended by Sub. Ashraf Ali Khan, Yousuf Compounder, Razzaque, E.P.R.T.C. Security Officer, Flt. Sgt. Huq, L.A.C. M.A. Nawaj J.A. Choudhury, Sgt. Mia, Sgt. Shamsul Huq and Amir Hossain Mia, P.A.?
Ans: This is absolutely false. I never attended any such meeting.
Page: 204
Q.4. Do you wish to say anything else with regard to the other evidence led in this case against you?
Ans: I wish to read out a written statement. (The statement was read out).
Q.5. Do you wish to produce any evidence in defence?
Ans: No.
Chairman.
Member.
Member.
Page: 205
STATEMENT OF ACCUSED NO. 16 EX-FLT. SGT. M. ABDUR RAZZAQUE, UNDER SECTION 342 Cr.P.C.
Q.1. Did you in the years 1964-67 (both years inclusive) conspire with your co-accused and persons mentioned in List ” A” attached to the complaint as well as other persons, to wage war against Pakistan and to deprive Pakistan of its sovereignty over the Province of East Pakistan by means of criminal force in an armed revolt which was to be carried out mainly with weapons, ammunition and funds provided by India through Indian officials?
Ans: This is completely false.
Q.2. Did you in pursuance of the conspiracy aforesaid attend the following meetings at which the implementation of that conspiracy was discussed and plans made details of which have been fully given by the P.Ws, namely:
(1) meeting held at a house of your relative near Aulad Hussain Market, Dacca. In October 1967 details of which have been given by the P. Ws. which was attended among others by Shamsuddin Ahmed P.W.4, Flt. Sgt. Fazlul Huq, Warrant Officer Zakir Ahmed and Sgt. Halim;
(2) meeting held in February, 1967 at your shop in Dacca which was attended also by Corp. Sirajul Islam, Sgt. Mafizullah, and Sgt. Shamsul Huq:
(3) meeting held in November, 1967 at the house of ex-Squadron Leader Muazzam Hussain Chowdhury in Dacca, attended also by Corp. J.U. Ahmad P.W. 8, Flt. Sgt. M. Fazlul Huq, Warrant Officer Zakir Ahmad, Sgt. Malik, Sgt. Shamsul Huq and Sgt. Abdul Halim P.W. 12. ……Statement of accused No. 16 (partial) documents missing…
Page: 206
STATEMENT OF ACCUSED NO.17, SGT. ZAHOORUL HUQ.
UNDER SECTION 342 Cr.P.C.
Q.1. Did you in the years 1964-67(both years inclusive) conspire with your co-accused and persons mentioned in Dist. “A” attached to the complaint as well as other persons, to wage war against Pakistan and to deprive Pakistan of its sovereignty over the Province of East Pakistan by means of criminal force in an armed revolt which was to be carried out mainly with weapons, ammunition and funds provided by India through Indian officials?
Ans. This is false.
Q.2. Did you in pursuance of the aforesaid conspiracy attend a meeting of the separatist organization held in July, 1967 details of which have been given by the P.W.s, at the house of Mahbuddin Ahmed Choudhury in Martin Quarters, Karachi which was also attended by Corp. Sirajul Islam, Mahubuddin Ahmed Choudhury, S.M. Ali, Joynal, Ch. Zainul Abedin, Lt. M. M. Rahman and Lt. Rouf?
Ans. This is absolutely false. I never attended any such meeting. I had no occasion to know Mr. Mahbuddin Choudhury before I came to this Court. I did not know any of the other persons named in this question before I came to this Court.
Q.3 In August, 1967 did you and Sgt. Shamsul Huq call on Warrant Officer Mosharraf Hossain P.W. 13 at his quarter in Korangi Creek, Karachi and did you canvass him to join the separatist movement?
Page: 208
Ans. This is absolutely false. I did not visit the residence of Mosharraf Hossain at all. I did not know Sgt. Shamsul Huq before I came to this Court. I, however, knew Warrant Officer Mosharraf Hossain as we served together.
Q.4. In September, 1967 did you go and meet Sgt. Rajab Hussain P.Q.18 in P.A.F. Chaklala and did you canvass him to join the separatist movement?
Ans. This is absolutely false. I did not know Sgt. Rajab Hussain before he came to give evidence in this Court.
Q.5. Did you wish to say anything else with regard to the evidence led in this case against you?
Ans. No. Q.6. Do you wish to produce evidence in defence?
Ans. No.
Chairman.
Member.
Member
Page: 209
STATEMENT OF ACCUSED NO.18, EX-A.B. MUHAMMAD
KHURSHID UNDER SECTION
342 Cr.P.C.
Q.1. Did you in the year 1964-67 (both years inclusive) conspire with your co-accused and persons mentioned in list “A” attached to the complaint as well as other persons, to wage war against Pakistan and to deprive Pakistan of its sovereignty over the Province of East Pakistan by means of criminal force in an armed revolt which was to be carried out mainly with weapons, ammunition and funds provided by India through Indian officials?
Ans. This is absolutely false.
Q.2. Did you in pursuance of the conspiracy aforesaid attend the following meetings at which the implementation of that conspiracy was discussed and plans made, details of which have been fully given by the P.W.s. namely
(1) meeting held on 5.2.66 in Room No.4, of Hotel Mishka, Chittagong, which was attended among others by Amir Hussain Mia, Std. Mujibur Rahman and Sultanuddin accused;
(2) meeting at Hotel Mishka on 6.2.66 which was also attended by Amir Hussain Mia (P.W.), Std. Mujibur Rahman, Dr. Saeedur Rahman Choudhury, Manik Choudhury, Bidhan Chandra Sen and Subedar Razzaq of E.B.R.:
(3) meeting held in May, 1966 at the house of Dr. Saeedur Rahman Choudhury in Chittagong attended also by Lt. Moazzem Hussain,
Page: 210
Dr. Saeedur Rahman Choudhury, Manik Chowdhury, Std. Mujibur Rahman, from which Lt. Moazzem Hussain excluded Dr. Saeedur Rahman Chowdhury and Manik Chowdhury on the plea of secrecy as they were civilians:
(4) and (5) two further meetings in May-June, 1966 with an interval of about 15 days between them at the house of Dr. Saeedur Rahman Chowdhury in Chittagong which were also attended by Std. Mujibur Rahman, Lt. Moazzem Hussain and Dr. Saeedur Rahman Chowdhury:
(6) meeting at the house of Rameez P.W. in Panchlaish, Chittagong, held in June, 1966 which was also attended by Lt. Moazzem Hussain, Std. Mujibur Rahman, Ris. Shamsul Huq, Hav. Aziz and others.
Ans. These allegations are false. I never attended any such meeting. I never knew Dr. Saidur Rahman and Rameez P.W. before they came to this Court. Nor did I know Manik Chowdhury and Bidhan Sen or Amir Hossain Mia P.W. or Moazzem Hossain before this case started. I never went to the house of Rameez, P.W.
Q.3. Did you write to the dictation of Std. Mujibur Rahman in the personal diaries of Amir Hussain Mia marked Ext. P.W. 3/66 and Ext. P.W. 3/67 lists of persons to be contacted by him for party purposes at pages marked Ext. P.W.3/68 to Ext. 3/75 in these diaries?
Ans. No. These writings are not in my hand.
Q.4. Did you along with Std. Mujibur Rahman and Lt. Moazzem Hussain call on Rameez P.W.6 at 66, Panchlaish, Chittagong in May, 1966 and did Rameez P.W. return the call of Lt. Moazzem Hussain at the latter’s house in Nasirabad colony, Chittagong when you and Std. Mujibur Rahman were also present? Was Rameez P.W. inducted into the separatist movement by Lt. Moazzem Hussain in the presence of you both in May, 1966 on that occasion?
Ans: This is false. I never visited Lt. Moazem Hussain’s house. I do not know anything about this.
Q.5. Did you write the letters Ext.P.W.3/6 and Ext. P.W.3/7 the former addressed Amir Hussain Mia and the letter to Nur Muhammad accused as “Nuru Bhai” on behalf of Std. Mujibur Rahman?
Ans: No. These letters are not in my hand.
Page: 211
Q.6. Did you and Std. Mujibur Rahman invite Lt.Com. Shahidul Huq in February, 1966 when the latter was taking tea in Hotel Mishka, Chittagong to meet one of your leaders and did you then take him to the room of Amir Hussain Mia in the same Hotel where the objectives of the revolutionary organization were explained?
Ans: This is false. I have never been to Hotel Mishka.
Q.7. Did you and Std. Mujibur Rahman call on Lt. Com. Shahidul Huq P.W. in his office in East Pakistan WAPDA Dacca, again in March, 1966, and did you request him to join the separatist movement and he declined?
Ans. I never visited Dacca at the alleged time. Nor did I pay a visit to Lt. Commander Shahidul Huq as alleged. I do not know his house. Nor did I know his office.
Q.8. Did you along with Std. Mujibur Rahman and Sultanuddin again visit him at his house No.295, Road No.25, Dhanmandi, Dacca, in April, 1966 on Eid day and canvass him again to join the separatist movement but he declined?
Ans. This is false.
Q.9 It is stated that you are referred to as “Khurshid” in the letter Ext. P.W. 3/6 alleged to have been sent by Std. Mujibur Rahman to Amir Hussain Mia. P.W. the letter Ext. P.W.3/7 alleged to have been sent by Std. Mujibur Rahman to L.S. Nur Muhammad. Do you wish to say anything about it?
Ans. I know nothing about these references.
Q.10. You are referred to as one of the members of the separatist organization in the alleged confession of Major Shawkat Ali Khan dated 20th January, 1968 recorded by Mr. Ejaz Muhammad Khan, A.D.M. Rawalpindi and in the alleged confession of Bhupati Bhushan Choudhury alias Manik Chowdhury dated 12.2.68 recorded by Mr. G.M. Qadri. A.D.M. Dacca. Do you wish to say anything about it?
…………….. Statement of accused No.18 (partial), accused No.19-26 and accused No.27(partial) documents missing…….
Page: 212
SPECIAL TRIBUNAL
Record of Proceedings
Present
5.2.1969
Mr. Justice S.A. Rahman, H.Pk., Chairman
Mr. Justice M.R. Khan, S.Pk. Member
Mr. Justice Maksum-ul-Hakim, Member
For the Prosecution: As before.
For the Defence: As before.. Accused present: As before.
EXAMINATION OF ACCUSED NO. 27, CAPT. KHONDKAR NAJMUL HUDA UNDER SECTION 342 OF THE CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE
Q.1. Did you in the years 1964-67 (both years inclusive) conspire with your co-accused and persons mentioned in list “A” attached to the complaint as well as other persons, to wage war against Pakistan and to deprive Pakistan of its sovereignty over the Province of East Pakistan by means of criminal force in an armed revolt which was to be carried out mainly with weapons, ammunition and funds provided by India through Indian officials?
Ans: This is totally false. I never associated myself with any conspiracy. I am innocent.
Page: 213
Q.2. Did M. Rameez P.W. meet you at your Green Road flat in Dacca sometime in July/August, 1966 when Capt. Alim also happened to be there? Did Lt. Moazzem Hussain also come there with Std. Mujibur Rahman? Were you and Capt. Alim then induced to join the separatist movement by Lt. Moazzem Hussain and Rameez P.W.? Did you then decide to have a meeting at the flat of Rameez in Dacca?
Ans: This is totally false. I never met these persons in my Green Road house. I never met Lt. Moazzem Hussain and Std. Mujibur Rahman before the opening of this trial.
Q.3. Did you in July, 1966 attend a meeting at the flat of Rameez P.W. in Dacca which was also attended by Lt. Com. Moazzem Hussain, Capt. Alim Bhuiyan and Std. Mujibur Rahman and was the separatist movement discussed there as deposed by the P.Ws.?
Ans: This is absolutely false. I never attended any meeting at the flat of Mr. Rameez P.W. in Mohammadpur colony. As a matter of fact, I did not know that Rameez possessed any such house at Dacca.
Q.4. Did you go with Lt. Com. Moazzem Hussain and Std. Mujibur Rahman in August, 1966 to the room of Capt. Abdul Alim Bhuiyan in the Ordnance Officer’s Mess, Dacca and did you meet Capt. Shawkat Ali Mian there? Was it decided then to hold a meeting in the Dacca flat of Rameez P.W.?
Ans. This is again totally false. I never had any such meeting in August, 1966 in Dacca. As a matter of fact, I had never met Capt. Shawkat Ali Mian before February, 1967.
Q.5. Did you next day hold a meeting at the flat of Rameez P.W. in Dacca which was also attended by Capt. Shawkat Ali Mian, Lt. Com. Moazzem Hussain, Std. Mujibur Rahman and Capt. Alim Bhuiyan? Did Lt. Com. Moazzem Hussain at this meeting ask you and Capt. Alim Bhuiyan to go to Jessore and contact Capt. Ziauddin of the 1st E.B. Regiment?
Ans: This is absolutely false. I never attended any such meeting so the question of my going along with Capt. Abdul Alim Bhuiyan to Jessore does not arise.
Q.6. Did you then along with Capt. Abdul Alim Bhuiyan visit Jessore five or six days later on a Saturday evening and meet Capt. Ziauddin and
Page: 214
Major Sadequr Rahman Choudhury in the East Bengal Regimental Mess and canvass them but they were reluctant to join the movement?
Ans: This is absolutely false. I never visited Jessore along with Capt. Abdul Alim Bhuiyan to meet the two officers mentioned.
Q.7. Did you in August, 1966 have a meeting at the Daudkandi Dak Bunglow with Capt. Shamsul Alam, Capt. Shawkat Ali Mian and Capt. Abdul Alim Bhuiyan, to discuss the progress of the movement and your future course of action? Was it decided at this meeting to ask Lt. Com. Moazzem Hossain at the next meeting at Dacca to elucidate the issue of leadership, financial support of the party and the security clearance of persons involved in the movement?
Ans. This is totally false. I never visited Daudkandi, nor did I know that there is any such Dak Bungalow there. I never met Capt. Alam before the opening of this trial. I never attended any such meeting.
Q.8. Did you also attend a party meeting at the flat of Rameez P.W. in Dacca in September, 1966, which was also attended by Mr. K.M.S Rahman, Lt. Com. Moazzem Hossain, Capt. S. Alam, Capt. Alim Bhuiyan, Capt. Mutalib, Sultanuddin, Std. Mujibur Rahman and Rameez P.W.?
Ans. This is absolutely false. I never attended any such meeting. I never knew Mr. K.M.S. Rahman and Sultanuddin Ahmed before I met them in this Court. I never attended any such meeting. I also never met Capt. Mutalib before seeing him in this Court.
Q.9. Did you on the 20th January, 1968 make a judicial confession Ext. P.W. 215/2 before Mr. Ejaz Muhammad Khan, A.D.M. Rawalpindi? Do you wish to say anything about it?
Ans. This was not a voluntary confession. I was made to read out a statement for a few minutes in front of the Magistrate by the military authorities in Rawalpindi under inhuman torture both physical and mental, coercion and inducement. The facts stated therein were not true.
Q10. Do the entries dated the 17th July and the 2nd of September, 1967 in the diary Ext. P.W. 27/2 said to be of Ali Reza accused contain references to you? If so, would you like to explain them?
Ans: I do not know anything about the diary shown to me and the entries therein. I never met Mr. Ali Reza before the opening of this trial.
Page: 215
Moreover, on the 2nd of September, 1967 I was not in Dacca. I had been posted at Sialkot and was there at the time.
Q.11. Do you wish to say anything else with regard to the evidence led in this case against you?
Ans: I wish to read out a written statement. (The statement was read out)
I also wish to add that I knew Mr. Rameez, P.W. since April 1965 when he came and stayed for a fortnight at EPRC Officer’s Mess, Chittagong where I was also staying at that time. Mr. Rameez P.W. had brought in a gay-girl one night to his room. Capt. Nuruzzaman and I had rebuked him for this conduct and turned him out of the EPRC Mess. The EPRC Officer’s Mess Register has been called for and it may be verified from it that I stayed there at the time when Mr. Rameez was also staying there.
Q.12. Do you wish to produce evidence in defence?
Ans: No.
Chairman
Member
Member
Page: 216
EXAMINATION OF ACCUSED NO: 28, CAPT. A.N.M. NURUZZAMAN UNDER SECTION 342 OF THE CRIMINAL
PROCEDURE CODE
6.2.1969
Q.1. Did you in the years 1964-67 (both years inclusive) conspire with your co-accused and persons mentioned in list “A” attached to the complaint as well as other persons, to wage war against Pakistan and to deprive Pakistan of its sovereignty over the Province of East Pakistan by means of criminal force in an armed revolt which was to be carried out mainly with weapons, ammunition and funds provided by India through Indian officials?
Ans: This is absolutely false and baseless.
Q.2. Did you give a reference to Mr. M. Rameez P.W. of Capt. Najrul Huda and did you ask him to meet them later at Dacca in July/August, 1966 while you were at Chittagong?
Ans: This is totally false. Mr. Rameez knew Capt. Huda while he was staying in the EPRC Officer’s Mess, Chittagong in April, 1965. Capt. Huda was posted at Chittagong and he was staying and dining in the EPRC Officer’s Mess during that time. Mr. Rameez, Capt. Huda and myself were witnesses to a marriage which took place in the house of Rameez in November, 1965. EPRC Officer’s Mess Register is already in Court and may be referred to. I was Secretary of that Mess and my signature would appear in that Register as such.
Q.3. Did Rameez P.W. invite you and Lt. Com. Moazzem Hussain to dinner at his house in Chittagong in June/July, 1966 and were you
Page: 217
inducted into the separatist organization? Did you then say that being in service you would not attend meetings of the party openly?
Ans: This is totally false. I never attended any dinner as stated by Mr. Rameez at his house and the question of my agreeing to anything said there does not arise. I never met Lt. Com. Moazzem Hossain before I came to this Court.
Q.4. At the meeting held at the Dacca flat of Rameez P.W. in August, 1966 attended by Capt. Shawkat Ali Miah, Capt. Najmul Huda, Lt. Com. Moazzem Hossain, Std. Mujibur Rahman and Capt. Alim Bhuiyan, it is alleged that you were mentioned by Lt. Com. Moazzem Hossain as the organiser of the movement at Chittagong. Do you wish to say anything about it?
Ans: This allegation is totally false. I know nothing about it.
Q.5. You are referred to as one of the members of the separatist organization in the alleged confessions dated 20th January, 1968 of Capt. Najmul Huda and Major Shamsul Alam recorded by Mr. Ejaz Mohammad Khan, A.D.M. Rawalpindi and Capt. Shawkat Ali Mian dated 4.3.68, recorded by Mr. G.M. Qadri, A.D.M., Dacca. Do you wish to explain this?
Ans: These allegations are totally false. I never associated myself with any conspiracy whatsoever and I have no knowledge about these references. I had never met Capt. Alam before I came to this Court.
Q.6. Do the entries dated the 3rd of May and 18th June, 1967 in the diary Ext. P.W. 27/2 said to be of Ali Reza, accused, containing references to you? If so, would you like to explain them?
Ans: I do not know anything about these entries. I never heard of Mr. Ali Reza before I came to this Court.
Q.7. Do you wish to say anything else with regard to the evidence led in this case against you?
Ans: Mr. Rameez, P.W. has tried to implicate me falsely in this case as I had rebuked him severely when he brought a gay-girl in the EPRC Officer’s Mess, Chittagong into his room. I being the Mess Secretary and knowing that this was against all Mess rules I along with Capt. Huda
Page: 218
turned them out from the Mess. On another occasion, Mr. Rameez wanted to write chits for his drinks from our Mess Bar to get them on credit.
Since he was not a member of our Mess, I was the Mess Secretary, did not allow him this and forced him to make cash payment. He did so grudgingly.
I was stationed at Quetta in the month of May, 1968. On receipt of a signal from the GHQ, Rawalpindi I arrived at Dacca on the 8th May, 1968 and spent the night at my Dacca residence. The next morning I came to the Ordnance Officer’s Mess and put up there and reported myself to Major Rizvi, D.A.A.G of the Hqrs. 14 Div. Major Rizvi asked me to report to Major Naser who was sitting in the adjacent office. I did so and Major Naser told me that I would have to attend office regularly. On the 10th May, 1968 at about 11 P.M. Major Naser brought me to Major Hasan in the Hqrs. 14 Div. Officer’s Mess. Major Hasan asked me to become a witness in this case and to falsely implicate Col. Osmani, a retired officer of my Regiment, Mr. K.M.S. Rahman, Capt. Huda and a few other officers as he told me, he was worried to find out witnesses to corroborate approver Mr. Rameez and if I agreed that would serve his purpose. This was a shock to me and I told him that I had no idea about this case and that it was not possible for me to falsely implicate anyone and that the question of my giving any evidence did not arise. At this Major Hasan got terribly annoyed, shouted at me and threatened that he would make me an accused in this case and that nobody would be able to save me and that I would get a death sentence. He kept me in this condition till 3 A.M. and again asked me to report to him at 8 A.M. Accordingly I did so and he kept on threatening and persuading me till 11 A.M. but ultimately he gave all hope. After that, I used to attend my office regularly. On the 23’4 May, 1968 I was sent to the Civil Secretariat by Major Rizvi with a letter for allotment of some Khas land for late Col. A.T.K. Haque of my Regiment. I went there and returned from the Secretariat at about 1.40 P.M. When I returned to my office Major Naser took me from there to the Hqrs. 14 Div. Officer’s Mess. After entering the room he told me that I had been put under arrest. I demanded to know
Page: 219
the reason for my arrest but he told me that he was doing so under orders of the higher authorities. I asked for a written order regarding my arrest. That was also refused.
I did my Honours from the Dacca University and I was commissioned in the East Bengal Regiment in 1960. In 1964 I was selected by the Army for the Civil Service of Pakistan but the Government changed its policy from that year and ultimately no army officers were taken in the civil service.
I have served the army in various capacities to the best of my ability and my annual confidential reports which have been called for through this Court will bear testimony to that. In October-November, 1967 I attended a Specialization Course in the U.K. and obtained a very good report.
I consider it more prudent not to narrate the tales of humiliation to which I have been subjected both by the authorities and the people whom I once commanded. I am completely innocent.
Q.8. Do you wish to produce evidence in defence?
Ans: No.
Chairman
Member
Member
Page: 220
STATEMENT OF ACCUSED NO. 29 SERGEANT ABDUL JALIL UNDER SECTION 342 OF THE CRIMINAL
PROCEDURE CODE
Q.1. Did you in the years 1964-67 (both years inclusive) conspire with your co-accused and persons mentioned in list “A” attached to the complaint as well as other persons, to wage war against Pakistan and to deprive Pakistan of its sovereignty over the Province of East Pakistan by means of criminal force in an armed revolt which was to be carried out mainly with weapons, ammunition and funds provided by India through Indian officials?
Ans: This is absolutely false.
Q.2. Did you in pursuance of the aforesaid conspiracy have a meeting at your quarter in Clayton Road Quarters, Karachi, in May, 1967 which was also attended by Corp. Sirajul Islam, Shamsuddin Ahmed, P.W.4. S.A.C. Bari, Sgt. Shamsul Huq., Sgt. Mahfizullah, Mahbubuddin Ahmed Chowdhury, Corp. J.U. Ahmed and Warrant Officer Mosharraf Hossain? Did Sgt. Mahfizullah at this meeting produce a dummy handgrenade from his trouser’s pocket and did he demonstrate throwing of it and ask members to practice throwing? Did he leave the hand-grenade in your house for further practice by the members of the organisation?
Ans: This is absolutely false. There was no meeting at my house and the people mentioned herein never visited my house.
Q.3. a) Was another meeting held in pursuance of the aforesaid conspiracy at your house in Karachi in July/August, 1967 which was
Page: 221
attended by among others, Lt. Rouf, Lt. M.M. Rahman, Flt. Sgt. Mahfizullah, Joynal, Choudhury Joynul Abedin, Siddiqur Rahman, Corp. Shahabuddin, Corp. Aftab, Corp. Sirajul Islam besides yourself?
b) Was it decided at this meeting that there would be no more recruitment of fresh members in Karachi and that those who could go on leave should do so and go to East Pakistan to organise the movement there?
Ans: a) This is absolutely false.
b). This is absolutely false. There was actually no meeting at my house at all.
Q.4. Did you on 4.2.68 produce before P.W. 183 Iqbal Osmani in the presence of other witnesses a dummy hand-grenade from an almirah in a bed-room in your house at Karachi identical with or similar to the handgrenade Ext. P.W.4/1? Do you wish to explain this?
Ans: Warrant Officer Osmani did conduct a search at my house and he saw a dummy hand-grenade in my showcase which was there as a decoration piece. He seized it and implicated me falsely in this case on its basis.
Q.5. Do you wish to say anything else with regard to the evidence led in this case against you?
Ans: I was living in Clayton quarters, Karachi and Clayton quarters and Clayton Road are quite distinct from each other. No. 14, Clayton Road is adjacent to Soldier Bazar Market which is about 1 5 mile from my house in Clayton quarters. Clayton quarters comprise 80 blocks and each block consists of 5 quarters. The roofs of these quarters are of asbestos sheet or corrugated iron sheets. These quartets are situated immediately on the eastern edge of Jahangir Road. On the southern side of Clayton quarters are E-typed Government Jahangir Road East quarters and on the eastern side of the Clayton quarters, Government Jahangir Road, F-typed quarters are situated. There is also a Government Bengali Primary School immediately on the eastern side of the Clayton quarters and it is called Jahangir Road East Government Primary School. On the
Page: 222
northern side of the Clayton quarters, there are F-typed Martin quarters. I also wish to read out a written statement
(The statement was read out.)
I also wish to add that on the 28th August, 1968 the police searched my house for the second time seized the original allotment order from my house regarding the allotment of Clayton quarters to me.
Q.6. Do you wish to produce evidence in defence?
Ans: No.
Chairman
Member
Member
Page: 223
STATEMENT OF ACCUSED NO. 30, MR. MAHBUBUDDIN AHMED CHOUDHURY UNDER
SECTION 342 OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE
Q.1. Did you in the years 1964-67 (both years inclusive) conspire with your co-accused and persons mentioned in list “A” attached to the complaint as well as other persons, to wage war against Pakistan and to deprive Pakistan of its sovereignty over the Province of East Pakistan by means of criminal force in an armed revolt which was to be carried out mainly with weapons, ammunition and funds provided by India through Indian officials?
Ans: This is absolutely false.
Q.2. Did you in pursuance of the conspiracy aforesaid attend the following meetings at which the implementation of that conspiracy was discussed and plans made, details of which have been fully given by the P.Ws, namely:
(1) meeting held in April, 1967 at the house of Lt. M.M. Rahman in Karsaz area, Karachi which was also attended by Corp. Sirajul Islam, Sgt. Shamsuddin Ahmed P.W., Flt. Sgt. Mahfizullah, S.A.C. Bari and others;
(2) meeting held at the house of Sgt. Jalil in Clayton Road quarters, Karachi, in May, 1967 attended also by Sgt. A. Jalil,
Corp. Sirajul Islam, Shamsuddin Ahmed P.W. 4, S.A.C. Mahfuzul Bari, Sgt. Shamsul Haq. Sgt. Mahfizullah, Corp. J.U. Ahmad P.W. and Warrant Officer Mosharraf Hossain P.W. It is stated that at this meeting
Page: 224
a hand-grenade was produced by Sgt. Mahfizullah who asked the members to practice throwing it and demonstrated how this could be done;
(3) meeting held in June, 1967 at the house of Lt. M.M. Rahman in Karsaz Area, Karachi attended also by Lt. M.M. Rahman, Corp. Sirajul Islam, Sgt. Shamsuddin Ahmed, Flt. Sgt. Mahfizullah, S.A.C. Mahfuzul Bari, Sgt. Shamsul Haq and others. It is stated that at this meeting Sgt. Shamsuddin Ahmed was charged with the task of contacting Lt. Com. Moazzem Hossain at Dacca to find out if Lt. M.M. Rahman was wanted there and if so, to send a telegram to Lt. Rahman accordingly;
(4) meeting held in July, 1967 at your own quarter in Karachi attended also by Lt. M.M. Rahman Pilot Officer Mirza, S.M. Ali, Corp. Sirajul Islam, Flt. Sgt. Mahfizullah and Choudhury Zainul Abedin;
(5) another meeting held at your house in July, 1967, 12/15 days later, in Martin Quarters, Karachi attended also by Corp. Sirajul Islam, S.M. Ali, Joynal, Choudhury Zainul Abedin, Lt. Rouf, Lt. M.M. Rahman and Sgt. Zahur. It is stated that at this meeting Lt. M.M. Rahman proposed organizing a party at Karachi which would later co-operate with the organization working in East Pakistan and that he proposed Lt. Rouf for leadership in Karachi to which no one objected;
(6) meeting held in your quarter in Karachi in October, 1967 attended also by Sgt. Shamsuddin Ahmed P.W.4, Lt. M.M. Rahman, Lt. Rouf, Sgt. Mahfizullah and Corp. Sirajul Islam etc.
Ans: These allegations are false. I did not know Lt. Rahman before I came to this Court. Nor did I know Sgt. Jalil before my arrest. I only saw him in the 3rd Punjab Lines. It is alleged that there were three meetings at my house. The number is given as 14/46, Martin Quarters. I had actually no house of my own in Karachi. I was living with a friend of mine as a paying guest. The number of that house is F8/3, Martin Quarters. The question of holding a meeting at the place alleged in this question does
Page: 225
not arise. Out of the persons mentioned in connection with these meetings, I only knew Corp. Serajul Islam who happened to be the resident of a neighbouring village to that of my cousin with whom I was staying and Serajul Islam used to visit my cousin.
Q.3. Were you along with Corp. Sirajul Islam P.W. staying with Mr. Malik of the Blind Institute at Dacca when in November, 1967 Lt. Rouf came there and discussed the opening of a technical school at Dacca?
Ans: This is absolutely false. I did not know any Malik and did not go to Sukrabad. As a matter of fact, I was not in Dacca in November, 1967. I was at my village home in the district of Sylhet.
Q.4. Do you wish to say anything else with regard to the evidence led in this case against you?
Ans: I have been living in Karachi for a long time. During my stay in Karachi, I obtained my intermediate and B.A. degrees from the University of Karachi. I joined Messers. J.N.P. Coats (Pakistan) Ltd. Karachi which is an international firm. In 1966 I was sent by them for specialized training in thread manufacture to Europe. After the successful completion of my training, I came back and was appointed Production Manager twisting in that firm. During my stay in Karachi, I was associated with some social and cultural organisations of East Pakistanis. On the 25th January, 1968 to my utter surprise I was arrested from my office, at A/7, S.I.T. Karachi and was taken to Air Force Intelligence office. I was not given any warrant of arrest, nor I was told the reason for my arrest. There I was interrogated about my personal life and about my relations and some people whom I know. Afterward, they asked me to make a statement to implicate some responsible East Pakistanis in a conspiracy case of which I had no knowledge, whatsoever. On my refusal, I was physically and mentally tortured. I do not like to give the details of this torture. On 27th January, 1968 I was brought to the Dacca Cantonment and here also I was tortured and threatened and persuaded to make a statement according to their wishes. I did not do so and torture
Page: 226
continued for a pretty long time. I am an income tax payer and my salary and pre-requisites would not be less than that of the bulk of young commissioned officers in the army. I have kept in the 3rd Punjab along with other ranks getting my food from the ‘Langar’. In spite of my several requests, no action has been taken to improve my status. I was surprised to hear from Major Naser in this Court at he had kept me in the status of J.C.O. Up to 10th April, 1968 I was not allowed to communicate with the members of my family. Even after that I once wrote a letter in Bengali to my mother. When I handed it over to the J.C.O. I was told that this letter would not reach my mother, because it was written in Bengali. I was thus deprived of my natural and constitutional rights.
Q.5. Do you wish to produce evidence in defence?
Ans: No.
Chairman
Member
Member
Page: 227
STATEMENT OF ACCUSED NO. 31, LT. M.M. RAHMAN
UNDER SECTION 342 Cr.P.C.
Q.1. Did you in the years 1964-67 (both years inclusive) conspire with your co-accused and persons mentioned in list “A” attached to the complaint as well as other persons, to wage war against Pakistan and to deprive Pakistan of its sovereignty over the Province of East Pakistan by means of criminal force in an armed revolt which was to be carried out mainly with weapons, ammunition and funds provided by India through Indian officials?
Ans: This is absolutely false.
Q.2. Did you in pursuance of the conspiracy aforesaid attend the following meetings at which the implementation of that conspiracy was discussed and plans made, details of which have been fully given by the P.W.s. namely:
(1) meeting held at your house in Karsaz Area, Karachi, in April/May, 1967 which was also attended by P.W.4 Shamsuddin Ahmed, Corp. Sirajul Islam, Mahbubuddin Ahmed Chowdhury, Flt. Sgt. Mahfizullah, S.A.C. Mahfuzul Bari and others;
(2) meeting held in the 2nd or 3rd week of June, 1967 at your house in Karachi, attended also by P.W. 4 Shamsuddin Ahmed, Sgt. Mahfizullah, S.A.C. Mahfuzul Bari, Mahbubuddin Ahmed Chowdhury, Corp. Sirajul Islam and others. Did you at this meeting ask Sgt. Shamsuddin Ahmed P.W.4 who was going on his transfer to Dacca, to contact Lt. Moazzem Hussain there to find out if you were wanted there
Page: 228
and if so, to send you a cryptic telegram saying “Bazloo serious. Admitted in Dacca Medical Collage” from Alam P 74, Azimpur Estate?
(3) meeting held in July, 1967 at the quarter of Mahbubuddin Ahmed Chowdhury in Karachi, attended also by Corp. Sirajul Islam, Pilot Officer Mirza, S.M. Ali, Flt. Sgt. Mahfizullah and Ch. Zainul Abedin, Sultanuddin and others.
(4) another meeting 12/15 days later in July, 1967 at the quarter of Mahbubuddin Ahmed Chowdhury in Martin Quarters, Karachi attended also by Corp. Sirajul Islam, Sgt. Mahfizullah, Mahbubuddin Ahmed Chowdhury, S.M. Ali, Joynal, Ch. Zainul Abedin, Lt. Rouf, S.A.C. Bari and Sgt. Zahur. It is stated that at this meeting you proposed to organize a party at Karachi which would later cooperate with the organization working in East Pakistan and that you suggested that Lt. Rouf should be the leader at Karachi and that no one objected;
(5) meeting held in June/July, 1967 at 13, Green Square, Dacca attended also by Lt. Com. Moazzem Hussain, Ali Raza, Samad, St. Mujibur Rahman, Rameez P.W., Ex-Sub. J.U. Ahmad and Anwar Hussain at which the proposal to send a delegation to Agartala, India was discussed and arrangement for crossing of the Border decided on;
(6) meeting held in July/August, 1967 at the house of Sgt. A. Jalil in Karachi, attended also by Sgt. Jalil, Corp. Sirajul Islam, Lt. Rouf, Flt. Sgt. Mahfizullah, Joynal, Ch. Zainul Abedin, Siddiqur Rahman, Corp. Shahabuddin, Corp. Aftab and others;
(7) meeting held in October, 1967 at the quarter occupied by Mahbubuddin Ahmed Chowdhury at Karachi and attended also by Shamsuddin Ahmad P.W. 4, Mahbubuddin Ahmed Chowdhury, Lt. Rouf, Sgt. Mahfizullah, Corp. Sirajul Islam etc.
Ans. (1) This allegation is false. As a matter of fact, except for Sgt. Shamsuddin, I did not know anyone of those persons mentioned, at that time.
(2) The allegation is false. About this meeting, I might say that the telegram was genuine and there was nothing fictitious about it. Bazlur Rahman is my brother. Dr. Alam is my relation who is the son-in-law of my sister-in-law and he had been residing at 74P, Azimpur Estate from before 1967. As a matter of fact, on the 30th June, 67 Sgt. Shamsuddin
Page: 229
saw me at my residence in Karsaz at Karachi and told me that he was leaving for East Pakistan. The same day earlier I had received a letter from my brother in which he had stated that he was ill. He came to Dacca and was staying with Dr. Alam. I told Sgt. Shamsuddin to see him and asked him to inform me of his present condition. Sgt. Shamsuddin did go to Dr. Alam’s house and at that time the condition of my brother was serious and it was decided that he should be admitted into the hospital. As there was some difficulty in getting seat in the general ward, so it was decided to admit him in a paying cabin. Sometime before that Dr. Alam had informed that his father was ill at Faridpur, so he had to go there. So, my presence was badly needed at Dacca, as I was the only male member to look after others. The telegram did mention a date for my arrival as the 5th July, because Dr. Alam was leaving for Faridpur on the 7th July, Shamsuddin Ahmed was merely given this telegram to dispatch and it just happened as a coincidence that he was present there at that time. If I had by previous arrangement composed the telegram, it could not have been so explanatory. In order to get leave from the navy, it was not necessary to obtain a telegram saying that some near relative was very ill. I had taken privilege leave for this occasion.
(3) This is absolutely false. I attended no such meeting I did not know Mr. Mahbubuddin Choudhury or his house.
(4) The allegation is absolutely false.
(5) This allegation is absolutely false. I did not know the existence of 18, Green Square. Most of the persons mentioned in connection with this meeting, I had never heard of except for Lt. Commander Moazzem Hussain, before this case started.
(6) This is also false. I neither knew Sgt. Jalil nor his quarter. (7) The same is my reply. This is absolutely false.
Q. 3. Did you after the second meeting mentioned above receive the telegram Ex. P.W. 4/2 from Shamsuddin Ahmed P.W. on 3.7.67 as arranged and did you then send a telegram to Shamsuddin Ahmed to report at Dacca on 5.7.67 at 29/3, Outer Circular Road, Magh Bazar, Dacca, a house occupied by Kamaluddin Ahmad P.W and others? Did you then go to Dacca and stay in the Transit Camp there and were you called from there to meet Shamsuddin Ahmed at the said house in Magh
Page: 230
Bazar through Ghulam Ahmed? Did you then tell Shamsuddin Ahmad that Lt. Moazzem Hussain did not want rankers in the organisation and did Shamsuddin Ahmed declare that you were his leader and you then advised him to join the group of ex-Flt. Sgt. Razzaque? Did you also mention at that time the suspicion of misappropriation of party funds by Lt. Com. Moazzem Hussain?
Ans: As I have already explained, I did receive a telegram. The rest of the allegations are all false, fictitious and concocted. I never sent any telegram to Shamsuddin Ahmed, nor any body saw me at the transit camp to call me to meet him. I did not know even the house mentioned in this question, even up to now. I did not know Sultan or Ghulam Ahmed at that time before coming to this court.
Q. 4. Were you on your return from Dacca in June, 1967 met at your house by Flt.Sgt. Mahfizullah and Corp. Sirajul Islam and did you tell them that the organisation was not doing well in East Pakistan, that Lt. Moazzem Hussain may be misappropriating funds, that he had forbidden any further recruitment of rankers and that you had been asked to go outside the country to represent the organisation but that you had declined the offer? Would you like to explain this?
Ans. This is absolutely false. I did not know about any conspiracy or about any funds.
Q. 5. Do you wish to say anything else with regard to the evidence led in this case against you?
Ans. I wish to read out a written statement. (The statement was read out).
I wish to and further that when I reached Dacca I found that the condition of my brother had improved and he had not been admitted into the hospital because the paying cabin was not available in those days.
Q. 6. Do you wish to produce evidence in defence?
Ans. No.
Chairman
Member
Member
Page: 231
STATEMENT OF ACCUSED NO. 32, EX-SUB. A.K.M. TAJUL ISLAM, UNDER SECTION 342, Cr.P.C.
(As the accused does not know English he gave his statement in Bengali and Mr. Atiar Rahman, Asstt. Register, Tribunal, interpreted his statement in English).
Q. 1. Did you in the years 1964-67 (both years inclusive) conspire with your co-accused and persons mentioned in list “A” attached to the complaint as well as other persons, to wage war against Pakistan and to deprive Pakistan of its sovereignty over the Province of East Pakistan by means of criminal force in an armed revolt which was to be carried out mainly with weapons, ammunition and funds provided by India through Indian officials?
Ans. I am not aware of any such conspiracy nor I was associated with anyone in pursuance of any such conspiracy. The allegation is false.
Q. 2. Did P.W. 16 Jalaluddin Ahmed and Samad accused come to you at the Shipyard Khulna and canvass you to join the separatist movement and did you promise to come over to Dacca in response to their persuasion on 6.7.66?
Ans. This is incorrect. I did not know Jalaluddin Ahmed and possibly Jalaluddin Ahmed also do not know me till now. I have seen Samad for the first time in this Court.
Q. 3. Do you wish to say anything else to explain the prosecution’s evidence against you?
Page: 232
Ans. I wish to read out a Bengali written statement. (Statement read out). I also wish to add that when I was brought here I requested Major Naser to provide me with some oil and soap as I was in the habit of using these from my boyhood but no arrangement was made. I had no money with me to purchase things. I used to borrow some oil from the Guard.
Q. 4. Do you wish to produce any defence evidence?
Ans. No.
Chairman.
Member.
Member.
Page: 233
STATEMENT OF ACCUSED NO. 33, MR. ALI REZA UNDER SECTION 342 Cr.P.C.
Q.1. Did you in the years 1964-67 (both years inclusive) conspire with your co-accused and persons mentioned in list “A” attached to the complaint as well as other persons, to wage war against Pakistan and to deprive Pakistan of its sovereignty over the Province of East Pakistan by means of criminal force in an armed revolt which was to be carried out mainly with weapons, ammunition and funds provided by India through Indian officials?
Ans. This is absolutely false. I never associated myself with any such alleged conspiracy.
Q.2. Did you in pursuance of the conspiracy aforesaid attend the following meetings at which the implementation of that conspiracy was discussed and plans made, details of which have been fully given by the P.Ws. namely:
(1) meeting held in June, 1967 at 13, Green square, Dacca, which also attended by Lt. Moazzem Hussain, Ris. Shamsul Haq, Rameez P.W. NaibSub. J.U. Ahmad, Hav. Daliluddin, Sultanuddin Ahmed, St. Mujibur Rahman and Samad, Anwar Hussain P.W. being sent away on an errand;
(2) in the course of the meetings that followed the above meeting in June/July, 1967, at 13, Green Square also attended by Lt.Com. Moazzem Hussain, Rameez P.W, Capt. Muttalib, St. Mujibur Rahman, Samad and Naib-Subadar J.U. Ahmad it was decided that delegates would go to Agartala, India, to meet the Indian officials through the Feni Border and that the date of the meeting would be announced shortly. It is also stated that you were given an arms list by Lt.Com. Moazzem Hussain for taking
Page: 234
to India as you and St. Mujibur Rahman were selected as the delegates to meet the Indian officials there.
Ans: These allegations are absolutely false. I did not attend any such meeting. I did not know any of these persons except Mr. Rameez. I never had been in 13, Green Square. No Arms list was given to me by anyone. I had an export business. I mainly exported animals and birds, namely, tiger-cubs, fish-otters, rhesus monkeys, kites, vultures, parakeet, and mavnas. I used to ship them mostly by PIA. I met Mr. Rameez in connection with that business sometime in January, 1967. When Mr. Rameez got interested after knowing the nature of my business he wanted to see the birds and animals which I used to keep in my office premises. I invited him to my office premises. After seeing the animals and birds, he becomes interested and told me that if I found any trouble in shipping these birds and animals through PIA, he would help me. After that whenever Mr. Rameez came to Dacca, he used to drop into my office or residence at Dacca.
Q.3. Did you along with St. Mujibur Rahman, Samad and Hav. Daliluddin go to Feni on 11.7.67 in the morning and stay at Hotel Denofa where rooms had been booked for all of you by Naib-Sub. J.U. Ahmed?
Ans: This is absolutely false. I never visited Feni in my life. I never stayed in hotel ‘Denofa’ or any other hotel at Feni.
Q.4. Did Rameez P.W. arrive in his P.I.A. Dodge Dart Car along with Anwar Hussain P.W. the same evening? Did you all dine at hotel Denofa after which Rameez P.W. retired to the Dak Bungalow at Feni while you all remained at the Hotel?
Ans. The question does not arise as I have explained in my answer to question No. 3. The allegation is false.
Q.5. Where you on the 12th of July, 1967 at 2.30 a.m. taken by Rameez P.W. in his Dodge Dart Car from the Hotel all except Daliluddin, towards the Belonia Border and dropped there Anwar Hussain going with Rameez P.W. in his car?
Ans. This is false.
Page: 235
Q.6. Did you and St. Mujibur Rahman after being dropped there, cross over the border to Agartala in India that night to meet the Indian officials?
Ans. This is false. I had never seen Std. Mujib before coming to this Court.
Q.7. Did you and St. Mujibur Rahman return from Agartala on or about the evening of the 13th/14th of July, 1967 and did you then go to Barisal to report to Lt.Com.Moazzem Hussain the result of your mission?
Ans. This is absolutely false. As I did not go to Agartala, the question of my going to report to Lt. Com. Moazzem Hossain does not arise.
Q.8. In July 1967 did Rameez P.W. meet you at your residence in Dacca on Laboratory Road and did you tell him that you and St. Mujibur Rahman had a successful meeting with the Indian officials at Agartala and that the supply of arms, ammunition and money had been assured?
Ans: It is absolutely false.
Q.9. Were you on or about the 30th of August, 1967 at the Party House on Road No. 18, Dhanmandi, Dacca, when Dr. Saeedur Rahman Chowdhury and Manik Chowdhury accused came there and met you and Samad at that place?
Ans: That house was mine and I shifted to that house sometime in September, 1967. I took it from the first day of September and this will be apparent from the document which is an Ext. in this case. It is false that Manik Choudhury and Dr. Sayeedur Rahman ever visited my house. I had never seen Manik Choudhury before coming to this Court. I, for the first time, saw Dr. Sayeedur Rahman in the Dacca Central Jail on the 10th December, 1967 when we were kept in the same ward.
Q.10. Were you, after you had a difference of opinion with Lt. Com. Moazzem Hussain over party fund accounts on or about the 24″ October, 1967, vide Ex. D.E./2 given by Rameez P.W. a P.I.A. Credit Ticket for the journey from Dacca to Lahore and back through Anwar Hussain P.W. so that you might inform Mr. Ruhul Quddus accused who was then by Lahore, of the alleged misappropriation of party funds by Lt. Com. Moazzem Hussain? Did you also go to Capt. Mutalib at Peshawar on that occasion?
Ans: It is absolutely false. Actually, I did get the ticket in question from Mr. Rameez because it was otherwise difficult to get it. I had paid
236
for it in cash to P.W. Mr. Rameez. The question of my meeting Mr. Ruhul Quddus, CSP. and capt. Mutalib before the starting of this case. I only know Mr. Ruhul Quddus, CSP as a senior civil servant. In fact, I saw him sometime in September/October, 1967 in Dacca when he was coming out from his house as we were living on the same road. Whenever I used to go to the City and come back home I had to pass by his house. As for my trip to West Pakistan I had gone to Lahore on that occasion and stayed there for 3 days and did not meet Mr. Ruhul Quddus there. From there I went to Islamabad city which I had not seen before. It was just a pleasure trip and nothing else. I learned that an industrial exhibition was going on in Peshawar while I was there. As I also used to export gift articles I thought that I might see some suitable things in that exhibition. So from Islamabad I started for Peshawar and visited the exhibition. I did not see Capt. Mutalib nor did I know him at that time.
Q.11. Was the diary Ex. P.W. 27/2 recovered along with the letter Ex-P.W. 27/3, Hotel Bill of Peshawar Ęx. P.W. 27/4 from your house No. 821, Road No. 18, Dhanmandi Area, Dacca on search by P.W.27 M. Hashmat Ali, A.S.I? Does that diary contain writings in your hand and was the letter Ex. P.W. 27 written to you?
Ans: The diary Ext. P.W. 27/2 is not mine and the writings are not in my hand. I do not know anything about the letter Ext. P.W. 27/3 though it is addressed to one “Reza Bhai” from Muttalib. I did not know Capt. Muttalib before coming to this court, so the question of receiving any letter from Capt. Muttalib does not arise.
Q.12. The entries in the diary alleged to belong to you, Ext. P.W. 27/2 refer to several of the co-accused in this case. Would you like to explain this fact? Your attention is particularly invited to entries in your diary under the dates 16th March, 1967, 3rd April,1967, 4th April, 1967, 5th April, 1967, 7th April, 1967, 8th April, 1967, 9th April, 1967, 15th April, 1967 to 21st Apri1,1967 24th April, 1967, 28th April, 1967, 29th April, 1967, 30th April, 1967, 3rd May, 1967, 6th May, 1967, 7th May, 8th May, 1967, 13th May, 1967, 16th May, 1967, to 20th May, 1967. 26 ” May, 1967 to 31st May, 1967, 1st June , 1967, 2nd June, 1967, 4th June, 1967, 6th
Page: 237
June 1967, 12th June, 1967, 13th June, 1967, 15th June, 1967, 23rd June, 1967, 25th June, 1967, 27th June, 1967, 26th June, 1967, 7th and 8th July, 1967, 10th July, 1967 to 12th July to 13th July, to 19th July, 1967, 21st July to 24th July, 1967, 27th July 1967, 1st to 5th August, 1967, 7th to 10th August, 1967, 14th August, 1967, 15th August, 1967, 17th August, 1967, 19th August, 1967, 2nd September, 1967, 7th September, 1967, gth Setember, 1967, 11th September, 1967, 13th Sept. 1967, 2nd October, 1967, 4th October, 1967, 9th October, 1967, 10th October, 1967, 15th October, 1967, 25th October, 1967, 30th October, 1967 & 31st October, 1967. Do you wish to explain them and especially the entries on the dates 11th to 16h July, 1967 with regard to your these movements?
Ans: None of these entries shown to me are in my hand, therefore, I cannot explain them. No one had ever taken my specimen signatures of specimen writings during my detention.
Q.13. Did you apply for addition of certain countries in your passport for the application Ext. P.W. 250/3 dated 5.4.67. the passport being Ex. P.W. 250/1. Would you now look at entry dated 5.4.67. in the diary Ex. P.W. 27/2. and say whether it is in your hand?
Ans: I did make this application for additional endorsement of certain countries in my passport on the date alleged. Ext. P.W. 250/3 is the passport in which the endorsement was made. I still say that the entry dated 5.4.67 in the diary Ext. P.W.27/2. is not in my hand.
Q.14. Would you like to explain what the following abbreviations stand for in these entries: “R.M”, “S.R.”, “M.H.”, “M.R.”,”R.S.” (J)”,”M.T.T.”, “A.S.”, “M.K.”, “K.N.”, “K.A.J. (TI.)”,”C.K”, “M.M.R.”, “N.N.??
Ans. Since the diary is not mine I can offer no explanation for these abbreviations.
Q.15. Are the documents Exts. P.W.162/3, P.W.162/4 and P.W. 162/5 signed by you and do they contain your writings? These being documents seized from the Office of the Director, National Institute of Public Administration, Dacca by P.W.162 Nomanuddin Choudhury of Special Branch, Dacca on 5.4.68?
Ans. These documents shown to me relate to me, but I cannot say whether the writings on them and the signatures are mine or not.
Page: 238
Q.16. Was Holding No. 821, on Road No.18, Dhanmandi Residential Area, Dacca belonging to the wife of Muhammad Siddique P.W. 95, leased out to you in September 1967 per the Lease Deed Ex. P.W.95/1?
Ans. Yes. This is correct. Q. 17.(a) Is the Passport Ext. P.W.250/1 signed by you at p.3? (b) Does the seizure list Ex. P.W.27/1 bear your signature?
Ans. (a) Yes, my signature appears under my photograph on that page in the passport.
(b) No such seizure list was prepared and the signature appearing on this document is not mine.
Q.18. Do you wish to say anything else with regard to the evidence led in this case against you?
Ans. On the 9th of December, 1967 at about 4 A.M. San. Ldr. Shamsur Rahman came to my house with about two dozen of armed policemen and awakened me. He wanted to search my house. I asked for his identity and for the search warrant. He revealed his own identity but declined to show any search warrant. At that time the members of my family were away at my home village. I was at that time living in that house along with my two servants. About a dozen policemen entered the house along with San. Ldr. Shamsur Rahman seated me in one room and went into the various rooms in the house and after about an hour Sqn. Ldr. Shamsur Rahman asked me to accompany him. I went with him to the special Branch, Rajarbagh. I there again asked why I was being meted out such treatment and the San. Ldr. said that this will be explained to me later on. I was kept at the Rajarbagh Special Branch for an hour or so and then taken to the Dacca Central Jail. There I was served with a detention order under rule 32 of the Defence of Pakistan Rules”. I then learned that I was to be detained for six months in Dacca Central Jail. On the 11th of December, 1967 at about 9 A.M. I was again brought back to the Rajarbagh Special Branch. There I was cordially received by Mr. Rizvi, Col. Amir Mohammad and Col. Hasan their names I learned subsequently. They gave me tea and began to interrogate me. In the course of the discussion that followed I happened to mention that I was associated with service Civil International, which is an international youth movement as President and Vice-President. On
Page: 239
further question, I told them that I was associated with the Association for Social Reclamation, Rehabilitation and After-care of the Released Prisoners. I was then asked whether I had any knowledge about the organization named “Chayanatl2». I was also asked about my knowledge of many other social and cultural organizations. As I was associated with NIPA, I was asked whether I had any knowledge about the student movement and knew any University Teachers who may be connected with the student agitation. Amongst others, they enquired of my about Professor Mozaffar Ahmed Choudhury, Prof. Razzaque and Dr. Mahmood. I mentioned to them that some of the University Teachers were known to me because they were from time to time invited to the NIPA. Then they asked me whether I knew Mr. Shafiul Azam. Mr. A.K.M. Ahsan, Mr. Sanaul Huq, Mr. A. F. Rahman, Mr. Ruhul Quddus, Mr. K. M. S. Rahman, Mr. Sanaul Haque, C.S.P. as he happened to be the Director of NIPA wherein I served. This discussion lasted for about two-three hours. I was then given lunch and at about 4 of 4.30 P.M. Mr. Rizvi came to me when I asked why I was being subjected to these questionings. He told me that they would let me go after knowing certain things from me. He began talking about politics and asked about certain politicians such as Mr. Nurul Amin, Sk. Mujibur Rahman, Mr. Yusuf Ali Choudhury and others. I expressed my inability to discuss Politics from which I had kept myself at a safe distance. I was asked whether I had any knowledge about any of these politicians who were trying to agitate the students. He then told me that he needed my services and he would let me go if I co-operated with him. He then told me that they were going to involve some senior civil servants and University teachers and institute a case against them so that all these things could be stopped. I was suggested to make a statement that these persons were going to separate East Pakistan from the Central Government by an armed revolt in connivance with a political party and political leaders namely, Sk.Mujibur Rahman and others. I simply refused to fulfil their wishes. Mr. Rizvi tried to persuade me for some time and then left saying that he was giving me time for the might for reflection.
Page: 240
SPECIAL TRIBUNAL
Record of Proceedings
6.2.69
PRESENT
Mr. Justice S.A. Rahman, H.Pk., Chairman.
Mr. Justice M.R. Khan, S.Pk., Member.
Mr. Justice Maksum-ul-Hakim, Member.
For the prosecution…………….. As before.
For the Defence ………………As before.
Accused present…………….. .. As before.
STATEMENT OF ACCUSED 33, MUHAMMAD ALI REZA
UNDER SECTION 342, Cr. P.C. CONTINUED.
I was left alone for the night and had to pass the whole night sitting on a chair as no bed was provided to me. Next morning Col. Amir Mohammad and Col. Hasan again came to me and made the same proposal that I should implicate a few civil servants, University teachers and some military officers as desired by them. But no my refusal they started assaulting me. I was given slaps, blows and kicks. These continued for 7 days with occasional breaks.
When I was arrested I was suffering from cough and cold and due to this I was feeling acute pain in my chest and I was having a temperature. I requested Col.
Page: 241
Amir Mohammad to call for a doctor but no doctor was called. Finding that I was incapable of undergoing any further torture and that was unable to give them a decision. I was again shifted to the Central Jail, Dacca, in the evening of the 17th December, 1967. The Deputy Jailor came and saw me next morning and I told him about my condition and requested him that I would like to see the Inspector General of Prison and D.I. G. of Prisons. These two officers used to be my students when they underwent the Advanced Management Development Training in NIPA. The D. I. G. Prisons came and saw me and I told him that because of my condition I might be examined by a Doctor. He told me that he could do nothing as possible I would be shifted from Dacca Central Jail to somewhere else. He told me that during his 30 years of service he had not seen such things as had been happening to some of us. The same evening I was shifted to Dinajpur District Jail almost in a bed-ridden condition. I reached there in the evening on the 19th December and the next morning the Supdt. of Jail on seeing my Condition sent for a doctor from Sadar Hospital, Dinajpur. An Assistant Surgeon came and examined me and recommended an X-ray examination for me. Subsequently, I was X-rayed and it was discovered that I was suffering from acute pleurisy. I was then admitted in the Jail Hospital and treated. I wrote letters to my father and a brother of mine came and saw me in the Jail and told me that a Writ Petition had been moved on my behalf in the High Court. On the 18th January, 1968 I was again shifted to the Dacca Central Jail. The same day in the evening the Deputy Jailor came and told me that the Government had ordered my release. As soon as I came out of the Jail office after signing my release papers I was again arrested by a Major of the Military Police. I asked him to show me the authority under which he arrested me but he showed me no paper. From there I was again taken to the Cantonment in a Jeep and kept in a small room attached to a Barrack and a Guard was placed with me. The next morning I told the Guard that I would like to see an officer and he produced me before the Second in Command of the 3rd Punjab Regiment. I complained about the food supplied to me over-night and about the accommodation
Page: 242
given to me. He told me that he could not do anything but security people were in-charge. I was kept in this condition for about a week and no officer came to see during this period. I was only given two blankets and a cot. No mosquito-net and no pillow were provided to me. About a week later I was produced before Col. Sher Ali Baz and again I made a request to him for better accommodation and food. He told me that if I agreed to their proposal I would immediately be shifted to better accommodation. He talked with me about one hour and a half and then went away. I was kept in a room of which glass panes doors and windows were painted. No treatment was given to me during this period. I again developed a pain in my chest. On my request again I was produced before Col. Sher Ali Baz and I told him that I should be examined by a doctor narrating my physical condition. He told me that he would send a doctor for my treatment. Meanwhile, my pressure was again exerted over me. One or two days later, two Bengalese doctors came to me. I told them about my condition and gave them my history and of my confinement in such a closed room. On hearing me they said nothing. Some days later another doctor Mr. Paul came to me and ordered the Guard to keep open one door of my room. He also told me that he had issued a similar direction for others but nothing happened on this point. In the meantime I was occasionally taken out for interrogation and pressure was put on to me agreed with their proposal. I was again subjected to physical torture as before. Sometime in March, 1968 Major Hasan come to my room. He showed a sympathetic attitude towards me and talked with me about my personal affairs and after that, he took some notes. For a similar purpose, he met me several times either in my room or I was taken to his room. Finally, on the 11th May, 1968 Major Naser took me to Major Hasan at about 11 P.M. Major Hasan told me that this was my last chance to save myself otherwise I would be implicated in the case. I again refused to agree with their proposal. The money I had was finished by March, 1968. I requested Major Hasan, Major Naser and Col. Sher Ali Baz from time to time that I might be allowed to bring my bedding and some money from my house but they refused. In the later
Page: 243
part of March, 1968, one Major Nazir Fatehuddin of 3rd Punjab came to my room and I told him about my condition. He told me that I could now write to my relation but the letter must be in English and he also advised me that I could only get Rs.20/- from my house. Accordingly, I wrote a letter to my father and money was sent to me twice but the money order was refused. I found that several letters of mine and those sent by my relatives were intercepted and with held. Till the opening of the case, I had no money with me and so I had to go without necessaries like Oil, toilet soap, etc. Only after the opening of this Court one Mahboobuddin Ahmed was shifted to my room and this ended my solitary confinement. I made a request before this Court also for better accommodation but this had no effect the Authority I have been serving the people of my country in an official capacity and other capacities by associating myself with several social and welfare associations. I have been forcibly implicated in this case and the evidence brought against me is totally fabricated and false. I am innocent.
Q.19. So you wish to produce evidence in defence?
Ans. No.
Chairman.
Member
Member.
Page: 244
STATEMENT OF ACCUSED NO. 34, CAPT. KHURSHID UDDIN AHMED, A.M.C., UNDER SECTION 342, Cr.P.C.
Q.1. Did you in the years 1964-67 (both years inclusive) conspire with your co-accused and persons mentioned in List “A” attached to the Complaint as well as other persons, to wage war against Pakistan and to deprive Pakistan of its sovereignty over the Province of East Pakistan by means of criminal force in an armed revolt which was to be carried out mainly with weapons, ammunition and funds provided by India through Indian officials?
Ans. This is absolutely false.
Q.2. Did you in June/July, 1967 in pursuance of the aforesaid conspiracy visit 13, Green Square, Dacca, frequently and did you attend several meetings there which were also attended by Rameez, P.W. Lt. Moazzem Hussain, St. Mujibur Rahman, Subedar Shamsul Haq, Ali Raza, etc.? Were you particularly present at one of these meetings when it was decided to send a delegation to Agartala, India to meet the Indian officials-St. Mujibur Rahman and Ali Raza being chosen as delegates?
Ans. This is absolutely false. I was in West Pakistan during the relevant period and the allegation is false. Out of the persons named in the question, I did not know anyone except for Lt. Commander Moazzem Hossain who was my shift mate in 1962. I did not know where 13, Green Square is located.
Q.3 Are the letter Ext. P.W. 163/2 dated 18.5.66 marked Q22 by the handwriting expert, the chit Ext. P.W.238/20 marked R/1 and the signatures on the typed sheet Ext. P.W.238/21 marked R/2 in your hand and were they written by you? Would you like to explain them?
Page: 245
Ans: The letter Ext. P.W.163/2 and chit Ext. P.W. 238/20 are not in my hand. The chit, however, does contain the address of my wife. The typed sheet Ext. P.W. 238/21 is and Income-tax return which is signed by me.
Q.4. You are referred to as one of the members of the separatist organisation in the alleged confession dated 20th January, 1968, of Major Shamsul Alam accused, recorded by Mr. Ejaz Muhammad Khan, A.D.M. Rawalpindi. Do you wish to say anything about it?
| Ans: The reference in that statement to me is absolutely false. I used to know Major Shamsul Alam because he was my class fellow in 1948 but after 1958 during my service, I had never met him.
Q.5. Do you wish to say anything else with regard to the evidence led against you in this case?
Ans: I wish to read out a written statement. (The statement was read out).
Q. 6. Do you wish to produce evidence in defence?
Ans: No.
Chairman.
Member.
Member.
Page: 246
STATEMENT OF ACCUSED NO. 35, LT. ABDUR RAUF,
UNDER SECTION 342 Cr.P.C.
Q.1. Did you in the years 1964-67 (both years inclusive) conspire with your co-accused and persons mentioned in List “A” attached to the Complaint as well as other person, to wage war against Pakistan and to deprive Pakistan of its sovereignty over the Province of East Pakistan by names of criminal force in an armed revolt which was to be carried out mainly with weapons, ammunition and funds provided by India through Indian officials?
Ans: The allegation is false.
Q.2. Did you in pursuance of the conspiracy aforesaid attend the following meetings at which the implementation of the conspiracy was discussed and plans made, details of which have been fully given by the P.W. namely:
(1) meeting held in July, 1967 at the house of Mahbubuddin Ahmed Chowdhury in Martin Quarters, Karachi attended also by Corp. Sirajul Islam, Mahbubuddin Ahmed Chowdhury, S.M. Ali, Joynal, Ch. Zainul Abedin Lt. M.M. Rahman and Sgt. Zahur and others ;
(2) meeting called by you and held at the house of Sgt. A. Jalil in Karachi in July/August, 1967 attended also by Sgt. A. Jalil, Lt. M.M. Rahman, Flt.Sgt. Mahfizullah, Joynal, Ch. Zainul Abedin, Siddiqur Rahman, Corp. Shahabuddin, Corp.Aftab, Corp.Sirajul Islam and others:
(3) meeting held in October, 1967 at the quarter occupied by Mahbubuddin Ahmed Chowdhury in Karachi and attended also by Mahbubuddin Ahmed Chowdhury, Shamsuddin Ahmed, P.W. Lt. M.M. Rahman Sgt. Mahfizullah, Corp.Sirajul Islam and others.
Page: 247
Ans: The allegations are absolutely false. Out of the persons named in this question, I did not know anyone except for Lt. Rahman with whom I had served in different Naval Establishments in Karachi. I do not know the houses of the persons named where the meetings are alleged to have been held.
Q.3. Did you in November, 1967 go to Dacca to the house of Mr. Malik of the Blind Institute to meet Corp. Sirajul Islam and Mahbubuddin Ahmed Chowdhury who were staying there and did you there discuss with them the opening of a technical school at Dacca for party purposes? Did you instruct Corp. Sirajul Islam to make collections for the party at Chittagong on that occasion?
Ans: I do not know any such Malik and I never went to his house at all. I was not at Dacca at the relevant period. In fact, I was on leave at my home during that period.
Q.4. Did Shamsuddin Ahmad P.W. 4 come to you with Mr. Malik, Superintendent of the Blind Institute, Dacca to our residence in Dhanmandi Area, Dacca in November/December, 1967 and inform you of his having met the group of Sgt. M. Abdur Razzaque in Dacca?
Ans: I never saw Shamsuddin Ahmad P.W. before I saw him in this Court. I never had any residence in Dhanmandi Area in Dacca.
Q.5. Were you declared to be the leader of the party at Karachi by Lt. M.M. Rahman at the meeting held in July, 1967 in the house of Mahbubuddin Ahmad Chowdhury at Martin Quarters, Karachi to which no exception was taken by anyone including yourself?
Ans: This is absolutely false. The question does not arise.
Q.6. Do you wish to say anything else with regard to the evidence led against you in this case?
Ans: I want to read out a written statement. (The statement was read out.)
Q.7. Do you wish to produce evidence in defence?
Ans: No.
Chairman.
Member.
Member
Page: 248
An Order of Home Department regarding detention of Mr. Mizanur Rahman Choudhury M.N.A
Government of East Pakistan.
Home Department.
Social Section
ORDER
No. 70-H.S. Dated, Dacca the 26″” January, 1965.
Whereas the person known as Mr. Mizanur Rahman Choudhuri, M.N.A., S/o. late Hafez Ahmed of Puran Bazar, P. S. Chandpur, District Comilla is detained in the Commilla Central Jail under order No. 1488/C dated the 27th December, 1964 of the Deputy Commissioner, Comilla.
And whereas having considered the materials against the said person the Governor is satisfied that with a view to preventing the said person from acting in any manner prejudicial to the public safety and the maintenance of public order, it is necessary to make the following order for the purpose of continuing his detention;
Now therefore, in the exercise of the powers conferred by clause (a) of subsection (1) of section 17 of the East Pakistan Public safety ordinance, 1958 (Ordinance No LXXVIII), the Governor is pleased to direct;
(a) that the said person shall, subject to the provisions of section 19A of the said Ordinance be detained until further orders:
Page: 249
(b) that subject to the provisions of clause (a) of this paragraph the said person shall continue to be detained in the Comilla Central Jail, and
(c) that during such detention the said person shall be subject to the conditions laid down in the East Pakistan State Prisoner Rules, 1956.
By order of the Governor.
Sd. Illegible.
Section officer, Govt. of East Pakistan.
Page: 250
Ct; C.I. Satter Khan 11.
9.6.69 Dismissed as withdrawal
sd
9.6.69.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PAKISTAN.
(Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction)
Criminal Appeal No. 20-D of 1967
Shaikh Akram Hossain, on behalf of
detenu Sk. Mujibur Rahman,
Appellant.
-Versus-
The Government of East Pakistan and others ………….. Respondents
CONCISE STATEMENT ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT
1. That the aforesaid appeal arises out of a certificate granted under Clause (a) of Sub-article 56 of the constitution by a Special Bench of the High Court of East Pakistan on the 9th August, 1967. P. 203.
2. That on behalf of the detenu an application under section 491 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was filed in the High Court of East
Page: 251
Pakistan challenging his detention under the Defence of Pakistan Rules, 1965 (herein after referred to as the Rules) on the 12th of May, 1966 inter alia on the ground that the detenu Mr. Sk. Mujibur Rahman is the President of East Pakistan Awami League” which is a popular all Pakistan Political Party legally functioning in Pakistan as a Powerful Opposition to the present Political Party in power namely, the Pakistan Muslim League (Convention Group), herein after referred to as Muslim League, that the said detenu had acted as the Secretary of the said Political Organisation for about 12 years and was elected as a Member of the Provincial Assembly in 1964 (1954) and also elected to the National Assembly of Pakistan in 1955. He was also a Minister in the Cabinet of Mr. Ataur Rahman Khan which was formed in 1956 and held the portfolios of Commerce, Labour and Industry, that the said detenu actively and untiringly worked for achieving Pakistan and his contribution in achieving Pakistan is widely appreciated and acknowledged, that the said detenu has also been regarded by a large section of people as a great constitutional agitator in ventilating public grievances but in doing so he has always been a law-abiding citizen and never resorted to any unlawful and anti state activities; that recently the detenu formulated a Six-Point programme’ and got it approved by his party and has projected the said six-point programme before the people of Pakistan for amending the Constitution of Pakistan in the light and his Six-point programme also envisages full and proper economic development of the country as a whole with special reference to East Pakistan and provides for a solution of the economic disparity between East Pakistan and West Pakistan; that on the basis of the said Six-point programme the detenu has launched a constitutional movement in Pakistan for achieving its objective and had been addressing public meeting in various part of East Pakistan and had been explaining the meaning and purpose of Six-point programme and the necessity of amending constitution in the light of the said programme and it has received so far the widest support from the people; that the said fact would be evident from the fact that in April, 1966 Mr. Zulfiqur Ali
Page: 252
Bhutto the then Foreign Minister of Pakistan wanted to have public debate on the Six- point Programme and on getting information about it, the detenue accepted the proposal and threw a challenge that if in any public debate he cannot get majority support of the people, he and his party will not propagate Six-point Programme anywhere but since Mr. Bhutto did not agree to come to such a debate, it was not held and it is submitted that this shows that the detenue wants to realise the objective of Six-point programme in a peaceful manner; that on 8.5.66 a police party presumably headed by an Additional Superintendent of Police, Dacca made a mid-night raid upon the detenu’s residence at Dhanmondi Residential Area, P.S. Lalbagh, Dacca apprehended the detenue and served upon him an order under Clause (b) of Sub-rule 1 of Rule 32 of the Rules, under the purported signature of the Deputy Commissioner, Dacca dated 8.5.66; that after the arrest the detenue was taken to Dacca Central Jail and is being detained there; that the aforesaid order of detention of the detenue was purported to be for 90 days and commenced from the date of service of the said order and the said order of detention was extended from time to time by serving orders for a period of 3 months; that the detention of the detenue was malafide, illegal, void and without jurisdiction. P. 1 to 9
3. That the said application was heard by a Bench of the High Court of East Pakistan comprising of 5 Judges and presided over by Mr. Justice B. A. Siddiky and their Lordships held by majority judgment and order dated the 9th August, 1965 that the detention of detenu was under a valid order. Thereafter an appeal was preferred to this Hon’ble Court being Criminal Appeal No. 11-D of 1967 and this Court was pleased to remand the case to the said High Court for rehearing. P. 20-23
4. That the detention of the detenue was continued by serving notice on him from time to time for a period of 90 days and the last order extending the period of detention under the Rules was issued on 25th January, 1967 which was served on him on 4.2.67. But on the expiry of the above order dated 25th January, 1967 no further order extending his detention was served on the detenu. In the meantime,
Page: 253
Mr. Afsaruddin, Magistrate, 1st Class, Dacca by his judgment and order dated April, 1967 convicted the detenue in a Criminal case under subrule of rule 47 of the Rules and sentenced him to suffer imprisonment for 1 year and 3 months. Against the order of the learned Magistrate the detenu preferred an appeal to the Session Judge, Dacca and prayed for bail and the learned Session Judge by his order dated 29th May, 1967 directed for releasing the detenue on bail after hearing the detenu’s lawyer and the lawyer of the State who opposed the prayer for bail. The release order of the detenue in pursuance of the order of the learned Sessions Judge was communicated to the Jail Authority on the 1st of June, 1967 and on receipt of the order of release the detenue was brought to the jail gate by the Jail Authority for release but in the meantime an order of detention under Clause (b) of sub- rule (2) of rule 32 of the Rules purported to be under the signature of Mr. M. K. Anwar, Deputy Commissioner, Dacca dated 29th May, 1967 was served on the detenue on 1.6.67 at 6 P.M. inside the jail gate and he is being detained there. The aforesaid order of detention was purported to be for 90 days and commences from the date of service of the said order. On behalf of the detenu another application under section 491 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was filed challenging the detention of the detenu under the said order and a Division Bench of the High Court issued a fresh Rule being Criminal Miscellaneous Case No. 161 of 1967. P. 25-37
5. That the aforesaid case and the case remanded by this court for rehearing came up for hearing before a Special Bench comprising of Mr. Justice A. K. M. Baquer, Mr. Justice Abdulla and Mr. Justice Abdul Hakim and on behalf of the respondents two supplementary affidavits were filed and on behalf of the detenu an affidavit-in-reply was filed, the Special Bench of the High Court, by majority judgment of their Lordships discharged the rules and held that the detention of the detenue was legal and valid.
6. That the judgment and order of the majority Judges of the Special Bench of the High Court are liable to be set aside on the following amongst other:
Page: 254
GROUNDS
I. For that the learned Judges of the High Court seriously erred in law in holding that the detention of the detenu was justified without properly considering the fact that detaining authority did not swear the supplementary affidavits on behalf of the Respondents and without his affidavit it was not proper to hold that the alleged materials upon which Respondents tried to justify the detention of the detenu were the materials upon which the Respondent No. 2 passed the order of detention of the detenu.
II. For that the learned Judges of the High Court seriously erred in law in holding that the detention of the detenue was justified in view of several “inflammatory speeches” delivered by the detenue without properly applying their mind that the detenue being the Chief of a political party was creating public opinion in support of his party programme, namely Six-point Programme and for such speeches the detenu could not be detained under the Rules.
III. For that the learned Judges seriously erred in law in failing to consider that the activities of the detenu were related to Six-point Programme of his party and the said programme having not been declared by the Supreme Court as a contravention of section 3 of the Political Parties Act, 1962 the respondent No. 2, had no lawful authority to direct his detention on the basis of the aforesaid activities of the detenu.
IV. For that the learned Judges failed to consider that the Special Bench was a Division Bench as per Rules of the High Court and consequently the decision of the Division Bench of the High Court in the case of detenu Abdul Aziz where a Division Bench held that detention for any alleged prejudicial activity with regard to 6-point Programme cannot be the basis of detention should have been followed.
V. For that the learned Judges erred in not holding that the allegations as regards the activities of the detenue do not relate to the purposes of the proclamation of the 6″ September, 1965 by the President of Pakistan and as such his activities are not relatable to the Defence of Pakistan Ordinance, 1965 and the Rule and consequently his detention under the Rules is not sustainable.
Page: 255
VI. For that, the learned Judges erred in law in relying on the materials which cannot be the grounds of detention under the Rules.
VII. For that there are specific cases with regard to the speeches of the detenu, the learned Judges of the High Court erred in law in relying on those speeches in upholding the order of detention of the detenu.
VIII. For that the detenu has been detained for collateral and as such his detention is void.
IX. For that, the detaining authority did not properly apply its mind in passing the impugned order.
X. For that, the said order is mala fide.
XI. For that there being no valid satisfaction as required under the law the impugned order is not sustainable in law.
XII. For that, the impugned order of detention dated 29.5.67 has been passed to deny the detenu the privileges of bail granted to him by the learned Sessions Judge, Dacca.
XIII. For that, there was no occasion or circumstance to pass the order of detention after a lapse of about a month when the detenu was in jail.
Drawn by:
(Md. Nurul Huq)
Senior Attorney,
Supreme Court.
Filed by
(M/S. HUQ-RAB & CO.)
Attorneys for the Appellant,
Law Chamber.
2. Arambagh, Dacca.
Page: 256
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PAKISTAN.
(Appellate Jurisdiction)
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO: 20-D OF 1967.
(Direct Appeal)
Shaikh Akram Hossain, on behalf of the detenu Sk. Mujibur
Rahman — Appellant.
VERSUS
The Govt. of
East Pakistan & others — Respondents.
INDEX OF PAPERS.
Sl. No. Description of Papers. Date. Page.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF EAST PAKISTAN, DACCA IN CRL. MISC. CASE NOS: 64 OF
1966 & 161 OF 1967.
IN
CRIMINAL MISC. CASE NO: 64 OF 1966. 1. Application U/s. 491 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 12.5.66. 1-9.
2. Counter Affidavit on behalf of the Opposite Parties. 4.6.66. 10-14.
Page: 257
3. Affidavit-in-Reply on behalf of the Petitioner. 14.6.66.15-19.
4. Judgment of the Supreme Court in Criminal Appeal No. 11-d of 1967. 14.6.67. 20-23
5. Supplementary Affidavit on behalf of the Opposite Parties. 29.7.67. 24.
IN CRIMINAL MISC. NO: 161 OF 1967.
6. Application U/s. 491 of the Code of Criminal Procedure with All Annexure … 26.6.67.25.
Sl.No. Description of Papers. Date. Page.
6 (contd ). Annexure ‘A’ -6- Point Formula. -38 -66.
Annexure ‘B’ Order of the Dy. Commissioner, Dacca. 8-5-66. 67-68.
Annexure ‘Co-Order of the Dy. Commissioner, Dacca. 29-5-67. 69-70.
7. Counter Affidavit on behalf of the Opposite Parties. 24-7-67.71-80.
8. Affidavit-in-Reply on behalf of the Petitioner. 25-7-67.81-87.
9. Supplementary Affidavit on behalf of the Opposite Parties. 29-7-67. 88-100.
10. Affidavit-in-Reply on behalf of the Petitioner in reply to the Affidavit of the Opposite Parties. 1-8-67. 101-112.
Page: 258
Annexure ‘A’-Letter from
Tajuddin Ahmed, Organising
Secy. addressed to All
President / Secretaries of
District/ Sub-Divisional
Awami League Committees. 17-9-65. 113-114.
Annexure ‘B’-Resolutions of
East Pakistan Awami League
Working Committee. – 115-116.
Annexure ‘C’-Press Interview
of Sk. Mujibur Rahman as
published in the Daily ‘SANGBAD’ 5-2-66. 117-119.
11. Judgment. 9-8-67. 120-203.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PAKISTAN.
(APPELLATE JURISDICTION)
12. Petition of Appeal. 8-9-67. 204-214.
Page: 259
NO: 1 APPLICATION UNDER SECTION 491 OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE IN CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS CASE NO. 64 OF 1966 DT. 12.5.66.
NO. 1
Application under Sec. 491 of the Code of Crl. Procedure in Crl. Misc. Case No. 64 of 1966 dt. 12.5.66.
Sd/- Rezaul Malik
through
Sd/- Aminul Huq.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT DACCA IN. EAST PAKISTAN.
(Criminal Original Jurisdiction)
Criminal Miscellaneous Case No. 64 of 1966. In the matter of: An application under Section 491 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. And In The Matter of Rezaul Malik, son of Abdul Malik Khan of 543/G Road No. 13, Dhanmondi Residential Area, Dacca. ………Petitioner.
-Versus-
1. Government of East Pakistan, represented by Secretary, Home Department Eden Buildings, Dacca.
2. The Deputy Commissioner, Dacca.
Page: 260
3. The Deputy Inspector General of Prison and the Superintendent Dacca Central Jail, Dacca.
AND
IN THE MATTER OF:
Sk. Mujibur Rahman, son of Sheikh Lutfar Rahman of 677, Dhamondi Residential Area, P.S. Lalbagh, District Dacca, now being detained at prisoner in Dacca Central Jail under the provision of Defence of Pakistan Rules.
AND
IN THE MATTER OF :
Defence of Pakistan Rules, 1965.
To Mr. Justice Syed Mahbub Murshed, the Chief Justice and his companion Justices of the said Hon’ble Court.
The humble petition of the above named petitioner most respectfully
SHEWETH:
1. That the petitioner is a citizen of Pakistan and a friend of the detenu.
2. That the detenu Mr. Sk. Mujibur Rahman is the President of East Pakistan Awami League, which is a popular All Pakistan Political Party, legally functioning in Pakistan as a powerful opposition to the present political party in power, namely the Convention Muslim League.
Page: 261
3. That the said detenu had acted as a General Secretary of the said Political Origanisation for nearly 17 years, and was elected as a member of the East Pakistan Provincial Assembly in 1954 and of National Assembly in 1955 and became a Cabinet Minister with portfolios of Commerce, Labour & Industries in the Province of East Pakistan in 1956.
4. That said detenu’s contribution in achieving Pakistan is widely appreciated and acknowledged.
5. That the said detenu has also been regarded by a large section of people as a great Constitutional agitator in ventilating public grievances but in doing so he has always been a law-abiding citizen and never resorted to any unlawful and anti-state activities.
6. That recently the said detenue projected a six-point demand before the people of Pakistan for amending the Constitution of Pakistan in the light of the said programme and this six-point programme also envisages full and proper economic development of the country as a whole with special reference to East Pakistan and provides for a solution of the economic disparity between East Pakistan and West Pakistan. 7. That on the basis of the said six-point programme the detenu has launched a constitutional movement in Pakistan for achieving its objective and it has received so far the widest support from the people.
8. That on 8.5.66 a police party presumably headed by an Additional Superintendent of Police, Dacca made a midnight raid upon the detenu’s residence at 667, Dhanmondi Residential Area, P.S. Lalbagh, Dacca, apprehended the detenu and served upon him an order purported to be an order under Clause (b) of sub-rule 1 of Rule 32 of the Defence of Pakistan Rule, 1965 (herein after referred to as the Rules) under the purported signature of the Deputy Commissioner, Dacca dated 6.5.66. The copy of the said order has been annexed here to and marked as Annexure “A”.
Page: 262
9. That after the arrest the detenu was taken to Dacca Central Jail and is being detained there.
10. That the aforesaid order of detention was purported to be for 90 days and commences from the date of service of the said order.
11. That the detenu had been addressing different public meetings in different parts of East Pakistan explaining his six-point programme as a solution for removing the disparity between East and West Pakistan and this ultimately has aroused animosity in the political party in power, namely the Convention Muslim League.
12. That the said displeasure incurred by the detenu was quite apparent from the speeches of Convention Muslim League, President Field Marshal Md. Ayub Khan” who is the President of the Convention Muslim League and who categorically declared that such movements must be crushed.
13. That the said detention under the said Rules is an abuse of power for political victimisation, especially against a legally constituted political party, namely, Awami League and its leader.
14. That the purported detention is a device to thwart the constitutional agitation as to the realisation of the six-point programme.
15. That the said detention order is beyond the scope of said Rules.
16. That the impugned order of detention is vague, indefinite and lacks in particulars and does not afford the detenu any opportunities to controvert or rebut the allegations upon which the impugned order was passed.
17. That the detenu firmly believes that there were no materials before the detaining authority upon which the impugned order could have been passed.
Page: 263
18. That it is submitted that the detenu never indulged in any activity prejudicial to the public safety, public order or maintenance of peaceful condition in the country or prejudicial to the maintenance of supply and services.
19. That the detenu most humbly submits that some specific cases under section 153A, Rule 47 of the Defence of Pakistan Rule and under various other sections had already been started against the detenu in several districts and those are pending trial.
20. That the detenu most humbly submits that since some specific cases have already been started his detention for the self same purpose is not warranted by law. 21. That it is most humbly submitted that the Defence of Pakistan Rules is ultra vires in as much as the Legislature has completely abdicated its Legislative function to the executives.
22. That it is humbly submitted that Rule 32 of the Pakistan Defence Rules has impliedly repealed section 19 and 19 A to 19 D which is an essential Legislative function and as such Rule 32 is ultra vires.
23. That it is submitted that East Pakistan Public Safety Ordinance, 1958 is a valid piece of Legislation and it is meant for dealing with such order of detention and the Rules are concerned with the emergency matters as under the proclamation of the 6h September, 1965 by the President of Pakistan. But the order under the Rules has been passed the order to deprive the detenu of the opportunities available under the said ordinance and it is, therefore, submitted that the order is a fraud and on the state.
24. That it is humbly submitted that the order on its face shows that there was no valid satisfaction as required under sub-rule 1 of Rule 32 of the Rules.
Page: 264
25. That it is submitted that the order has been passed without complying with the requirements of the Rules.
26. That the order of detention of the detenu is illegal, void and without jurisdiction on the following amongst other
GROUNDS I. For that Provincial Government being a delegate of the Central Government had no power to re-delegate its power on the Deputy Commissioner and as such the order is illegal and void.
II. For that the order is vague and indefinite and lacking in material particulars and it does not afford any opportunity to the detenu to controvert and rebut the allegations against the detenu.
III. For that the Rules are ultra vires of the Defence of Pakistan Ordinance, 1965 and as such the order has been passed without any lawful authority
IV. For that, the order is beyond the scope of the Rules.
V. For that there being no specification by the Central Government or the Provincial Government as to the circumstances under which the order could be passed by the Deputy Commissioner, the latter has no lawful authority to pass the order.
VI. For that, the said order has been passed for collateral purpose and as such the impugned order of detention is void.
VII. For that, the said order is malafide in as much as the powers under the Rules have been exercised as a cloak to frustrate the functioning of a political party
Page: 265
VIII. For that there being no valid satisfaction as required under law the impugned order is not sustainable in law.
IX. For that, the Defence of Pakistan Ordinance, 1965 and the Rules are ultravires of the constitution.
X. For that there is already a specific case against the detenu for the self same purpose, the impugned order is unwarranted and no sustainable in law.
XI. For that, the functions of satisfaction as contemplated in the ordinance and the Rules cannot be delegated and there has been no satisfaction of the Central Government in passing the order.
Wherefore your petitioner most humbly prays for orders :
(a) That a Rule Nisi may be issued upon the opposite parties to show cause as to why the detenu Sk. Mujibar Rahman who is now being detained in Dacca Central Jail, should not be brought before the Court and to set at liberty.
(b) That the opposite party is directed to produce all the relevant papers and records before this Court upon which the detenu has been arrested and detained.
(c) That the detenu be granted bail pending the hearing of this Rule.
(d) To cost of and incidental to this application be paid by the opposite parties to the petitioner.
(e) That on hearing the parties, the Rule Nisi be made absolute and pass such other or further order as this Court may seem fit and proper.
And the petitioner, as in duty bound, shall ever pray.
Page: 266
AFFIDAVIT:
I, Rezaul Malek, son of Abdul Malek Khan, of 543G Road No. 13 Dhanmondi, P.S. Lalbagh, District Dacca, aged about 29 years, by faith a Muslim, by profession a businessman, do hereby solemnly affirm and say as follows:
1. That I am the petitioner in the above case and as such am acquainted with the facts and circumstances of this case and am competent to affirm this affidavit.
2. That the statements contained in paragraphs 1 to 22 are true to my knowledge and the rest are submission to this Hon’ble Court.
Prepared in my office.
Sd/- Aminul Huq,
Advocate.
Solemnly affirmed before me this the 12th day of May, 1966
Sd/- Md. Abdun Nur
Commissioner of Affidavits; High Court, Dacca.
12.5.66
Sd/- Rezaul Malek,
Deponent.
The deponent is known to me.
Sd/- M.A. Mannan
Clerk to Mr. M. A. Rab,
Advocate.
I do here by authorise
Mr. A Mannan Clerk to
Mr. M.A. Rab to identify the deponent.
Sd/- Aminul Huq.
Page: 267
NO: 2 COUNTER- AFFIDAVIT ON BEHALF OF THE OPPOSITE PARTIES IN CRIMINAL MISC. CASE NO. 64 OF 1966 DT. 4.6.66.
NO. 2
Counter affidavit on behalf of the opposite parties in Crl. Misc. case No. 64 of 1966
dt. 4.6.66.
…………
DISTRICT- DACCA.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT DACCA IN
EAST PAKISTAN.
(Criminal Revisional Jurisdiction)
CRIMINAL MISC. CASE NO. 64 OF 1966.
Rezaul Malik, on behalf of detenu
Sheikh Mujibur Rahman…………. Petitioner.
-VersusGovernment of East Pakistan and others … … Opposite Parties.
COUNTER-AFFIDAVIT ON BEHALF OF THE OPPOSITE PARTIES.
I.P.A. Nazir, Deputy Commissioner, Dacca do hereby solemnly affirm and say as follows: 1. That I am deputy Commissioner, Dacca and Respondent No. 2 in the above mentioned case and am competent to affirm this affidavit.
2. That I have gone through the copy of the petition out of which the above mentioned Rule arises and I have understood the contents thereof; that I have been advised to controvert such of the allegations as made in the petition that are strictly relevant for the purpose of hearing of the Rule and I do not admit any of the allegations contained there, in that has not been specifically admitted herein.
Page: 268
3. That the statements made in paragraph 1 of the petition do not call for any comment.
4. That with regard to the statements made in paragraph 2 of the petition this deponent states that the subject is the President of East Pakistan Awami League.
5. That the statements contained in paragraph 3 of the petition do not call for any comment.
6. That with regard to the statements made in paragraph 4 of the petition it is stated that the subject’s contribution to the achievement of Pakistan is not known to this deponent; he might have been a student of tender age before Independence in 1947.
7. With regard to the statements made in paragraph 5 of the petition it is stated that it is not known to this deponent whether the subject is regarded by a large section of people as a great Constitutional agitator or not, but the fact is that he indulged in highly prejudicial activities, greatly detrimental to the interest of the country.
8. That with regard to the statements made in paragraph 6 of the petition this deponent states that the subject projected six-point demands which created confusion and a spirit of parochialism amongst certain section of the people.
9. That the statements made in paragraph 7 of the petition are misleading, that the facts are that the movement launched by the subject in achieving the objective on the basis of the six-point programme is not at all Constitutional.
10. That the statements contained in paragraphs 8 to 10 of the petition do not call for any comment.
Page: 269
11. with regard to the statements made in paragraph 11 of the petition this deponent states that it is a fact that the subject addressed a series of public meetings in different places in East Pakistan explaining and propagating his 6-point programme but it is not a fact that by doing so, he aroused animosity in the political party in power, namely the Pakistan Muslim League.
12. That the statements made in paragraph 12 of the petition are misleading and are denied by this deponent.
13. That the allegations made in paragraph 14 of the petition are wholly incorrect and are denied by this deponent; that the detention order as passed in this case under the Defence of Pakistan Rules is not at all an abuse of power for political victimisation of any particular leader.
14. That the allegations made in paragraph 14 of the petition are wholly incorrect and misleading; that it is wholly wrong to say that the detention order in question was a device to thwart the constitutional agitation as to the realisation of six- point programme.
15. That the statement made in paragraph 15 of the petition is misconceived.
16. That the allegations made in paragraph 16 of the petition are incorrect and are denied by this deponent; that the order speaks for itself.
17. That the statements made in paragraph 17 of the petition are wholly incorrect and misleading and are stoutly denied by this deponent that there are sufficient materials to justify his arrest.
18. That with regard to the statements made in paragraph 18 of the petition this deponent states that the subject was arrested several times for his prejudicial activities and several cases have been started. That the
Page: 270
subject heavily engaged himself in activities prejudicial to the public safety, public order and maintenance of peaceful conditions in the country and also prejudicial to the maintenance of supply and services.
19. That the statements contained in paragraph 19 of the petition do not call for any comment.
20. That the submission made in paragraph 20 of the petition is misconceived and untenable in law.
21. That the submission made in paragraphs 21 to 22 are wholly erroneous, misconceived and untenable in law; that it is wrong to say that the Defence of Pakistan Rules is ultra vires and that the legislature was completely abdicated its function to the executive. 22. That the submission made in paragraph 22 of the petition is wholly incorrect and is denied by this deponent. That Rule 32 of the Defence of Pakistan Rules is not at all ultravires.
23. That with regard to the submission made in paragraph 23 of the petition this deponent states that it is wholly wrong to say that the order under the Rules has been passed in order to deprive the detenu of the opportunity available under the 1958 Ordinance; that it is wholly wrong to say that the impugned order is a fraud on the statute. It is respectfully submitted in this connection that when there are two acts covering the field; the authority is the best judge to apply the provisions of the one or the other which is permissible in law.
24. That the statements made in paragraph 24 and 25 of the petition are wholly incorrect and are stoutly denied this deponent; that the order in question was passed on full satisfaction of the matter as required under the provisions of sub- section 1 of Rule 32 of the Defence of Pakistan Rules; that it is incorrect to say that the order was passed without compliance of the requirement of the Rules.
Page: 271
25. That the submissions made in paragraphs 26 of the petition are all erroneous and are denied by this deponent.
26. That the statements made above are true to my information as derived from official records which I verily believe to be true.
Prepared in my office.
Sd/- Illegible,
Advocate,
Solemnly affirmed before me this the 6th day of June, 1966,
Sd/- A.F.M.M. Rahman,
Commissioner of Affidavits, High Court Dacca.
6/6/66
Sd/- Illegible,
Deponent.
The deponent is known to me.
Sd/- Illegible.
Assistant in the office of the Legal Remembrancer, East Pakistan.
Page: 272
NO :3 AFFIDAVIT-IN-REPLY ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER IN CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS CASE NO. 64 OF 1966 DATED 14.6.66.
NO. 3
Affidavit in reply on behalf of the petitioner in Crl. Misc. case No. 64 of 1966 dt. 14.6.66.
……….
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT DACCA IN EAST PAKISTAN
(Criminal Original Jurisdiction)
In the matter of :
Criminal Miscellaneous Case No. 64 of 1966
Rezaul Malik …. ……. Petitioner
-Versus-
Government of East Pakistan and
others ….. Opposite- Parties.
AFFIDAVIT-IN-REPLY ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER.
I, Rezaul Malik son of Abdul Malek of 543/G, Road No. 13, Dhanmondi Residential Area, P.S. Lalbagh, District Dacca, aged about 29 years by faith a Muslim, by profession businessman, do hereby solemnly affirm and say as follows:
1. That I am the petitioner of this case and am acquainted with the facts and circumstances of the case.
2. That I have read a copy of the counter-affidavit on behalf of the opposite parties hereinafter referred to as the affidavit and have understood the contents of the same. I have been advised to controvert
Page: 273
such of the allegations contained therein as are material for the purpose of the case and whatever is not specifically admitted herein shall be deemed to have been denied by me.
3. That the statements contained in paragraph 6 of the affidavit are not correct and denied by me and I reiterate the statement contained in paragraph 4 of the petition and I say that the detenu was a graduate and a great student leader prior to independence. He actively worked under Mr. H. S. Suhrawardyl for Pakistan movement.
4. That the statements contained in paragraph 7 of the affidavit are totally denied by me and I reiterate statement contained in paragraph 5 of the petition and I further say that the detenu never indulged in any other activities detrimental to the interest of the country.
5. That the statements contained in paragraph 8 of the affidavit are wholly baseless and as such denied by me and I reiterate the statement contained in paragraph 6 of the petition. I further submit that six-point programme has not created any parochial spirit in any section of people.
6. That the statements made in paragraph 9 of the petition are totally misconceived and wholly incorrect and I say that the detenu was holding different public meetings explaining the Six-Points programme and this method is recognized throughout the world as a constitutional method of movement and of the detenu never resorted to any unconstitutional method.
7. That the statement contained in paragraph 11 of the affidavit to the effect that the detenu has not aroused animosity in the political party in power, is not correct and denied by me and I reiterate the statement contained in paragraph 11 of the petition.
8. That the allegations contained in paragraph 12 of the affidavit are denied and I reaffirm the statement contained in paragraph 12 of the petition.
Page: 274
9. That in reply to paragraph 13 of the affidavit, I reaffirm the statement contained in paragraph 14 of the petition and I strongly assert that the said detention order was an abuse of power for political victimisation of a political leader of a particular party.
10. That in reply to paragraph 14 of the affidavit, I reaffirm the statements contained in paragraph 14 of the petition and further say that the aforesaid detention order is a device to thwart the constitutional agitation as to the realisation of Six Points program.
11. That in reply to paragraph 15 of the affidavit I reaffirm the statement contained in paragraph 15 of the petition.
12. That the statements contained in paragraph 16 are not correct and I reiterate the statement contained in paragraph 16 of the petition. 13. That with regard to the statement contained in paragraph 17 of the affidavit to justify the arrest are not correct and totally denied by me and I reiterate the statement contained in paragraph 17 of the petition.
14. That with regard to the statement contained in paragraph 18 of the petition, I say that the cases started against the detenu are subjudice and as such, it is not correct and proper to say that those are prejudicial to public safety, public order and maintenance of peaceful condition in the country.
15. That in reply to paragraph 20 of the affidavit I reaffirm the statement contained in paragraph 20 of the petition.
16. That in reply to the statement contained in paragraphs 21 and 22 of the affidavit I reaffirm the statement contained in paragraphs 23 and 24 of the petition.
17. That the statements made in paragraph 23 of the affidavit are not correct and I reiterate the statement contained in paragraph 23 of the petition.
Page: 275
18. That the statements contained in paragraph 24 of the affidavit are not correct and I reiterate the statement contained in paragraph 24 of the petition and I further submit that the order in question was passed without any valid and proper satisfaction as required in law.
19. That in reply to the statement made in para 25 of the affidavit, I reaffirm the statement contained in paragraph 25 of the petition. 20. That the statement made in the foregoing paragraphs are true to my knowledge.
Prepared in my office.
Sd/-Aminul Huq,
Advocate
Sd/-Rezaul Malik
Deponent.
The deponent is known to me.
Solemnly affirmed by the Sd/- Md. Abdul Mannan, Rezaul Malik before me this the Clerk to Mr. K. A. Bakr, 14th day of June, 1966.
Advocate. Sd/-A.F.M.M. Rahman,
Commissioner of Affidavits,
High coury, Dacca
14-6-66
I authorise Md. Abdul High Court, Dacca.
Mannan, clerk to Mr. K. A. 14-6-66.
Bakr, Advocate identifying the deponent.
Sd/-Aminul Huq,
Advocate
Page: 276
NO: 4 JUDGMENT OF THE SUPREME COURT IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 11-D OF 1967. DATED THE 14TH JUNE, 1967.
No.4
Judgment of the Supreme Court in Cr. Appeal No. 11-D of 1967 dated the 14th June. 1967.
………….
IN THE SUPREME COURT
(Appellate Jurisdiction)
PRESENT
Mr. Justice A. R. Cornelius, C.J.
Mr. Justice S. A. Rahman,
Mr. Justice Fazle Akbar
Mr. Justice Hamoodur Rahman
Mr. Justice Muhammad Yaqub Ali.
…………
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 11-D OF 1967.
(On appeal from the judgment and order
of the High Court of East Pakistan,
Dacca, dated the 9th August, 1966 in
Criminal Misc. case No. 64 of 1966)
………
Reazul Malik …………….. Appellants
-Versus-
Govt. of East Pakistan and others ……… Respondents
For the appellant: Mr. A. Salam Khan, Senior Advocate, Supreme Court, instructed by Mr. M.A. Rab, Senior Attorney.
For the respondents: Mr. T. H. Khan, Advocate -General. East Pakistan, instructed by Mr. A. W. Mallik, Attorney,
Date of hearing: 14th June 1967.
Page: 278
JUDGMENT.
HAMOODUR RAHMAN J.- This appeal, by special leave, is directed against the judgment and order of a Full Bench of five learned Judges of the High Court of East Pakistan which analogously heard several application under section 491 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, that were filed to challenge the validity of the detention of various persons including one Sheikh Mujibur Rahman. The application to challenge the detention of the said Sheikh Mujibur Rahman was filed by the appellant in this Court who alone has now come up in appeal.
The High Court was divided in its opinion in the proportion of 4:1. The majority decision has upheld the validity of the detention of the said Sheikh Mujibur Rahman. The detention was under Rule 32 of the Defence of Pakistan Rules and although the order of detention itself disclosed no grounds the High Court relying upon the affidavit filed on behalf of the Govt. of East Pakistan took the view that since the satisfaction of the detaining authority is a subjective satisfaction it was the sole judge of the fact namely, “as to whether a particular activity of a particular citizen will, in any way, directly or indirectly affect the security or defence of the State or not.”
The learned Judges constituting the majority were also of the opinion that for a Court to go behind this question would amount to substituting its mind for that of the executive, without being in possession of facts and also not being authorised by law to do it.”
This conclusion is contrary to the view taken by this Court in its recent decision in the case of Malik Ghulam Jilani and others (1) wherein it has been held that even the orders of the executive passed under the Defence of Pakistan Rules are not immune from judicial review. It is for the Courts to be satisfied that reasonable grounds existed upon which the satisfaction of the detaining authority could be grounded and that such grounds were reasonable and within the ambit of the law authorising the detention.
Page: 279
Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Govt. of East Pakistan concedes that under the law as declared by this court, he cannot support the conclusion of the High Court on this point. It is clear, therefore, that the High Court has not disposed of the case in accordance with the law as laid down by this Court and that this case must, therefore, go back to the High Court for determining the validity of the order of detention in the light of the observations of this Court in the above-mentioned case. The High Court can and should consider and reach a conclusion as to whether upon the evidence placed before it justification existed for the satisfaction expressed by the Deputy Commissioner.
Since we are remanding the case for re-hearing to the High Court, we do not propose to make any further observation on the other points raised on behalf of the appellant. These will no doubt be considered by the High Court in due course. (1) Civil Appeals Nos. 101 to 104 1966
In the result, therefore, this appeal is remanded to the High Court for reexamination of the validity of the order of detention.
Sd/- A. R. Cornelius, C.J.
Sd/- S. A. Rahman. J.
Sd/- F. Akbar. J..
Sd/- H. Rahman. J.
Sd/- M. Yaqub Ali. J.
Dated Dacca,
the 14th June, 1967.
NOT APPROVED FOR REPORTING:
Page: 280
NO: 5
SUPPLEMENTARY AFFIDAVIT ON BEHALF OF OPPOSITE PARTIES IN CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS CASE NO. 64 OF 1966 DT. 29. 7. 67.
No.5
Supplementary: affidavit on behalf of opposite parties in crl. misc. case no.64 of 1966 dt. 29.7.67.
District Dacca.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF EAST PAKISTAN. (Criminal Revisional Jurisdiction) Criminal Miscellaneous Case No. 64 of 1966. In the matter of:
Rezaul Malik on behalf of Sheikh Mujibur Rahman.
– Versus –
Petitioner
The Govt. of East Pakistan and others
…. Opposite parties.
Supplementary Affidavit on behalf of Opposite Parties.
I, Z. Huq Section Officer, Govt. of East Pakistan, Home Department, Dacca do solemnly affirm and say as follows:
1. That I am the Section Officer, Govt. of East Pakistan Home Deptt. and am conversant with the facts and circumstances of this case.
2. That is the analogous matter being criminal Misc. Case No. 161 of 1967 I have affirmed affidavit to-day which I adopt as an affidavit to be used in this matter as well and is not being repeated for the purpose of duplication.
Page: 281
3. That the statements contained above are true to my knowledge.
Prepared in my office.
Sd/-S.M. Abbas,
Advocate.
Sd/-Z. Huq,
DEPONENT.
The deponent is known to me and I identify him before the Commissioner this day of 29th July, 1967.
Solemnly affirmed before me this 29th day of July, 1967 at my residence at 47/A Azimpur Estate, Dacca. Sd/-Md. Abdun Nur, Commissioner of an affidavit, High Court, Dacca. 29.7.67
Sd/- Illegible,.
Assistant in the office of L. R. E.P.
Page: 282
NO: 6.
APPLICATION UNDER SECTION 491 OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE IN CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS CASE NO. 161 OF. 1967 BEFORE THE HIGH COURT, DACCA DATED 26.6.67.
No: 6
An application under section 491 of the code of criminal Procedure in Criminal Misc. Case No. 161 of 1967 before the High Court, Dacca dt. 26.6.67
Sd/- Sheikh Akram
Hossain: … Petitioner.
Through : Sd/- M.S. Zoha Chowdhury,
Advocate.
District Dacca.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT DACCA IN EAST PAKISTAN
(Criminal Original Jurisdiction)
Criminal Miscellaneous Case No. 161-1967.
In the matter of An application under section 491 of the code of criminal procedure.
AND
In the matter of
Sheikh Akram Hossain, son of Shaikh Mahfuzul Huq of 677, Dhanmondi Residential Area, Road No. 32, District Lalbagh, Dacca-2,
… Petitioner.
Page: 283
-Versus-
1. The Government of East Pakistan, represented by Secretary Home Department, Eden Buildings, Dacca.
2. The Deputy Commissioner, Dacca,
3. The Deputy Inspector General of Prisons and the Superintendent, Dacca Central Jail, Dacca,
…. Opposite – Parties.
AND
In the matter of Sk. Mujibur Rahman, son of Shaikh Lutfar Rahman of 677, Dhanmondi Residential Area, P.S. Lalbagh, District Dacca now being detained as a detenu in Dacca Central Jail under the provisions of Defence of Pakistan Rules, 1965.
To
Mr. Justice Syed Mahbub Murshed, the Chief Justice and his Companion Justices of the said. Hon’ble Court.
The humble petition of the abovenamed petitioner most respectfully:
SHEWETH
1. That the petitioner is a citizen of Pakistan and is a relation of the detenu.
2. That the detenu Mr. Sk. Mujibur Rahman is the President of East Pakistan Awami League, which is a popular all Pakistan Political party, legally functioning in Pakistan as a powerful opposition to the present political party in power namely, the Pakistan Muslim League (Convention Group), hereinafter referred to as Muslim League.
Page: 284
3. That the said detenu had acted as the Secretary of the said Political Organisation for about 12 years and was elected as a Member of the Provincial Assembly in 1954 and also was elected to the National Assembly of Pakistan in 1955. He was also a Minister in the Cabinet of Mr. Ataur Rahman Khan which was formed in 1956 and held the portfolios of Commerce, Labour and Industry.
4. That the said detenu actively and untiringly worked for achieving Pakistan and his contribution to achieving Pakistan is widely appreciated and acknowledged.
5. That the said detenu has also been regarded by a large section of people as a great constitutional agitator in ventilating public grievances but in doing so he has always been a law-abiding citizen and never resorted to any unlawful and anti-state activities.
6. That recently the detenu formulated a Six-Point Proramme and got it approved by his party and has projected the said Six-Point Programme before the people of Pakistan for amending the Constitution of Pakistan in the light and this Six-Point-Programme also envisage full and proper economic development of the country as a whole with special reference to East Pakistan and provide for a solution of the economic disparity between East Pakistan and West Pakistan. True copy of the Six-point Programme with detailed glossary thereof is annexed here to and marked as Annexure ‘A’.
7. That on the basis of the said Six-Point-Programme the detenu has launched a constitutional movement in Pakistan for achieving, its objective and had been addressing public meetings in various part of East Pakistan and had been explaining the meaning and purpose of Six-PointProgramme and the necessity of amending, constitution in the light of the said programme and it has received, so far the widest support from the people.
Page: 285
8. That in all public meetings and discussion with the workers of his party and people the detenu always stressed that the movement for realising Six-Point-Programme must be peaceful, Constitutional and democratic. His sole purpose was to create public opinion in support of the said Programme in a peaceful and Constitutional method.
9. That the said fact would be evident from the fact that in April, 1966 Mr. Zulfiqur Ali Bhutta, the then Foreign Minister of Pakistan wanted to have public debate on the Six-Point Programme and on getting information about it, the detenu accepted the proposal and threw a challenge that if in any public debate he cannot get majority support of the people, he and his party will not propagate Six-Point. Programme anywhere but since Mr. Bhutta did not agree thereafter to come to such a debate, it was not held and it is submitted that this shows that the detenu wants to realise the objective of Six-Point-Programme in a peaceful manner.
10. That on 8.5.66 a Police party presumably headed by an Additional Superintendent of Police Dacca made a mid-night raid upon the detenu’s residence at Dhanmandi Residential Area, P. S. Lalbagh, Dacca apprehended the detenu and served upon him an order under clause (b) of Sub- rule 1 of Rule 32 of the Defence of Pakistan Rules, 1965 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules) under the purported signature of the Deputy Commissioner, Dacca dated 8.5.66. True copy of the said order is annexed hereto and marked as Annexure ‘B’.
11. That after the arrest the detenu was taken to Dacca Central Jail and is being detained there.
12. That the aforesaid order of detention was purported to be for 90 days and commenced from the date of service of the said order and the detention of the detenu was extended from time to time by serving orders for a period of 3 months.
Page: 286
13. That the detention of the detenu was challenged by an application under section 491 of the code of Criminal Procedure and a Special Bench of this Court presided over by Mr. Justice B.A. Siddiky held by majority judgment and order dated the 9th August, 1966 that the detention of detenu was under a valid order and there after an appeal was preferred to the Supreme Court of Pakistan on behalf of the detenu. The Supreme Court of Pakistan has been pleased to accept the appeal and remanded the case to the High Court for rehearing.
14. That the last order extending the period of detention under the Rules was issued on 25th January 1967 which was served on him on 4.2.67. But on the expiry of the above order dated 25th January, 1967, no further order extending his detention was served on the detenu.
15. That in the meantime, Mr. Afsaruddin, Magistrate, 1st Class, Dacca by his judgment and order dated the 27th April, 1967 convicted the detenu in a criminal case under sub-rule (5) of rule 47 or the Rules and sentenced him to suffer imprisonment for 1 year and 3 months.
16. That against the order of the learned Magistrate the detenu preferred an appeal to the Sessions Judge, Dacca and prayed for bail and the learned Sessions Judge, by his order dated 29th May, 1967 directed for releasing the detenu on bail after hearing the detenu’s lawyer and the lawyer or the State who opposed the prayer for bail.
17. That the release order of the detenu in pursuance of the order of the learned Sessions Judge was communicated to the Jail Authority on the 1st of June, 1967 and on receipt xx of the order of release the detenu was brought to the Jail gate by the Jail Authority for release but in the meantime an order of detention on under clause (b) of sub-rule (2) of rule 32 of the Rules purported to be under the signature of Mr. M.K. Anwar, Deputy Commissioner, Dacca dated 29th May, 1967 was served on the detenu on 1.6.67 at 6 P.M. inside the Jail gate and he is being detained there. True copy of the said order is annexed here to and marked as Annexure ‘C’.
Page: 287
18. That the aforesaid order of detention was purported to be for 90 days and commences from the date of service of the said order.
19. That it is most humbly submitted that the detenu firmly believes that on the finding that the said Six-Point-Programme was gaining popularity and rapid increase of support from the people, the party in power namely, the Muslim League became very much inimical to the detenu and his party.
20. That the said displeasure incurred by the detenu was quite apparent from the speeches of President Field Marshal Md. Ayub Khan, who is the President of the Muslim League and who categorically declared that such movements must be crushed.
21. That the said detention under the said rules is an abuse of power for political victimisation especially against a legally constituted political party namely, Awami League and its leaders.
22. That the purported detention is a device to thwart the constitutional agitation as to the realisation of Six-Point Programmre.
23. That the said detention order is beyond the scope of the Rules.
24. That the impugned order of detention is vague, indefinite and lacks in particulars and does not afford the detenu any opportunity to controvert or rebut the allegations upon which the impugned order was passed.
25. That the detenu firmly believes that there was no new material before the detaining authority upon which the impugned order could have been passed after the expiry of the period of detention under order dated 6.5.66 and the last order dated 25.1.67.
26. That the petitioner firmly submits that during the period of his detention the detenu did not or had no scope to do any act which may warrant his detention under the rules.
Page: 288
27. That it is submitted that the detenu never indulged in any activity prejudicial to the public safety, public order and maintenance of peaceful conditions in the country or prejudicial to the maintenance of supply and services and all his activities were propagating the SixPoint-Programme.
28. That the order shows that it is a stereotyped form and the Deputy Commissioner simply put his signature thereon without at all applying his mind to the actual necessity of the so-called detention of the detenu and it is aimed at depriving the detenu from the enjoying the privilege of bail granted to him by the learned Sessions Judge.
29. That the petitioner submits that the aforesaid order of the detention of the detenu is mala fide and there was no valid satisfaction of the detaining authority on the pre-existing materials justifying the detention.
30. That the petitioner most humbly submits that the Six-PointProgramme has not been declared by the Supreme Court of Pakistan as contrary to the spirit or provisions of the Political Parties Act, 1962 and if the opposite parties take exception to the said programme, they could easily take steps under the said Act for decision by the Supreme Court of Pakistan regarding Six-Point Programme of East Pakistan Awami League, but they have not done so and without taking recourse to the said law, the detention of the detenu for propagating Six-Point Programme is mala fide.
31. That the detenu’s presence at the time of hearing of the case is very essential for proper instruction to his lawyers and otherwise he will be seriously prejudiced.
32. That the subsequent order of detention of the detenu is illegal, void and without jurisdiction on amongst other the following:
Page: 289
GROUNDS
I. For that, the order of detention is based on such materials which cannot be the basis of detention under the rules.
II. For that, the order of detention is vague, indefinite and lacking in any particular.
III. For that, the said order is mala fide.
IV. For that, the order is unreasonable and beyond the scope of the Rules.
V. For that the detenu has been detained for collateral purpose and as such his detention is void.
VI. For that, the detaining authority did not properly apply his mind in passing the impugned order.
VII. For that there is an error apparent on the face of the order and as such the impugned order is not sustainable.
VIII. For that there is no valid satisfaction as required under the law the impugned order is not sustainable in law.
IX. For that there being already specific cases against the detenu for the self same purpose, the impugned order is unwarranted and not maintainable in law. Wherefore your petitioner most humbly prays for orders :
(A) That Rule Nisi may be issued upon the opposite parties to show cause as to why the detenu Sk. Mujibur Rahman who is now being detained in the Dacca Central Jail should not be brought before this Court and be set at liberty.
Page: 290
(B) That the opposite parties be directed to produce all the relevant papers and records before this Court upon which the detenu has been detained.
(C) That the detenu is granted bail pending hearing the Rule or be produced in Court at the hearing of the case.
(D) That cost of and incidental to this application be paid by the opposite parties to the petitioner.
(E) That on hearing the parties, the Rule Nisi may be made absolute or to pass such other or further order or orders as to your Lordships may seem fit and proper.
And your petitioner, as in duty bound, shall ever pray.
AFFIDAVIT
I, Sheikh Akram Hossain, son of Shaikh Mahfuzul Huq of 677, Dhanmandi Residential Area, Road No. 32, P.S. Lalbagh District Dacca, aged about 25 years by faith a Muslim, by profession a businessman does hereby solemnly affirm and say as follows:
1. That I am the petitioner and making tadbir in this case end as such an acquainted with the facts and circumstances of the case.
2. That the statement made in paragraph Nos. 17 to 30 are true to my information received from the detenu and the statements made in paragraph No. 1 to 16 and 31 are true to my knowledge and the rest are submission before this Hon’ble Court.
Prepared in my office.
Sd/- M.S. Zoha Chowdhury,
Advocate. 26.6.67
Sd/-Sheikh Akram Hossain
Deponent
Page: 291
The deponent is known to me.
Sd/- M.A. Mannan,
Clerk to Mr. M.A. Rab, Advocate.
Solemnly affirmed before me
this the 26th day of June, 1967.
Certified that I read over and explained the contents to the declarant and that the declarant seemed perfect to understand them.
Sd/- S. M. Hussain. 26.6.67
Commissioner of Affidavit,
High Court, Dacca.
I authorise M. A. Mannan
Clerk to Mr. M.A. Rab,
Advocate to identify the deponent.
Sd/- M. S. Zoha Chowdhury.
Page: 292
NO:6
ANNEXURE ‘A’ 6-POINT FORMULA
No: 6
Annexure ‘A’ 6-point Formula.
I have placed before the country a 6 point programme as basic principles of a firm solution of the country’s inter-wing political and economic problems. I expected and in fact, was ready to welcome criticism. But instead of criticizing, the programme and pointing out its defects, if there by any, a class of people have started hurling abuses at and ascribing disruptionist motive to me. Normally I would have ignored these vilifications, firstly because these abusive voices are too familiar, these grimacing faces are too well-known, and these sallying patterns are too old to deserve anything but such ignorance, secondly because I have no manner of doubt that my 6-point programme has truly reflected the mind and correctly represented the demands of fifty-five million East Pakistanis of their right to live. Neither have I any doubt that all right-thinking patriotic elements of West Pakistan agree with me on these points. This has been amply demonstrated by the newspaper writings and reports, statements and speeches by all sections of the intelligentsia, students and workers. This countrywide tremendous support to the 6-point programme is spontaneous. It is spontaneous because these demands are no new points invented afresh by me or any individual but are in reality longstanding demands of the people and pledges of their leaders awaiting fulfillment for decades.
This being the case I am confident that the mischievous propaganda and motivated campaign carried on by the vested interests through their agents and protectors will fail to mislead our people. They will surely not forget that whenever in the past any demand was made by East Pakistanis, however small, simple and reasonable it might be, these beneficiaries and agents of vested interests kicked up the self-same dust by raising the well-known cries of ‘Islam in danger’, disruption of Pakistan’ and ‘Sovereign Bengal’ etc. It was the same set of people who discovered ‘hidden hand of India’ in our simplest demand for inclusion of
Page: 293
Bengali as a State Language along with Urdu. These are the people who brazenly dubbed our Sher-e Bangla as a traitor and incarcerated our beloved leader Suhrawardy on a fantastic charge of wrecking Pakistan with the help of foreign money. Nothing is too mean for them to achieve their selfish objective which is perpetuation of their exploitation of the people of East Pakistan. I know our people are quite aware of these events not of a very distant past.
But I also know that the mischief-making potentialities of these enemies of the people are inexhaustible; that their resources are unlimited; that they are a multi-colour variety of human species with sub-human conscience. It is this variety who will be found in large numbers in the camp of the ruling coterie in the name of ‘unity, faith and discipline’; they will be found in larger numbers in the opposition camp for the sake of ‘Islam and democracy’. But wherever they may be, in whatever colour, under whichever garb, they actually belong to one and the same camp, that is, the camp of the enemies of the people. They are thus solidly united in their attitude of denial towards East Pakistan. So, naturally they will leave no stone unturned to achieve their objective as they have done in the past, whenever it suited their purpose to think that the people of East Pakistan were secretly inclined towards communism they turned the stone of American aid and assistance by signing military pacts to fight communism and thereby save East Pakistan from secessionist design engineered by the communists. If, on the other hand, it suited their convenience to imagine that East Pakistan was too much wedded to Western democracy and too much attached to the U.S.A. they hastened to turn the stone of aid and assistance of communist China to save East Pakistan from falling prey to dollar imperialism. So on this occasion also they will come to the filed to fight the six-point programme just as they did to fight the 21-point programme in the past. They have, in fact, already taken the field with varieties of weapons brandished by different heroes of numerous battle fields. The target is the time; it is the 6-point. Therefore, it is quite in the fitness of things that President Ayub,
Page: 294
Choudhury Mohammad Ali and Moulana Maududi, outwardly three avowed mutual enemies wielding their respective weapons from three antipodal horizons, are aiming poisoned arrows on the same target of the 6-point.
I, therefore, deem it is my duty to issue this booklet as an explanatory note to the 6-point programme and fervently appeal to the democratic forces in general, and the Awami Leaguers in particular, to spread out in the country and carry the message of the 6-point to every hearth and home. Now that the 6-point programme has been formally adopted by the Awami League. It has undoubtedly become the national demand of the people, particularly the People of East Pakistan. I hope they will find this booklet useful in their confrontations with the agents of the vested interests who are likely to be lying ambush everywhere.
Point 1:
In this point I have recommended as follows:
The Constitution should provide for a Federation of Pakistan in its true sense on the basis of the Lahore Resolution and Parliamentary form of Government with the supremacy of Legislature directly elected on the basis of universal adult franchise.
It will be seen that this point consists in the following seven ingredients : (a) Pakistan shall be a Federation, (b) it shall be based on Lahore Resolution, (c) its Government shall be of Parliamentary form, (d) it must be responsible to the Legislature, (e) the Legislature must be supreme, (f) it must be directly elected and (g) election must be on the basis of universal adult franchise. Let the opponents of Six-Point programme speak out. Which of these seven ingredients are they opposed to? Let the people know who are federalists and who are unitarist. Those who are unitarist are definitely against Lahore Resolution. Conversely, those who are opposed to Lahore Resolution are definitely unitarist. So let it be decided once for all who
Page: 295
own and who do not own the Lahore Resolution by which. Pakistan was created and is rightly called the Pakistan Resolution. The people who disown Lahore Resolution disown Pakistan itself. It is evidently those people who did not raise their little finger in the struggle for Pakistan but subsequently jumped on it to grab power after it was created with the blood and tears of the people. These opportunists and job-hunters cannot naturally have any and historic Resolution which brought about a Revolution in regard for or attachment to the sanctity of such continent and created Pakistan. Even amongst those who swear by the Pakistan Resolution there are some pseudofederalists. They pay lip-service to the Lahore-Resolution but disregard it by speaking against the very fundamental principle of Federation and by introducing extra-political controversies. This confusion has been further confounded by the power that is by forcible addition of political aberrations like basically controlled democracy. It was against such future personal likes and dislikes, whims and caprices, hunger and thirst for power of individuals, that the Lahore Resolution was pledged as a guarantee by the creators of Pakistan under the able guidance of Qaid-i-Azam”. It will be sheer political dishonesty to deviate from Lahore Resolution after Pakistan was created by people’s votes obtained on the basis of that Resolution. If it is now found necessary to so deviate for the sake of stability and integrity of Pakistan itself, the people will certainly agree to such changes or even complete reversal. But in any event, it is the people who will decide and not anybody else. As far as the people of East Pakistan are concerned they in the 1954 general election overwhelmingly voted for a constitution based on the Lahore Resolution. If, however, anybody has any doubt about their present attitude due to lapse of long twelve years, we are prepared to face another referendum on the issue. Until that is done by a specific referendum on universal adult suffrage the Lahore Resolution and all its corollaries remain the Magna Carta of the people of Pakistan and the rulers and the leaders are bound to give them a Constitution based on that Resolution.
Page: 296
Point 2:
This point recommends as follows:
Federal Government shall deal with only two subjects: Defence and Foreign Affairs, and all other residuary subjects shall west in the federating states.
Let us dispassionately discuss whether a two-subject Centre will be sufficiently strong to be a respectable Federation. It should be borne in mind that what makes a Federation strong is not heaps of subjects under it. A Federation becomes strong by the loyalty and affection in which it is held by the people in peace and the allegiance they owe and obedience they show it in war. The happy and strong people represented through efficient and strong units that make the Federation are the real source of its strength irrespective of the number of subjects dealt with by it. Indeed, a State which serves the base rather than the apex is really the strongest. It is now a well established principle of political science that decentralization rather than centralization makes the work of a State efficient both in the administrative and in the developmental spheres. It is also a well recognised principle of Federation that only those subjects should be in the Federal list which can be jointly managed more efficiently and profitably. It is the same principle that is underlying the system of Local Self-Government like District Councils and Municipalities. The very concept of the Federation is based on the maxim of unity in diversity and union without over-centralization.
It was on this principle that in 1946 the Cabinet Mission proposed an Indian Federation with only three subjects, viz.: Defence, Foreign Affairs and Communication. Both the Congress and the Muslim League accepted the Cabinet Plan. The fact that ultimately it did not materialize due to a hitch elsewhere is a different matter and quite irrelevant to the issue now before us. Now, the British Government by proposing the Plan and the Congress and the Muslim League by accepting it has all demonstrated their agreement on the feasibility of a Federation with only
Page: 297
three subjects. The only difference between the Cabinet Plan and my proposal is that I have given two subjects instead of three given in the Cabinet Plan. Even that difference is only apparent and not real as will be seen in my explanation to point 3 given later on. That explanation will show that I too have given three subjects to the Centre and not two. Only I have recommended Currency in place of Communication as had been earlier done in the famous 21-point programme. I have omitted Communication for obvious reasons. The basic principle on which subjects are handed over to a Federation as has been said earlier in the oneness and indivisibility of the interest of the federating units in the subjects concerned. In the case of an undivided Indian Federation, Communication was really such a subject. In it, all the federating units would have been commonly interested and could have been more efficiently and profitably run if jointly managed by the Federation. An unbroken Railway line and a non-stop through Railway train could have run from Khybar to Chittagong. This would have been so because of the geographical contiguity. Not so Pakistan. Pakistan being comprised of two geographical units separated by over a thousand miles of foreign territory, cannot possibly have any unbroken line of communication between the two wings. The two wings being themselves two compact geographical areas must have their own system of communication separately organized and managed. It can, therefore, never be a Federal subject. By transferring the Railways to the Provinces though after prolonged procrastination the present regime has reluctantly admitted the hard fact of geography. The same will have to be done also in the case of Post and Telegraphs and all other branches of communication.
In this connection, another point needs to be clarified. Here I have recommended designation of the federating units as ‘states’ instead of ‘provinces’ as is now done. This very mention of the word ‘state’ is liable to be mischievously misinterpreted by the unitarist and pseudo-federalists. They will tell the unwary public: “Look, Mujib is wanting independent States”. This would be viciously wrong. Everywhere in different Federation
Page: 298
of the world federating units are called states’ and not ‘provinces’, U.S.A, U.S.S.R, Federal Germany, Federation of Malaysia and last of all our neighbour India all have designated their units as ‘states’ instead of ‘provinces’. Our next door neighbours like West Bengal and Assam are ‘states of India Union and not ‘provinces’. That designation of Indian provinces has not rendered their Union loose or their Central Government weak. If Assam and West Bengal can have the dignity and honour of being called state without impairing the solidarity of Bharati Union why can’t we have the same dignity and honour without impairing the solidarity of Pakistan Federation? Why are our rulers so allergic to our dignity?
Point : 3.
In this point I have recommended either of the following two measures with regard to our Currency, viz.:
A. Two separate but freely convertible currencies for two wings may be introduced, or B. One currency for the whole country may be maintained. In this case, effective constitutional provisions are to be made to stop the flight of capital from East to West Pakistan. Separate Banking Reserve is to be made and separate fiscal and monetary policy to be adopted for East Pakistan.
From the above, it will be seen that I have not recommended the straightway taking of Currency out of the Federal list. If my recommendation contained in B above is accepted, Currency remains a Central subject. In this case, the only difference is that I have recommended the creation of separate Reserve Banks for two wings in a Federal Reserve System as obtains in the U.S.A. According to this arrangement, the State Bank of Pakistan will have two Reserve Banks for two wings. The currency for East Pakistan shall be issued through the East Pakistan Reserve Bank and shall be marked ‘East Pakistan’ or simply ‘Dacca’. Similarly, West Pakistan’s currency shall be issued through West Pakistan Reserve Bank and shall be marked ‘West Pakistan’, or simply ‘Lahore’.
Page: 299
This is the only way in which we can save East Pakistan from sure economic ruination by effectively stopping flight of capital from this wing to the other.
The geographical separateness has made the two wings ipso facto two economic units. An economic convulsion, either for the better or for the worse, in one wing, has no corresponding convulsion in the other wing. So progress and development in the one does not in the least benefit the other. These economic incidents are quite independent of each other in the two wings. Expenditure in one cannot create employment in the other. This economic independence and separateness of the two wings are correctly reflected in their respective price and wage structures including the price of gold. This is what is known as the absence of mobility of labour and capital. This immobility of capital, however, does not prevent the flight of capital. This is how it happens under the present dispensation. We are supposed to belong to one indivisible economy. We have one currency. There is no distinguishing mark to show the currency circulation wing-wise. We are under only one Finance Ministry situated in and operating from West Pakistan presided over always by a West Pakistani Minister formulating financial, fiscal and monetary policies through one single Central Bank, that is, the State Bank of Pakistan also located in West Pakistan issuing money minted, coined and printed in West Pakistan. This money after travelling and meandering in circulation throughout the country journeys back to and rests in accumulation in West Pakistan. Along with the head office of the Government Central Bank the head offices of all the joint-stock Banks, except one or two small ones of very recent origin are also located in West Pakistan. The seat of the Government is located in West Pakistan, head offices of the three Armed Forces, all Foreign Missions and almost all foreign and national trades and industries organizations are situated in that wing. As a result, all money transactions done in East Pakistan are instantaneously transferred to West Pakistan. All share money of joint-stock companies, all deposits of Banks, their security money, all Government reserves, all earnings, profits and savings of trade and industry operating in East
Page: 300
Pakistan move in a matter of seconds to West Pakistan. Anyone conversant with banking operation knows well that only barely ten percent of the entire deposit need by kept ready for payment and the rest can be and generally is invested. Savings, when invested, become capital. This investment is naturally done in West Pakistan as West Pakistan’s capital. This is how capital formation in West Pakistan has been so rapid. This again is how there has been a total absence of capital formation in East Pakistan. As investment means employment, this incident has meant the employment of West Pakistan only. As capital formation is followed by rapid industrialization this has meant industrialization of West Pakistan alone. This process will continue unless and until the prevailing one-way traffic of finance is effectively checked by stopping this flight of capital. This can be done and capital investment can be generated in East Pakistan only by creating a Reserve Bank for East Pakistan as suggested by me. It is the only way to save East Pakistan from economic extinction. This reform in our currency system while saving East Pakistan from economic collapse will keep currency a Central subject as a symbol of our unity and oneness. If, however, our West Pakistani brothers think otherwise, then my other alternative may be adopted. Under that arrangement, Currency will, no doubt, be a provincial subject, but that will not weaken our Centre. Neither will it affect the oneness of Pakistan. For this, even then we can have the same currency symbol by mutual discussion and agreement. And for the other, a federation can effectively work and be strong and stable without Currency as its subject. The Cabinet Mission recommended an Indian Federal Centre without Currency in the Federal list. Had it been thought unworkable, the British Government would not have recommended it, nor would the Congress and the Muslim League have accepted it.
Point: 4.
At this point, I have recommended that the power of taxation and revenue collection shall vest in the federating units and that the Federal Centre will have no such power. The Federation will have a share in the
Page: 301
state taxes for meeting their required expenditure. The Consolidated Federal Fund shall come out of a levy of a certain percentage of all state taxes.
It is this proposal that seems to have most annoyed the unitarist and pseudo-federalists. They are making a lot of noise and kicking up the dust of confusion such as disintegration and disruption. These are old bogeys and shibboleths used by the vested interests against all reforms of all ages. They need not worry any Pakistani. The fact is that a strong Federation can successfully work and is actually working without the power of taxation. It makes the Federation rather stronger. This is so because taxation is a duty and necessity rather than a right and power. Levying taxes and collecting them is a responsibility and a botheration. It is just like manually earning one’s own livelihood. In our daily life, we find people wanting to better employ themselves in finer and nobler work, lease out their properties to others at fixed rent leaving to them the arduous task of collecting small amounts from individual tenants and earning petty sums from day-to-day transactions. The monarchs of the past used to and land-lords of the present do lease out their realms in ijara” for tax collection. The Central authorities in all ages have tried to be spared the botheration of tax collection for their own maintenance. It is only the banya mentality of the present day rulers that impels them to handle all money matters themselves. A little reflection will show that the right and power concerned do not rest in the act of tax collection but in the money so collected. If a Central Government is constitutionally assured of the required amount why should it bother about the actual collection? In the case of a Federation, it is only the fiscal taxation in which it is interested. The rest of the purposes of taxation, viz.: protective, social, commercial and moral are the responsibility of the federating units. This is what is done in the U.S.A. and some other Federations. In the U.S.S.R. even the fiscal taxation is not done by the Union. There is no Finance Minister and Finance Ministry in the Union Government of the Soviet Union.
Page: 302
The Finance Ministries and Ministers are all with the federating Republics. They meet the requirements and serve the purposes of the Union Government. Have these arrangements weakened the Central authorities of U.S.A. and U.S.S.R.? It was with this knowledge and experience of the working of a Federation that Cabinet Mission offered an Indian Federation without the power of taxation and it was for the same reason that the Congress and the Muslim League accepted the offer. It will, therefore, be seen that a Federation can be firmly provided with its fiscal finances without being burdened with the duty of tax collection. My proposal is precisely to this effect. According to my recommendation, the Constitution will provide that a certain percentage of the Revenue collections on all heads shall automatically be credited to the Federal Fund by the Reserve Banks on which amount the unit Governments shall have no control. Constitutional provisions may also be made empowering the Federation to raise funds to meet the increased Defence expenditure at the time of war including expansion of Federal jurisdiction in such emergencies. It is, therefore, sheer bunkum to call the autonomists the disruptors of Pakistan. On the contrary, the relieving the Federation of the burden of tax collection will have the following salutary effects, viz:
(a) the Federation will have more time to devote in matters of Defence and External Relations and to act as a unifying force, (b) Wastage due to overlapping, duplication and litigation, etc. will be saved and money thus saved and officials thus relieved will be available for better and nobler utilization, (c) the tax and revenue collection will be cheaper and easier, (d) economy of having a single authority of tax collection will have been achieved, (e) it will have a way for introducing and adopting the most modern taxation method, viz: single taxation.
Page: 303
Point: 5. In this point I have recommended that;
(1) there shall be two separate accounts for foreign exchange earnings of the two wings,
(2) earnings of East Pakistan shall be under the control of East Pakistan Government and that of West Pakistan under the control of West Pakistan Government,
(3) foreign exchange requirement of the Federal Government shall be met by the two wings either equally or in a ratio to be fixed,
(4) indigenous products shall move free of duty between two wings,
(5) the Constitution shall empower the unit Governments to establish trade and commercial relations with, set up trade missions in and enter into agreements with foreign countries.
Now, a panoramic glance at the economic history of Pakistan since its creation will show the following consistent incidents,
(a) East Pakistan has earned the bulk of the annual foreign exchange of Pakistan.
(b) East Pakistan’s earnings have been spent in West Pakistan in industrializing that wing and earnings from those industries have been reinvested in West Pakistan as the earnings of that wing.
(c) East Pakistan’s earnings are not being spent in East Pakistan on the plea of its inability to absorb them due to the absence of capital information.
(d) Import to East Pakistan is less than her export whereas import to West Pakistan is more than her export.
Page: 304
(e) Two-thirds of Pakistan’s foreign exchange is earned by jute; but that earning is utilized neither for the benefit of the jute-growers nor for East Pakistan.
(f) Almost all foreign aids and loans are secured against foreign exchange earned by East Pakistan; but they are spent in West Pakistan on the same plea of the non-absorbing capacity of East Pakistan. The irony is that interest on these loans and their instalments are being borne by East Pakistan. Now, the cumulative effects of these economic incidents, all of which are artificial, are the following consequences, viz.:
(i) East Pakistan has not been industrialized sufficiently,
(ii) the little industrialization that has been done by West Pakistanis or by people other than East Pakistanis with all the characteristics of foreign investments both in the matter of employment and profit-earnings,
(iii) there is chronic inflation causing soaring high prices of commodities with all its concomitants like black marketing and profiteering bringing untold miseries to the life of the people.
(iv) jute-growers are not only not getting fair economic price of their products but even the cost of production is denied to them resulting in their perpetual indebtedness and progressive impoverishment.
These are man-made iniquities and are, therefore, remediable. The obvious remedies are, firstly, to industrialize East Pakistan to produce wealth among and provide employment for East Pakistanis, secondly, to check inflation by equalizing import and export and thereby supplying commodities to the people at reasonable prices, thirdly, to nationalize jute trade and thereby give fair price to the growers and ensure the state’s earnings in foreign exchange. It was with this last object in view that the Awami League Government set up Jute Marketing Corporation in 1957.
Page: 305
It was subsequently reduced to nothing by the vested interests with the help of the Central Government.
Each and every one of these steps presupposes the acceptance of the above proposals recommended by me.
Point: 6.
At this point, I have recommended setting up a militia or a paramilitary force for East Pakistan. This is neither unreasonable nor new. We had pledged in the famous 21-point programme in 1954 that we would give arms and uniforms to our Ansars.
Neither is the proposal unprecedented and impracticable. There are instances where such para-military territorial forces are maintained in outlying regions. We ourselves had one such regiment from before Independence. It was the Eastern Rifles. After Pakistan, it became East Pakistan Rifles. The present regime has taken this away from the hand of East Pakistan Government.
East Pakistan is the home of the majority of Pakistanis. To defend it is the political obligation as well as moral duty of the Government of Pakistan. Why then should it be necessary for East Pakistanis to demand it? Why do they not do it on their own initiative? How and with what conscience do they say that defence of East Pakistan lies in West Pakistan? Does it not tantamount to saying that the mouth, the belly and the stomach of East Pakistan lie in West Pakistan? How will the arms, ammunitions and wealth in West Pakistan help East Pakistan when transport between the wings can be snapped in a matter of seconds? Has not the recent 17 days war proved our utter helplessness? How can one brag that some events in Warsaw saved East Pakistan? It is the defence policy of our Government that has reduced us to this position. In spite of all this we want a united Defence of the country and to retain it as a central subject. But at the same time, we want that East Pakistan be made
Page: 306
self-sufficient in the matter of Defence, that an Ordnance Factory, a Military Academy and the Annexure ‘A’ Navy Head Quarters must be set up in East Pakistan.
These things were actually demanded in 1954. Nothing, however, has been done in the course of long twelve years. We do not yet know when these will be done.
So in the meantime, we want to make our own Defence arrangement in a small way with unsophisticated weapons suited to our own field craft within easy reach of our limited resources. What is the objection? Where does it lie? It is not easy to comprehend. Neither is it easy to understand why a fund separately raised for East Pakistan war purposes is promptly taken over by the Centre?
An Appeal:
Now, before concluding, I want to submit a few words to my West Pakistani brethren:
Firstly, they should not run away with the idea that whatever I have stated above I have done in the interest of East Pakistan only. It is not so. In each of my 6 -point programme is inherent a corresponding benefit to my West Pakistani brethren. They are sure to derive equal benefits from their implementation.
Secondly, when I speak of East Pakistan’s wealth being flown to and concentrated in West Pakistan I only mean regional concentration. I do not, thereby, mean that this wealth has reached the masses of West Pakistan. No, I do not and cannot mean that I know there are millions like us in West Pakistan who also are unfortunate victims of this economic exploitation. I also know that the entire wealth of the country is concentrated in the hands of a few families. This will continue till the capitalistic pattern of our society is not
Page: 307
changed. But before that, this regional exploitation must cease. I, however, do not blame West Pakistanis for this regional exploitation.
Thirdly, it is the geographical situation and the unnatural system that is being pursued which are responsible for this injustice. Take only one instance.
Had the Capital of Pakistan been located in East Pakistan instead of West Pakistan this regional exploitation would have occurred in a reverse way. 62% of our revenue that is being spent on our Defenee force, 32% of our revenue that is being spent on our Central Administration would have all been spent in East Pakistan instead of West Pakistan. The wellknown public Finance maxim that “the expenditure of the Government is the income the people and the income of the Government is the expenditure of the people” would have worked in favour of East Pakistan instead of West Pakistan. This 94% of our total Revenue which has been annually spent in West Pakistan and thus formed the income of West Pakistan, would have in that case been spent in and enriched East Pakistan. The seat of the Government being in West Pakistan all the three Head Quarters of the Armed Forces and all Central institutions and Foreign Missions have got their head offices in West Pakistan as a matter of course. Consequently, all their spending done in that wing. All these pending would have been in East Pakistan had the sent of the Government been here. East Pakistan would have been enriched and West Pakistan impoverished to that extent and in that proportion.
In that event you, the west Pakistanis, would have made the same demands for regional justice for which you are condemning us, the East Pakistanis, and ascribing all sorts of evil motives. In that case, you would have realized that there was no other motive than the motive of selfpreservation. In that context when West Pakistanis would have made such demands of regional justice do you know what would have been our attitude? We, East Pakistanis, would have straightway accepted your
Page: 308
demands instead of calling you had names like provincial, narrow-minded and disruption. We would have at once conceded that it was your right to demand justice and equality and it was your duty to do so. we would have gone further. We would not have waited for you to make these demands. Instead, we would have met your requirements before you would have demanded them. We really believe in justice, equality and fair play amongst brothers. A state is nothing if not a big family. Even in a family eating by one member does not fill the stomach of another. So, how and with what conscience do you call us selfish for demanding our share? What will others call you who are not only enjoying your own share but devouring the share of your brothers also? We are, however, demanding our share only, not yours too. We want to live with you as equal partners, not exploiters.
Fourthly, if we happen to have more than enough we can even sacrifice something for you from out of our share. We did so in the past. Do not you remember? Please read:
(1) In the first Constituent Assembly we had 44 and you had 28 representatives. If we wanted we could most democratically have brought the Capital and Head Quarters of the three Armed Forces to East Pakistan. We did not.
(2) Out of Sheer brotherly feeling and sense of equality, we elected 6 West Pakistanis to Constituent Assembly from East Pakistan by East Pakistani votes.
(3) By our majority, we could have made Bengali our only State Language. We, however, demanded and got both Urdu and Bengali. (4) By the majority of votes, we could have framed a Constitution favourable to East Pakistan.
Page: 309
(5) To remove any possible complex of domination we sacrificed our majority and accepted parity on your assurance that you would concede parity in all respects.
Fifthly, the above should be enough to convince West Pakistani brothers that we East Pakistanis are really consumed with a sense of brotherly equality towards you by which we want to live in honour and dignity. That we are capable of making sacrifices for you if you need it has also been proved in the past. Had the Capital been in East Pakistan we would have on our own initiative set up a real Second Capital in West Pakistan, not merely a hoax of a Capital. We would never have taken advantage of that vantage position and would not have grabbed all the important offices ourselves. We would not have captured all the high and lucrative posts of West Pakistan like chairmanships of the Cotton Board, P.I.D.C, Railway Board, P.C.S, Port Trust and WAPDA, etc. We would not have thought of capturing the Governorship of your wing. On the contrary, we would have equitably distributed the high offices between the people of the two wings, we would have made effective arrangements for spending Central Revenues equitably between East and West Pakistan, we would have extended regional and provincial autonomy instead of curtailing them. We would never have allowed any disparity to grow between two wings either political, administrative or economic. We would never have done anything to create any feeling, that because we East Pakistanis are in a majority because the seat of the Government is here, we are, therefore, the masters of Pakistan. We would rather have done everything to make you feel that this country belongs to you as well as to us both in thought and in action. We would have shared State powers equally with you.
We believe that this feeling of absolute equality, sense of inter-wing justice and impartiality is the very basis of Pakistani patriotism. Only he is fit to be a leader of Pakistan who is imbued with and consumed by such patriotism. A leader who sincerely believes that the two wings of Pakistan
Page: 310
are really two eyes, two ears, two nostrils, two rows of teeth, two hands and two legs of the body-politic of Pakistan, a leader who feels that to make Pakistan healthy and strong one must make each one of these pairs equally healthy and strong, a leader who earnestly believes that to weaken any one of these limbs is to weaken Pakistan as a whole, a leader who zealously holds that anyone who deliberately or knowingly weakens any limb of Pakistan is an enemy of the country and a leader who is ready to take strong measures against such enemies, is the only person entitled to claim the national leadership of Pakistan. Pakistan is a magnificent country with an uncommonly wide horizon. To be fit to become its leader one must possess a similarly magnificent heart with an uncommon breadth of vision.
Sixthly, let me humbly remind my West Pakistani brothers and sisters, that when we demanded Bengali to be made one of the two State Languages of Pakistan you condemned it as a move to undo Pakistan. When again we demanded a joint electorate particularly in the context of parity in representation demanded by you, you condemned our demand to have been inspired from across the border. Both of these two demands have now been accepted, but there has been no undoing of Pakistan due to their acceptance. Does it not put you to shame that every bit of reasonable demand of East Pakistan has got to be secured from you at tremendous cost and after bitter struggle as if snatched from unwilling foreign rulers as a reluctant concession? Does it do you any credit? Please put a stop to such an attitude once for all. Please be brothers instead of rulers.
In conclusion, I fervently appeal to my countrymen to deeply ponder over the formula put forward by me. They will find that none of the items in my 6-point programme is either unjust, impractical or disruptive of the country’s integrity. I hope I have succeeded, in the short space of this booklet, in showing that the acceptance of these points will not only not weaken Pakistan but will, on the contrary, make it stronger.
But the vested interests for obvious reasons will not agree. They have got their own way of judging things. To them, only the continuation and
Page: 311
the perpetuation of their exploitation mean stability of a Society and a State. To them, anybody who disturbs or threatens to disturb this process of exploitation is a traitor and a disruptor. This is neither new nor surprising. Our great forebears like Fazlul Huq and Suhrawardy had to fall victim to such vitriolic. In taking up the cause of the exploited masses one must, therefore, be ready and prepared for such vilifications and incarcerations. To my lot have fallen many such trials and tribulations in the past. Through the blessings of my superiors, the comradeship of my colleagues and affectionate support of my countrymen, God in his infinite mercy gave me courage and fortitude enough to withstand those oppressions. With this boundless affection of my countrymen as my asset, I am fully prepared to make any sacrifice in their service. The life of an individual like myself is nothing compared to the salvation of the people of my country. I know of no nobler battle than to fight for the rights of the exploited millions. This is the lesson I have learned at the feet of my political master Suhrawardy. He is no longer in our midst to guide us. But I am determined to live up to that lesson and to keep his flag flying. The country is passing through the darkest hour of her life. At such a difficult time Awami League Council has placed the heavy responsibility of its Presidentship on my already overburdened shoulder. But through Allah’s mercy, I am no shirker. I am not afraid of work so I have with all humility accepted the great responsibility. I have great faith in my people. I also know that the darkest hour of the night is just a harbinger of dawn. My beloved countrymen will only pray to Allah so that He may continue to give me mental strength and physical fitness to devote the rest of my life in fighting for the restoration of their rights which have been forcibly snatched away.
Annexure ‘A’ referred to in the petition supported by the Affidavit of Shaikh Akram Hossain solemnly affirmed before me this the 26th day of June, 1967.
Sd/- Illegible.
Commissioner of Affidavits,
High Court, Dacca,
26.6.67.
Page: 312
NO: 6
ANNEXURE “B: ORDER OF THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, DACCA, DATED 8.5.66.
NO : 6
Annexure ‘B’ Order of Deputy Commissioner Dacca,
Dt. 8.5.66
…….
Government of East Pakistan.
Office of the Deputy Commissioner, Dacca.
ORDER.
NO.
DATED 8.5.66.
Whereas Mr. Sk. Mujibur Rahman, alias son of Lutfar Rahman, of. 677, Dhanmondi Residential Area, P.S. Lalbagh, District Dacca is reported to have acted and likely to act in a manner prejudicial to the public safety and the maintenance of public order, the maintenance of peaceful conditions in the country, the maintenance of essential supplies and services.
And whereas, I.P.A. Nazir, the Deputy Commissioner of Dacca Dist. am satisfied that with a view to preventing the said Mr. Sk. Mujibur Rahman from acting in any manner prejudicial to the public safety and the maintenance of public order, the maintainable of peaceful conditions in the country and the maintenance of essential supplies and services it is necessary to make the following order:
Now, Therefore, in exercise of the power conferred by clause (b) of sub-rule (1) of rule 32 of the Defence of Pakistan Rules, 1965, delegated to me by the Government of East Pakistan Notification No, 115-Poll (II) dated 13.9.66, I. P. A. Nazir, Deputy Commissioner, Dacca, district so hereby direct:
Page: 313
(b) that the said Mr. Sk. Mujibur Rahman, shall be detained for a period, of three months from the date of service of this order ;
(c) that subject to the provisions of clause (a) of this paragraph the said person shall be detained in the Dacca Central Jail.
Sd/- Illegible.
Deputy Commissioner,
District Dacca.
Seal
Office of the Deputy Commissioner,
Dacca.
Received the copy.
Sd/- Shaikh Mujibur Rahman.
9.5.66.
Annexure ‘B’….. referred to in the Petitioner supported by the affidavit of Sheikh Akram Hossain solemnly affirmed before me this the 28th day of June, 1967.
Sd/- S. M. Hussain,
26.6.67.
Commissioner of Affidavit,
High Court, Dacca.
Page: 314
NO: 6 ANNEXURE ‘C: ORDER OF THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, DACCA, DATED THE 29TH MAY, 1967.
No.6
Annexure ‘C’ Order of the Deputy Commissioner, Dacca.
dt. 29.5.67
……..
Government of East Pakistan,
Office of the Deputy Commissioner, Dacca.
ORDER.
No. 453/C
Dated Dacca, the 29th May, 67
Whereas Mr. Sk. Mujibur Rahman, son of Lutfar Rahman of 677, Dhanmandi Residential Area, P.S. Lalbagh, District Dacca, is reported to have acted and likely to act in a manner prejudicial to the public safety and the maintenance of public order, the maintenance of peaceful conditions in the country and the maintenance of essential supplies and services;
And whereas I, M.K.Anwar, the Deputy Commissioner, Dacca District, am satisfied that with a view to preventing the said Mr. Sk. Mujibur Rahman from acting in any manner prejudicial to the public safety and the maintenance of public order, the maintenance of peaceful conditions in the country and the maintenance of essential supplies and services, it is necessary to make the following order:
Now therefore, in exercise of the power conferred by clause (b) of sub-rule (1) of rule 32 of the Defence of Pakistan Rules, 1965 delegated to me by the Government of East Pakistan Notification No. 115- Poll (II), dated 13.9.65, I, M.K.Anwar, Deputy Commissioner, Dacca District, do hereby direct :
Record of Proceedings, The Agartala Conspiracy Case
Page: 315
(a) that the said Mr. Sk. Mujibur Rahman shall be detained for a period of 3 (three) months from the date of service of this order ;
(b) that subject to the provisions of clause (a) of this paragraph the said person shall be detained in the Dacca Central Jail.
Sd/- M.K. Anwar
Deputy Commissioner, Dacca District.
Received one copy
today, the 1st June, 1967 at 6 P.M. (Inside Jail Gate) Sd/- Shaikh Mujibur Rahman 1.6.67.
Annexure ‘C’ .. referred to in the Petition supported by the affidavit of Sheikh Akram Hossain solemnly affirmed before this the 26th day of June, 1967.
Sd/- S.M. Hussain. 26.6.67.
Commissioner of Affidavit,
High Court, Dacca.
Page: 316
NO: 7
COUNTER AFFIDAVIT ON BEHALF OF THE OPPOSITE PARTIES IN CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS CASE NO: 161 OF 1967. DT.24.7.67.
NO : 7
Counter Affidavit on behalf of the opposite parties, in Crl. Misc. Case No.161 of ’67 dt.24.7.67
District – Dacca.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF EAST PAKISTAN.
( Criminal Original Jurisdiction )
Criminal Miscellaneous Case No. 161 of 1967.
In the matter of: Sheikh Akram Hossain on behalf of the Detenu Sk. Mujibur Rahman— Petitioner.
Vs.
The Secretary to the Government of East Pakistan, Home Deptt. and 2 others—- Opposite parties.
COUNTER AFFIDAVIT ON BEHALF OF THE OPPOSITE PARTIES.
I, M.K. Anwar, Deputy Commissioner, Dacca, do hereby solemnly affirm and say as follows:
1. That I am the Opposite Party No. 2 in the above case and that the impugned order was passed by me and as such, I am conversant with the facts and circumstances of the case and a competent to swear this affidavit.
2. That I have gone through a copy of the petition on which the Rule Nisi was issued and I have understood the contents of the same; that I have
Page: 317
been advised to controvert only such statements which are not correct and such allegations which are not specifically admitted herein shall be deemed to have been denied by me.
3. That the statements made in paragraphs 1 to 3 of the petition do not call for any comment.
4. That this deponent is not aware of the truth or otherwise of the statements made in paragraph 4 of the petition and as such the same is not admitted.
5. That with regard to the statements made in paragraph 5 of the petition it is stated that it is not known to this deponent whether the detenu is regarded by a large section of the people as a great constitutional agitator or not but the fact is that the detenu indulged in highly prejudicial activities, greatly detrimental to the interest of the country; that it is further stated that the detenu is a political agitator; that he addressed public meetings at Dacca and other parts of the Province which brought into hatred and contempt and excited disaffection towards the Government established by law in the country and promoted feelings of enmity and hatred between different classes of citizens and as such specific cases were started against him and he has been convicted in two such cases and therefore it is not correct to say that he has always been a law-abiding citizen and never resorted to any unlawful and anti-state activities.
6. That with regard to the statements made in paragraph 6 of the petition this deponent states that the detenu projected the six-points programme which created confusion and a spirit of parochialism amongst certain section of the people and the movement for the alleged demand Launched by the detenu was violent in nature and created a problem in respect of the public safety and the maintenance of public order, the maintenance of peaceful condition in the country and the maintenance of essential supplies and services.
Page: 318
7. That with regard to the statements made in paragraph 7 of the petition this deponent states that the method adopted by the detenu in achieving the objectives of the Six-point programme is not constitutional and the detenu was acting in a manner prejudicial to the public safety and maintenance of public order and maintenance of peaceful conditions in the country.
8. That the statements made in paragraph 8 of the petition are not correct and are, therefore, denied by this deponent; that it is stated that the detenu addressed public meetings at Outer Stadium, Dacca on 20/3/66 amongst other meetings and he excited disaffection towards the Government established by law and promoted feelings of enmity and hatred between different classes of citizens.
9. That the statements made in paragraph 9 of the petition are irrelevant for the purpose of the disposal of this Rule and as such call for no comment.
10. That the statements made in paragraph 10, 11 and 12 of the petition need no comment.
11. That the statements made in paragraph 13 of the petition are matters of record and therefore call for no reply.
12. That with regard to the statement made in paragraph 14 of the petition to the effect that ” But on the expiry of the above order dated 25th January, 1967, no further order extending his detention was served on the detenu”, is not correct and is, therefore, denied by this deponent; that it is stated that the first order of detention dated 8/5/66 under Rule 32(1)(b) of Defence of Pakistan Rules was served on the detenu on 9.5.66; that the said order being initially for a period of 3 months. Second order was passed on 3/8/66 and the same was served on the detenu on 6/8/66; that the said order being also for a period of 3 months third detention order was passed before the expiry of the Second Order on
Page: 319
2/11/66 and was served on the detenu on 5/11/66; that the fourth order of detention under Rule 32(1)(b) of Defence of Pakistan Rules, 1965 was passed on 25/1/67 and was served on 4/2/67; that this order being also for a period of 3 months the same was to expire on 3rd May, 1967; that before the expiry of the last order the detenu was convicted on 27/4/67 in a Criminal Case and was sentenced to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of 15 months; that the detenu remained in jail on the basis of the said order of conviction and was released on bail on 1/6/67 that this deponent being satisfied that it is necessary to pass an order under Rule 32(1)(b) of Defence of Pakistan Rules, 1965, with a view to preventing the detenu from acting in a manner prejudicial to the public safety and the maintenance of public order, the maintenance of peaceful conditions in the Country and the maintenance of essential supplies and services, made the said order to detain the detenu for a period of 3 months from the date of service of the said order in the Dacca Central Jail and the said order was served upon the detenu on 1/6/67.
13. That the statements made in paragraph 15 and 16 of the petition call for no comment.
14. That with regard to the statements made in paragraph 17 of the petition, it is stated that the order of detention dated 29.5.67 passed by this deponent was served upon the detenu after being released on bail under the order of the Sessions Judge, Dacca, on 1.6.67.
15. That the statement made in paragraph 18 of the petition is correct and admitted by this deponent.
16. That the submissions made by the petitioner in paragraphs, 19 and 20 are not correct in a such as this deponent who has passed the impugned order of detention of the detenu has no concern with the programme of a certain political party or the animosity borne by the other. This deponent
Page: 320
has passed the said order of detention on being fully satisfied that it is necessary to be made with respect to the detenu with a view to preventing him from acting in a manner prejudicial to the purposes and objects stated in the said order and as such the said order is a legal, valid, proper and bona fide order.
17. That the statement made in paragraph 21 is not correct and is categorically denied by this deponent. The said impugned order of detention is a legal and bona fide order and has been passed by this deponent on being fully satisfied that the same is necessary to be made.
18. That the statements made paragraphs 22 and 23 are not correct and are denied by this deponent.
19. That the statement made in paragraph 24 is not correct and is denied by this deponent the Emergency Laws (The Defence of Pakistan Rules,
1965), does not provide for making a representation under the said Rules nor for stating grounds of detention in the order and this deponent did not think it desirable to reveal more facts in the said order of detention in the best interest of the Country.
20. As to the statements made in paragraphs 25 and 26 it is stated that the said statements are based on misconception of law. The provision of Rule 32(1) (b) of the Defence of Pakistan Rules, 1965, does not require that an order under the said Rule could only be justified by fresh materials. This deponent being satisfied that the detenu had been acting prejudicially and there are enough materials to justify his detention and that he has enough potentiality and is likely to act in a manner prejudicial to the public safety and the maintenance of public order and the maintenance or peaceful condition in the country, made the said order with a view to preventing him from acting in the said manner.
Page: 321
21. That the statement in paragraph 27 is not correct and is denied by this deponent. The detenu has been arrested several times for his prejudicial activities and has also been convicted as the petitioner has himself admitted in the petition and as such it does not lie in the mouth of the petitioner to say that the detenu never indulged in any activity prejudicial to the public safety etc.
22. That the statement made in paragraph 28 is incorrect and false and is denied by this deponent. The said order of detention was passed by this deponent on fully applying his mind thereto and being satisfied that the said order is a necessity for the object described therein.
It is further stated that the said order is a legal, proper, valid and bonafide order and is not passed with a view to deprive the detenu from enjoying the privileges of bail granted to him in as much as the said order was passed on 29/5/67 whereas the detenu was released on bail on 1/6/67.
23. The statement made in paragraph 29 is not correct and the same has been denied in the foregoing paragraphs and as such, it needs no further comment by this deponent.
24. As to the statements made in paragraph 30, it is stated that this deponent has not taken any exception to the Six-Point Programme of the Political party of which the deteun is President and as such the said statements made are based on a misconception of fact and law and need no reply from this deponent.
25. That the submissions made in paragraph 31 of the petition is not sustainable and as such, it is objected by this deponent.
26. That the statement made in paragraph 32, is not correct and as such it is denied by this deponent. This deponent further submits that the said order is a legal, valid, proper and bonafide order and prays that the Rule obtained by the petitioner be discharged.
Page: 322
27. That the statements made in paragraphs 1, 2, 4, 6, 12 (from ” …… this deponent being satisfied” to end), 16, 17, 19, 20, 22, 24 and 26 are true to my knowledge and those made in paragraphs 5, 7, 8, 11, 12 (from beginning to “released on bail on 1/6/67,” 14, 15 and 21 are true to my information received from the official record which I verily believe to be true and rest are submissions to this Hon’ble Court.
Prepared in my Office.
Sd/- S.M. Abbas.
Advocate.
Sd/- Illegible
Deponent.
The deponent is known to me
Sd/- Illegible
Asstt. to L.R. Govt. of East Pakistan,
Dacca.
Sd/- Md. Abdur Nur
Commissioner of Affidavits,
High Court, Dacca.
24.7.67.
Solemnly affirmed before me this the 24th day of July, 1967.
Page: 323
No:8
AFFIDAVIT IN REPLY ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER IN CRL. MISCELLANEOUS CASE NO: 161/67.
NO:8
Affidavit in Reply on behalf of the petitioner in Crl. Misc. Case No.161/67,
dt. 25.7.67.
……..
DT.25.7.67.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT DACCA IN EAST PAKISTAN.
(Criminal Original Jurisdiction)
In the matter of:
Criminal Miscellaneous Case
No. 161 of 1967.
And
In the matter of:
Sheikh Akram Hossain on behalf of the Detenu Sk. Mujibur Rahman …… Petitioner.
Vs.
The Secretary to the Government of East Pakistan, Home Deptt. and 2 others — Opposite parties.
AFFIDAVIT IN REPLY ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER. I, Sheikh Shahidul Islam, son of Sheikh Md. Musa, at present residing at No, 677, Dhanmondi, P.S. Lalbagh, District Dacca, aged about 20 years, by faith a Muslim, by profession a student, do hereby solemnly affirm and say as follows:
1. That I am a relation of the detenu and am acquainted with the facts and circumstances of the case.
Page: 324
2. That I have read a copy of the Counter-Affidavit on behalf of the opposite parties (hereinafter referred to as the affidavit) and have understood the contents of the same. I have been advised to controvert such of the allegations contained therein as are material for the purpose of this case and whatever is not specifically admitted herein shall be deemed to have been denied by me.
3. That with regard to paragraph 4 of the Affidavit I reiterate the statement made in paragraph 4 of the petition.
4. That the allegations contained in paragraph 5 of the Affidavit are denied and I reiterate the statement contained in paragraph 5 of the petition and I further say that the detenu neither indulged in highly prejudicial activities detrimental to the interest of the country nor he is a political agitator nor his speeches brought into hatred and contempt nor did those excite disaffection towards the Government as by law established by law in the Country nor those created any feeling of enmity and hatred between different classes of citizens of Pakistan. I also say that the cases in which the detenu was convicted are under appeal and the said appeals have not yet been disposed of and it is, therefore, not correct to say that the detenu is not a law-abiding citizen and that he resorted to any unlawful and anti-state activity.
5. That the allegations contained in paragraph 6 of the Affidavit are denied by me and I say that the Six-Point Programme projected by the detenu has neither created confusion nor a spirit of parochialism amongst certain section of people and the movement launched by the detenu for achieving the Six-Points programme is neither violent in nature nor it created a problem in respect of the public safety and the maintenance of public order, the maintenance of the peaceful conditions in the country and the maintenance of essential supply and services of the country in as much as the detenu was merely creating public opinion in support of the said Six-point programme by delivering speeches in different public meetings and in no other way. It is further submitted that in view of the
Page: 325
matter the allegations are not relatable to the purposes for which the Defence of Pakistan Ordinance (hereinafter referred to as the Ordinance) and the Defence of Pakistan Rules (hereinafter referred to as the Rules) were promulgated and as such the detention of the detenu under the Rules is without jurisdiction and void.
6. That the allegations contained in paragraph 7 of the Affidavit are denied by me and I reiterate the statements contained in paragraph 7 of the petition and also the statements made in the foregoing paragraphs.
7. That the allegations contained in paragraph 8 of the Affidavit are denied by me and I reiterate the statement contained in paragraph 8 of the petition and I further submit that the speech made by the detenu on 20/3/66 at the Outer Stadium, Dacca did not excite disaffection towards the Government established by law nor did it promote feelings of enmity and hatred between different classes of citizens.
8. That the allegations contained in paragraph 9 of the affidavit are denied by me and I say that the statements contained in paragraph 9 of the petition are quite relevant to decide whether the movement launched by the detenu for realising Six-point programme is in a peaceful manner.
9. That the allegations contained in paragraph 10 of the affidavit are denied by me and I say that the opposite party No. 2 did not properly apply his mind in passing the impugned order of detention nor in the facts and circumstances of the case such detention is necessary for the purpose of the Ordinance or Rules and I further submit that the order of detention has been passed to deny the detenu the privilege of bail granted to him by the learned Sessions Judge, Dacca and there was no necessity for passing the impugned order and as such it is mala fide.
10. That the allegations contained in paragraph 14 of the affidavit are denied by me and I say that the detenu was not released in pursuance of
Page: 326
the order of the learned Sessions Judge in as much as he was not brought out of the Jail premises and the order was served within the Jail premises before his release.
11. That the allegations contained in paragraph 16 of the affidavit are denied by me and I reiterate the statements contained in paragraphs 19 and 20 of the petition and I further say that the detaining authority without being satisfied and without having any materials for being satisfied with regard to the justification of detention of the detenu passed the said order.
12. That the allegations contained in paragraph 17 of the Affidavit are denied by me and I reiterate the statements contained in paragraph 21 of the petition.
13. That the allegations contained in paragraph 18 of the affidavit are denied by me and I reiterate the statements contained in paragraphs 22 and 23 of the petition.
14. That with regard to paragraph 19 of the affidavit I say that no fact was disclosed in the impugned order and there is no material against the detenu which can be described as against the interest of the country.
15. That the allegations contained in paragraph 20 of the affidavit are denied by me and I reiterate the statements contained in paragraphs 25 and 26 of the petition and I further say that there was no satisfaction nor material to justify the detention of the detenu.
16. That the allegations contained in paragraph 22 of the affidavit are denied by me and reiterate the statements in paragraph 28 of the petition.
17. That the allegations contained in paragraphs 24 and 25 of the affidavit are denied by me and I reiterate the statements contained in paragraph 30 of the petition.
Page: 327
18. That the statements contained in paragraphs 1 to 3, 6 to 8, 12, 13, 16 and 17 and 1st part of paragraph 4, 5, 9, 11, 14 and 15 are true to my knowledge and those contained in paragraph 10 and the last part of paragraphs 4, 5, 9, 11, 14 and 15 are true to my information received from the detenu which I verily believed to be true and the rest are my submissions before this Hon’ble Court.
Prepared in my office.
Sd/- Aminul Huq.
Advocate.
Sd/- Sheikh Shahidul Islam
Deponent.
The deponent is known to me.
Sd/- M.A. Hannan.
Clerk to Mr. M.A. Rab.
Advocate.
Solemnly affirmed before me
this the 25th day of July, 1967.
I authorise M.A. Mannan, Clerk to Mr. M. A Rab, Advocate, to identify the above deponent.
Sd/- Aminul Huq.
Advocate.
Certified that the contents
have been read over and
explained to the deponent who
seemed perfect to have understood them.
Sd/- Md. Abdur Nur.
Commissioner of Affidavits,
High Court, Dacca.
25/7/67
Page: 328
NO: 9
SUPPLEMENTARY AFFIDAVIT ON BEHALF OF OPPOSITE PARTIES IN CRIMINAL MISCELANEOUS CASE NO.161 OF 1967 DATED 29.7.1967.
NO:9
Supplementary Affidavit on behalf of the Opposite parties in Cr. Misc. Case No.161 of 1967 dt. 29.7.67.
………
DISTRICT DACCA:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF EAST PAKISTAN
(Criminal Revisional Jurisdiction )
Criminal Miscellaneous Case No.161 of 1967.
Shaikh Akram Hossain on behalf of Sk. Mujibur Rahman (Dentenu) —— —— Petitioner,
-Versus-
The Secretary, Government of East Pakistan,
Home Department, Dacca and 2 others —- Opposite Parties.
SUPPLEMENTARY AFFIDAVIT ON BEHALF OF OPPOSITE PARTIES.
I, Z. Huq, Section Officer, Govt. of East Pakistan. Home Department, Dacca, do hereby solemnly affirm and say as follows:
1. That I am the Section Officer, Home Deptt. Govt. of East Pakistan and as such I am conversant with the facts and circumstances of the case and competent to swear this affidavit.
Page: 329
2. That the detenu is a great political agitator suggesting violent means to achieve his objectives and that for his subversive and prejudicial antistate activities he has been detained several times under East Pakistan Public Safety Ordinance since 1948.
3. That is 1960 the detenu in course of his talk at his residence with an Officer of Indian High Commission, Dacca, expressed his resentment regarding the Administration and added that the rule and exploitation of West Pakistanis over East Pakistanis would not be tolerated forever.
4. That is 1963 the detenu contacted with an Officer of foreign Mission and was reported to have been contacting political leaders with a view to assess the political situation of the country.
5. That is the month of March, 1964 the detenu expressed that East Pakistan would not be saved from economic exploitation by West Pakistan unless East Pakistan got autonomous status. If the situation does not improve the A.L. party would not hesitate to demand a cessation of East Pakistan from the Centre.
6. That on 10.4.64 the detenu addressed a Public meeting at Chittagong Laldighi Maidan in which he warned the Government on the consequences citing instance of American Independence struggle on the issue of no vote no tax.
7. That on 17.4.1964 the detenu addressed a Public meeting at Barisal in which he said that the President of Pakistan in the name of development had sold the country to foreigners.
8. That is the month of April, 1964, the detenu addressed a public meeting at Gopalganj, Faridpur in which he gave out that the present Government was responsible for the communal right which took place in East Pakistan in January, 1964.
Page: 330
9. That is the month of April, 1964 the detenu in a statement to the press sounded a note of warning saying that if the Govt. would not stop in taking repressive measures and allow democracy to function the people might adopt the undemocratic method.
10. That on 6th September, 1965 a grave emergency having existed and the President of Pakistan being satisfied of the same proclaimed Emergency under Act 30(1) of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan and he further being satisfied that immediate legislation is necessary to assist in meeting the existence of grave emergency which gave rise to the said proclamation, he made and promulgated the Defence of Pakistan Ordinance, 1965 and the Central Government by notification in the official Gazette and made the Defence of Pakistan Rules, 1965 in exercise of the powers conferred under Section 3 of the said Ordinance. That both the Ordinance and the Rules came into force from 6th September, 1965.
11. That due to dastardly and unprovoked invasion of India upon the territory of Pakistan, the war continued for 17 days i.e. from 6th September, 1965 to 23rd September, 1965 when a cease fire was declared.
12. That within a week of the cease-fire the detenu started acting in prejudicial manner by promoting feelings of hatred and contempt between the citizens of East Pakistan and West Pakistan and advocating disruption and disintegration of Pakistan and bringing into hatred or contempt and exciting disaffection towards the Government established by law by addressing public meetings throughout the Province of East Pakistan.
13. That on 30.9.65, in course of discussion with his political friends the detenu criticised alleged inadequacy of defence measures in East Pakistan; that on the same date although some persons attending the said meeting suggested that a resolution condemning Indian aggression should be passed but the detenu opposed the same and the resolution could not be passed on that day due to the detenu’s unpatriotic, demoralising statements; that on 3.10.65 the detenu attended a meeting
Page: 331
of the working Committee of the East Pakistan Awami League held in its office at 15, Purana Paltan, Dacca, and after a hot discussion, the resolution condemning Indian aggression was passed in the meeting, In the said meeting the detenu all through as opposed to passing the resolution against India or America.
14. That is the 3rd week of October, 1965, in a meeting held at the Alpha Insurance Co., Dacca, the detenu explained the alleged helplessness of East Pakistan during the 17 day’s War with India. The meeting discussed the necessity of defence installations in East Pakistan. The detenu stated that if their demand for defence installation was turned down the Awami League would launch an agitation for full autonomy of Pakistan and would advocate the disintegration of Pakistan.
15. That on 18.1.66, the detenu held a meeting with the leaders of the East Pakistan students league at the office of the Alpha Insurance Co. and advised the students to carry on whispering campaign about the alleged senseless war that Pakistan fought with India and that Pakistan had bartered Kashmir at Tashkent. He further advised the students to make the people in general hostile against the Tashkent Agreement so that they might stage an agitation when the emergency is withdrawn.
16. That on 20.1.66 the detenu addressed a meeting of Khulna District Awami League held at Khulna Town in which he again brought into hatred and contempt the Government established by law and it was stated that violations will follow unless emergency is withdrawn. He also demanded by speech withdrawal of levy-system, Provincial Autonomy, Independent Defence measures for East Pakistan, etc. and suggested violent means to achieve his objectives.
17. That on 21.1.66 the detenu congratulated Mrs. Indira Ghandhi for being elected as Leader of Congress parliamentary party and welcomed her as Prime Minister of India in spite of India being an aggressor in respect of Pakistan.
Page: 332
18. That on 4.2.66 the detenu prior to his departure for Lahore to attend the so-called national conference of the opposition political parties leaders, issued a statement to the press in which he demanded regional autonomy for East Pakistan making it self sufficient and self contained in all respects Economy, Political and Defence and there by wanted separation of East Pakistan and disintegration of Pakistan.
19. That is a meeting held on 10.2.66 with the press representatives at Lahore, the detenu reiterated his demand for Provincial autonomy and stated that during the war East Pakistan was left isolated and that it was the love of the country which kept the solidarity alive and he pressed for provincial autonomy and separation.
20. That on 11.2.66 after his return from Lahore to Dacca in a statement to the Press, the detenu gave out detail of his Six-point programme which was not discussed in Lahore Conference and as a consequence of which he severed all connections with both Conference and its resolutions.
21. That on 22.2.66, the detenu attended a reception arranged by the American Consulate at Dacca on the occasion of American National Day celebration.
22. That on 25.2.66, the detenu addressed a Public meeting at Laldighi Maidan, Chittagong Town in which he promoted feelings of hatred and contempt between citizens of both wings of Pakistan by stressing that the country is being exploited by a coterie of West Pakistan since last 18 years and that his 6-point demand is the only solution of the problems of East Pakistan and he appealed to the people to work unitedly for the achievement of said demands.
23. That on 27.2.66, the detenu addressed a public meeting at Begumganj in Noakhali where he again promoted feelings of hatred and contempt between people of East Pakistan and West Pakistan by
Page: 333
stating that although East Pakistanis are in majority the Military HQs, the Naval HQs, Air force HQs are all in West Pakistan. He also said that although bulks of the Revenues were from East Pakistan, it was not being spent on the development of this Wing. He also stated that if he could get 20,000 supporters of his policy he would be able to realise his 6-point demands.
24. That on 27.2.66, the detenu addressed a Conference of Noakhali District Awami League Councillors, held at Maijdi Town Hall and stated that East Pakistanis who are 5 crores in number were always being tortured and deceived of their legitimate economic right, foreign exchange and that all military HQs. Ordnance Factory was installed in West Pakistan. Shifting of Capital from Karachi was also criticised.
25. That on 10.3.66, the detenu addressed a public meeting at Muktagacha, Mymensingh and stated that oppression and exploitation of British Rule over India for 200 years was not so great as at the present moment of West Pakistan over East Pakistan in 18 years. He talked of disparity between the two wings and added that 14% of the income of the country is spent in East Pakistan and the rest are utilised in West Pakistan. He urged upon the people to keep 20,000 volunteers ready to meet any eventuality and to weed out satellite from East Pakistan.
26. That on 14.3.66, he addressed a public meeting at Sylhet Town and urged the audience to get themselves ready for achieving the 6-point demand by making such sacrifices as may be necessary.
27. That on 20.3.66, the detenu addressed a public meeting at the OuterStadium at Dacca. He explained his 6-point demand and observed that his 6-point demand has been formulated in view of the alleged exploitation of East Pakistan for last 18 years by West Pakistan and thus he promoted a feeling of hatred and contempt between the citizen of the two wings of the country,
Page: 334
28. That on 27.3.66, the detenu addressed a public meeting at Satkania, Chittagong in which, while reiterating his 6-point demand, he spoke of exploitation of Pakistan during last 18 years and warned the audience not to be misled by the Dalals of the present regime. He also asked the audience to undergo supreme sacrifice, if necessary, for the fulfillment of his 6-point programme.
29. That on 7.4.66, the detenu addressed a public meeting at Pabna and remarked that his 6-point programme has made the President of Pakistan nervous. He also gave out that during 17 days war nothing could come from other countries of the world. So power should remain with East Pakistan. That 50% of people of Pakistan are from East Pakistan but the capital and HQs. of three Services are at Karachi and thereby he promoted hatred and contempt between the people of East Pakistan and West Pakistan and also brought into hatred and contempt the Govt. established by law.
30. That on 9.4.66, the detenu addressed a public meeting at Rangpur in which he again spoke of the HQs. of the Armed Forces, the disparity in the economy, services, business, etc. between the two wings of Pakistan and also criticised the President of Pakistan for allegedly abusing the Bengalees.
31. That on 11.4.66, the detenu addressed a public meeting at Rajshahi in which while speaking on his 6-point programme, he spoke of capital at Islamabad, Rawalpindi and stressed upon the audience that the said capital is being built at the cost of the Bengalees.
32. That on 14.4.66, the detenu addressed a public meeting at Faridpur in which while explaining his 6-point programme he demanded full provincial autonomy for East Pakistan to make it a self-sufficient in defence and to enable it to manage its own affairs independent of West Pakistan.
Page: 335
33. That on 17.4.66 the detenu addressed a Public meeting at Khulna Municipal Park and explained 6-point programme and promoted hatred and contempt between people of East Pakistan and West Pakistan and also brought into hatred and contempt the Govt. established by law by bringing allegations that the Govt. was fighting for restoring the rights of 60 lacs of Kashmiris but made no adequate measures for the protection of 4 crores of East Pakistan Bengalees. He further stated that a time would come when the people would hold the trial of the President of Pakistan.
34. That on 26.4.66 the Daily Amrita Bazar Patriaka, a newspaper of India published that the detenu in an interview with Cyril Dunn, Special Correspondent of Sunday Observer London, observed that he is fighting for a referendum in East Pakistan and in case of referendum it will be proved that 85% of the people were behind him.
It was also reported in the said News-item that the detenu expressed to the said correspondent that “East Bengal wants to quit Pakistan. I do not like East Pakistan to be a colony of anyone.”
35. That on 29.4.66, the detenu addressed a public meeting held at Comilla Town in which he criticised the acceptance of Tashkent : Agreement which he termed to be against the will of the people. He also stated that during the last war there was no adequate arrangement for the defence of East Pakistan. He also stated that he requires 20,000 young men to under-go imprisonment in order to achieve his 6-point demand.
36. That on 8.5.66 the detenu delivered speech in a public meeting at Chashara, Narayanganj, Dacca, in which as usual he brought into contempt the Govt. established by law and also promoted a feeling of hatred and contempt between the people of West Pakistan and East Pakistan.
37. That there is information with the Government that during the time the detenu was at liberty and during the emergency the detenu had
Page: 336
connection with foreign embassies including that of India and as such leaving him at large is prejudicial to the safety of the State of Pakistan as a whole.
38. That the detenu whenever got an opportunity wanted to enforce his six-points by violence and unconstitutional methods. That for his prejudicial speeches in different places, twelve cases have been started against him and in two cases he has also been convicted by a learned 1st Class, Magistrate of Dacca.
39. That the Deputy Commissioner, Dacca having perused the materials on record and the speeches delivered by the detenu in different places in Dacca District being satisfied that the detenu is likely to act in a prejudicial manner and in anti-State activities passed the order of detention on 8.5.66 for a period of 3 months and from reviewed the order before its expiry and thereafter from time to time reviewed the whole situation passed orders of continuous detention till 3.5.67, on which date substantive order of conviction. no further order under the D.P.R. was made.
40. That the Deputy Commissioner, Dacca having in consideration all the materials the situation reports and information reports and being satisfied that on 29.5.67. It was necessary to make an order of detention under Rule 32(1) (b) of the Defence of Pakistan Rules in order to prevent the detenu from acting in a manner prejudicial to the public safety and the maintenance of public order, the maintenance of peaceful conditions in the country and the maintenance of essential supplies and services as his substantive order of detention was suspended by the granting of trial passed the said order for a period of 3 months which was served on the detenu on 1.6.67.
41. That the said order is a legal valid, proper and bona fide order.
42. That in a petition under Sec.491 Cr. P.C. the petitioner cannot challenge the validity of the order and such the petition is not maintainable.
Page: 337
43, That the petition u/s. 491 Cr.P.C. is not maintainable in view of the bar laid down under section 16(1) of the defence of Pakistan Ordinance, 1965.
44. In addition to this affidavit materials in support of this affidavit will be produced before this Hon’ble Court and those of a secret nature privilege will be claimed at the time of the hearing of this petition.
45. That the statement made in paragraphs 1, 10 and 11 are true to my knowledge and those made in paragraphs 2, 12 to 38 are true to my information’s derived from official records which I verily believe to be true and the counter-affidavit filed by the Deputy Commissioner, Dacca and rest are submissions to this Honl’ble Court.
Prepared in my office,
Sd/- S.M. Abbas,
Advocate.
Solemnly affirmed before me this the 29th July, 1967 at my residence at 47/A, Azimpur Estate, Dacca.
Sd/- IllegibleAsstt. to the L.R’s office
Govt. of East Pakistan, Dacca.
Sd/- Illegible..
Deponent.
The deponent is known to me.
Sd/- Md. Abdur Nur Commissioner
of Affidavits, High Court, Dacca. 29.7.67
Page: 338
NO:10
AFFIDAVIT-IN-REPLY ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER IN REPLY TO THE AFFIDAVIT OF THE OPPOSITE PARTIES IN CRIMINAL MISC. CASE NO.161 OF 1967, DATED THE 1ST AUGUST, 1967,
NO : 10
Affidavit-in reply on behalf of the petitioner in reply to the affidavit of the opposite parties in Crl. Misc. Case No. 161 dt. 1.8.67.
………..
District: Dacca.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT DACCA IN
EAST PAKISTAN (SPECIAL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION )
Criminal Miscellaneous Case No. 161 of 1967
Sheikh Akram Hossain on behalf of
Mr. Sheikh Mujibur Rahman
…..PETITIONER.
-VERSUS-
The Government of East Pakistan and others …….OPPOSITE PARTIES.
AFFIDAVIT-IN-REPLY ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER IN REPLY TO THE AFFIDAVIT OF THE OPPOSITE PARTIES. I, Sheikh Shahidul Islam, son of Sheikh Md. Musa of 677, Dhanmondi Residential Area, P.S. Lalbagh, District Dacca, by faith a Muslim by profession a student do hereby solemnly affirm and say as follows:
1. That I am a relation of the detenu and making Tadbir in the case on his behalf and as such acquainted with the facts and circumstances of the case.
Page: 339
2. That I have been advised to controvert such of the allegations contained in the supplementary affidavit on behalf of the opposite parties (hereinafter referred to as the affidavit) as are necessary for the disposal of the case and whatever is not specifically admitted herein shall be deemed to have been denied by me on behalf of the detenu.
3. That the statements contained in paragraph 1 of the affidavit is not correct in as much as the deponent of the affidavit is not the person who passed the order of detention and as such he is not competent to swear the affidavit.
4. That the statements contained in paragraph 2 of the affidavit are incorrect and garbled in material particulars and I say that the detenu never resorted to any means which can be termed as violent and he always advocates peaceful and constitutional methods in the interest of Pakistan as a whole and I further say that the detenu was detained without any justification for his legal and lawful opposition to the party in power and those detention were by way of political victimization though he never indulges in any subversive prejudicial or anti-state activity. The detenu was an active member of the Muslim League up to 1949 and actively participated in all activities in achieving Pakistan. He was the Council Member of the Bengal Provincial Muslim League since 1943 and attended the All India Muslim League Council Session in Delhi in 1943 and also attended the All India Muslim League Convention in 1946 in Delhi. He worked in the bye-elections of Natore and Balurghat on behalf of the Muslim League. He was made the worker-in-charge of Muslim League in the District of Faridpur by the Bengal Muslim League High Command at the cost of his educațional career and he was again sent by the Provincial Muslim League to work in the Karimgonj SubDivision of Sylhet in 1947 during the referendum.
5. That with further reference to paragraph 2 of the affidavit I say that the detenu was elected a member of the Provincial Assembly in 1954 and was elected a member of the National Assembly in 1955 and he was a
Page: 340
Minister of the Provincial Cabinet of Mr. A.K. Fazlul Haq in 1954 and again in 1956 in the Cabinet of Mr. Ataur Rahman Khan. In 1957 he was sent to China as the leader of Pakistan Parliamentary delegation to China and he contributed towards fostering a friendly relations with China and in recognition of his achievement, he was sent to Russia in 1957 as the personal envoy of the Prime Minister of Pakistan to bring about Russia in supporting the stand of Pakistan regarding Kashmir in U.N.O, but the Prime Minister having resigned in the meantime, the detenu had to return from Geneva without visiting Russia.
6. That the allegations contained in paragraph 3 of the affidavit are absolutely baseless and I say that no officer of the Indian High Commission ever visited the detenu in his residence either in 1960 or at any time and there was no talk and consequently the question of expressing resentment does not arise. I further say that the allegations are totally false will be evident from the fact that neither any action against the detenu nor against the so-called officer of the Indian High Commissioner was taken on this score by the Opposite parties or the Government of Pakistan and the detenu was not arrested until 9.5.66, that is to say, after he projected the Six-Point Programme before the people of Pakistan for amendment of the Constitution in the light of the said Programme as a solution for removal of disparity between East and West Pakistan and for making a stronger Pakistan. The opposite parties are put to strict proof of the said allegations.
7. That the allegations contained in paragraph 4 of the affidavit are apart from being too vague, indefinite and lacking material particulars, baseless, frivolous and concocted and I say that the detenu never had any connection with any foreign mission for any purpose whatsoever.
8. That the allegations contained in paragraph 5 of the affidavit are denied and I say that neither the detenu nor his Awami League Party ever demanded or believed in cessation of East Pakistan. The autonomy
Page: 341
which the detenu advocates and always advocated is for an integrated and strong Pakistan on the basis of autonomy to be enjoyed by both East and West Pakistan equally.
9. That the allegations contained in paragraph 6 of the affidavit are denied and it is stated that the detenu never said that any struggle on the basis of “no vote no tax” should be launched in Pakistan nor he ever asked the people to stop payment of tax.
10. That the allegations contained in paragraph 7 of the affidavit are denied and it is stated that the detenu never said that the President of Pakistan sold Pakistan to foreigners in the name of development, but in fact he said that no loan should be incurred in the name of development which will cut at the root of Pakistan’s sovereignty.
11. That the allocations contained in paragraph 8 of the affidavit are denied and it is stated that the detenu never held the Government responsible for communal riot in 1964 and what he stated was that the Government should have taken stronger measures for stopping communal riots.
12. That the allegations contained in paragraph 9 of the affidavit are denied and it is stated that detenu never made any such statement.
13. That with regard to paragraphs 10 and 11 of the affidavit I say that detenu issued the first statement from Pakistan as a political leader condemning Indian Aggression on Pakistan and the said statement was broadcasted from Radio Pakistan Dacca for several days and he issued circulars to all of his party units in East Pakistan through the Organizing Secretary of the Party directing the Awami League workers to co-operate with the Government in War efforts. The Governor of East Pakistan called a meeting of the leaders of Opposition Parties in the Governor’s House during War and the detenu gave unqualified support to the Government in War efforts and signed statement issued in the name of
Page: 342
all parties condemning Indian aggression and urging upon the people to co-operate with Government in all means of War efforts. True copy of the aforesaid circular is annexed hereto and marked as Annexure ‘A’.
14. That the allegations contained in paragraph 12 of the affidavit are totally false, baseless and concocted and it is stated that the detenu did not indulge in any prejudicial activity as alleged therein.
15. That the allegations made in paragraph 13 is false. The Resolution condemning the Indian aggression was sponsored by the detenu himself as the General Secretary of the Party and it was passed unanimously. The detenu always claimed that East Pakistan should be made equally strong in defence in the interest of Pakistan the question of discussing with the friends about the Inadequacy does not at all arise. True copy of the relevant resolution inter alia the other resolutions of the Working Committee of East Pakistan Awami League on this score is annexed hereto and marked as Annexure ‘B’.
15(a) That the allegations made in para 14 is totally false. He never allowed any Political meeting or discussion in the Alfa Insurance Company. The question of discussing helplessness of East Pakistan is a pure invention by some interested person and is denied by the detenu.
16. That the allegation in para 15 is equally false and fabricated. The student leaders had not visited Alfa Insurance office nor the detenu ever asked anybody to carry on any whispering campaign against the War with India nor he ever said that Pakistan had bartered Kashmir at Tashkent. In fact, he supported the Tashkent declaration22 openly.
17. That the allegation made in para, 16 is absolutely incorrect. The detenu addressed a public meeting but never said that violation will follow if emergency is not withdrawn. He demanded Provincial Autonomy and discussed burning problems of the country and demanded redress but he never suggested in his speech violent means to be adopted.
Page: 343
The detenu further says that the opposite parties have given wishful interpretation to his speeches, which only suggested constitutional and peaceful methods to achieve the political objectives of his party.
18. That the detenu no doubt congratulated Mrs. Gandhi, after the Tashkent declaration as a gesture of courtesy as did the President of Pakistan and other political leaders but the opposite party mischievously wants to put a malicious interpretation to harm the detenu.
19. That with regard to allegations made in para 18 and 19 the detenu says that the detenu issued a statement demanding autonomy but he never wanted separation. The statement, if produced, will show that the question of separation was nowhere in the four corners of the statement. The detenu denies that he ever advocated separation in his life, either through statements or through his activities.
20. That with regard to allegation in para 20 the detenu states that in the Press interview he said that he placed the Six-point Programme to the West Pakistan leaders in the subject committee of the conference and as they refused to consider the demands of East Pakistan Awami League Party, he had to come out and he also refused to condemn the Tashkent declaration in that critical juncture where he argued that there should not be any politics where the defence is concerned. He issued such statement before his departure to Lahore and his statement as published in the Daily Sangbad on 5.2.66 is annexed here to and marked as Annexure ‘C’.
21. That the allegation made in para 21 is mischievous in so far as the detenu was an invitee along with the Ministers and other High Government Officials including Mr. Nurul Amin the opposition leader and the opposite party wants to utilize a purely social occasion for their own political purpose. In fact, it was a conventional reception given by the American Consulate in their National Day Celebration.
Page: 344
22. That with regard to paragraph 22-33, the detenu says that he delivered speeches in public meetings in different places viz. Chittagong, Begumganj, Noakhali, Muktagacha, Sylhet, Dacca, Satkania, Pabna, Rangpur, Rajshahi, Faridpur, Khulna but at no place he said anything which can be termed as prejudicial to bring it within the ambit of D.P.R. far less under Rule 32. His main purpose was to explain to the people the reasonables of his programme and to educate them to rally round his party for the achievement of autonomy on the basis of his Six-Point Programme in the larger interest of the people of Pakistan irrespective of East or West. As he loves Pakistan, he did like to see the existing disparity to be removed to create a feeling of unity and equal participation in Pakistan. Whatever he said was directed to remove all causes of disparity and misunderstanding between the two wings of Pakistan through peaceful and constitutional means. He never asked the adoption of violent means or to take law in their own hands to achieve the objectives.
He wanted to mobilize public opinion and he wanted people to support his programme and to join his party as workers. In expecting 20,000 workers, in different parts of East Pakistan he only wanted to organize the party on union levels.
The detenu further says that he never wanted power for East Pakistan as such as stated in paragraph 29. He merely pointed out that at the time of War, East Pakistan was cut off from the rest of the world so autonomy should be granted to two wings of Pakistan.
The detenu because of the Geographical peculiarity demanded some sort of self-sufficiency in defence but not independent of West Pakistan.
23. That the detenu further says with regard to the allegation in para 33 that he never said that people would hold the trial of the President of Pakistan, but instead he said that every action of the party in power should be judged by the people. The detenu while not admitting the allegation in paragraph 22-33 submits that unless the full speeches are shown to him, he is not in a position to make an effective statement with regard to the allegations. The detenu prays in the interest of justice that he should be allowed to be present in
Page: 345
Court to answer the allegations after looking to the speeches as after such long time he does not remember the details of the speech.
24. That with regard to the allegation made in Paragraph 34, the detenu says that a correspondent indeed interviewed him and he expressed that 85% percent people of East Pakistan wants autonomy on the basis of the Six-Point Programme and he is ready to prove it by a referendum, if allowed by the Government the detenu categorically denies that he ever mentioned that East Pakistan wants to quit Pakistan. It is absurd, fictitious and fabricated only to suit the purpose of the opposite party.
25. That with respect to the allegation in para 35, the detenu says that instead of decrying Tashkent agreement, he in his speech supported the agreement in the wide interest of the country.
26. That with regard to the allegation in para 36 the detenu says that he did not make any speech which could create hatred or contempt between East and West Pakistan and also bring the Government into contempt.
27. That the allegations made in para 37, the detenu says that the information if any with Government, are maliciously got up, baseless and concocted and the detenu firmly asserts that he fought for Pakistan, believes in its integrity and solidarity and never had any connections with any foreign embassy or country and these allegations are being made to victimize him for his constitutional opposition to the party in power and for demanding autonomy for the two wings of Pakistan.
28. That the allegations made in para 38 are emphatically denied by the detenu and he once more asserts that he never resorted to violent and unconstitutional methods nor he has any intention of doing so in realizing the Six-Point Programme and he believes in a constitutional and peaceful method. The two cases referred to are subject matter of appeals, pending before the Sessions Judge, Dacca and another before the High Court.
Pagee: 346
29. That the allegations contained in paragraphs 39 to 41 of the affidavit are denied and I say there was no proper application of the mind of the detaining authority and the impugned order is not legal and valid.
30. That with regard to paragraphs 42 and 43 it is submitted that the petition is maintainable in law.
14. That the statements contained in paragraphs 1 to 3 above are true to my knowledge and those contained in paragraphs 4 to 29 are true to my information received from the detenu which I verily believe to be true.
Prepared in my office.
Sd/- Ashrarul Hoq,
Advocate.
Sd/- Sheikh Shahidul Islam
Deponent
The deponent is known to me.
Solemnly affirmed before
me this the 1st day of August, 1967.
Sd/- M.A. Mannan, Clerk to
Mr. M.A. Rab, Advocate.
Sd/- Abdun Nur,
Commissioner of Affidavits, High Court, Dacca. 1-8-67
I authorise
M.A. Mannan, Clerk to Mr. M.A. Rab, Advocate identifying the deponent.
Sd/-Illegible. Advocate.
1/8/67
Page: 347
NO: 10
ANNEXURE-‘A’.
LETTER FROM TAJUDDIN AHMED,
ORGANISING SECRETARY ADDRESSED TO
ALL PRESIDENTS/SECRETARIES OF DIST./SUB-DIVISIONAL AWAMI LEAGUE
COMMITTEES, DATED
THE 17TH SEPTEMBER, 1965.
TRUE COPY.
NO.10
Annexure ‘A’Letter from Tajuddin Ahmed
addressed to all Presidents/ Secretaries of Dist./Sub – divisional
Awami League Committees
dt. 17.9.65
……………………
Ref: AL/65/451 – 577
Dated, Dacca, the 17th September, 1965
To
All Presidents/Secretaries of
District/Sub-Divisional Awami League Committees.’
Pakistan is at war with India. It is the supreme duty of every Pakistani irrespective of creed, colour or party affiliation to rise up as one man in defence of the freedom of our country and the honour of its citizens.
Awami League as an organisation and every individual subscribing to its views pledge all-out assistance to the War effort till its successful termination. You are requested to mobilise Awami Leaguers at all levels to participate in the defence measures of all kinds initiated by the Government and to ask the Awami League Workers to join and organize Civil Defence Forces under the guidance and in co-operation with their respective District and Sub-Divisional authorities set up by the Government for the purpose.
Page: 348
(Seal)
Sd/- Tajuddin Ahmed, 17/9/65
Organising Secretary, East Pakistan Awami League
Attested
Sd/- Illegible, Office Secretary
East Pakistan Awami League, Dacca.
31.7.67
Annexure ‘A’ referred to in the affidavit of Sheikh Shahidul Islam solemnly affirmed before me this the 18th day of August, 1967.
Sd/- Abdun Nur
Commissioner of Affidavits,
High Court, Dacca
1.8.67
Page: 349
No: 10 ANNEXURE-‘B’
RESOLUTIONS OF EAST PAKISTAN AWAMI LEAGUE
WORKING COMMITTEE
NO: 10
Annexure
Resolution East Pakistan Awami League Working Committee.
…………….
True Copy.
An extended meeting of East Pakistan Awami League Working Committee was held on Sunday, the 20th February, 1966 at 9 A.M.
RESOLUTIONS
1. This meeting of the Working Committee of the East Pakistan Awami League condemns the naked Indian aggression against Pakistan. This meeting congratulates the members of the defence Forces who have defended the Sacred Soil of Pakistan and have performed unprecedented deeds of gallantry and have achieved laurels in the battle field in spite of overwhelming numerical superiority of the enemy.
2. This meeting congratulates those gallant fighters who have fought and fallen in the defence of the country and the urges on the Government to rehabilitate their families.
3. This meeting offers its heartfelt thanks to all the nations and people who offered their support and sympathy to Pakistan at the time of its struggle for a right and just cause.
4. This meeting notes with resentment that the attitude of the United Nations as revealed in the Cease Fire resolution is contrary to the U.N.C.I.P. resolutions of 1948 and 1949 and Security Council resolutions passed during the last seventeen years and urges on the United Nations to
Page: 350
immediately hold a free, fair and unfettered plebiscite ascertainment of the will of the Kashmiri people.
5. This meeting while placing on record its deep appreciation of the gallantry and heroism of Pakistan defence forces, urges upon the Government to take effective steps to further reinforce the armed might of both the wings of Pakistan. This meeting is further of the opinion that this war has brought into bold relief the necessity of increasing the defence potential of East Pakistan to such an extent and in such a manner that East Pakistan may too meet any challenge from the enemy.
(Seal)
Attested
Sd/- Illegible,
Office Secretary,
East Pakistan Awami League,
Dacca.
31.7.67
Annexure – ‘B’ referred to in the
Affidavit of Sheikh Shahidul Islam
solemnly affirmed before me this
the 18″ day of August, 1967.
Sd/- Md. Abdun Nur
Commissioner of Affidavits, High Court, Dacca.
1.8.67
Page: 351
NO: 10
ANNEXURE – ‘C’.
PRESS INTERVIEW OF SK. MOJIBUR RAHMAN AS PUBLISHED IN THE DAILY ‘SANGBAD’ DT. 5.2.66.
NO. 10
Annexure ‘C’ Press
Interview of Sk. Mojibur Rahman as published in the daily ‘Sangbad’,
dt. 5.2.66
ANNEXURE (C)
SANGBAD 5.2.66
English Translation referred to in the Affidavit of Sheik Shaidul Islam.
IF ANTI TASHKENT RESOLUTION ADOPTS WE SHALL QUIT THE CONFERENCE (By Our Own Correspondent)
Yesterday (Friday) Mr. Sheikh Mujibur Rahman, the leader of the Awami League delegation in Dacca Airport on their way to attend the Lahore Conference said on quarry: “If anti-Tashkent Resolution is adopted then we shall quit the conference” ….. He is not prepared to accept to oppose Tashkent declaration as one of the major programmes of the agitation.
One of the members of the Awami League delegation informed that before attending the Lahore conference the Awami League would place some definite proposal before the leaders of West Pakistan. They would put forward some definite proposal before this Conference for the formation of a unified democratic movement on the basis of some right causes of the internal condition of the Country and for the establishment of democratic Governance of the Country.
Page: 352
The said spokesman states that if the opposition leaders of West Pakistan convened the conference in order to reject the Tashkent declaration by giving away the main problems of the Country, and being influenced by a special section who were holding anti Tashkent attitudes. Then the Conference would not be successful. In the circumstances the Awami League leaders would not give any support. If the Lahore Conference is projected as a prelude to reject the Tashkent declaration in place of discussing the formulation of future programme in an atmosphere free from emotion, then Awami League would quit the Conference.
It is heard that an Awami League delegate of the Conference commented to the effect that the development of both the countries would depend upon the mutual co-operation and friendship of the people of India and Pakistan. Tashkent declaration was a bold step towards the permanency of the friendship. So the question of opposition to it does not arise.
On the other hand, it has become necessary to raise the demand that the true people representative should be entrusted with the power as to the taking of final decision on the question of war and peace.
While questioned as to the attending Conference, convened on the basis of anti Tashkent statements, the said spokesman said that we would not be influenced by the emotion of West Pakistani leaders. We would place our own well-reasoned views and for this, we were going there.
SHEIKH MUJIB STATEMENT
A.P.P. states that Sheikh Mujibur Rahman at the time of departure says in a statement that we believe in peace and with all nations and especially with our close neighbour India, we want to live with peace and respect.
Page: 353
In the statement, he further says that we are going to attend the Lahore conference on the 5th and 6th February. In this conference, the yearly condition of the country can be discussed and an account as to the loss and gain of the war can be taken.
He further says that we are attending the Lahore Conference with a strong resolution in the mind for establishing peace. We shall give support especially to the noble initiative of the Soviet Prime Minister Kosygin. We shall maintain our vigilance against any activities which may endanger peace.
He pleads for the grant of full autonomy to this Province in accordance with the resolution of 194023.
Page: 354
NO: 11 JUDGMENT OF THE HIGH COURT OF EAST PAKISTAN, DACCA IN CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS CASES NOS: 64 OF 1966 & 161 OF ’67.
NO. 11
Judgment of the High Court, Dacca,
dt. 9.8.67
DATED 9-8-1967
IN THE HIGH COURT OF EAST PAKISTAN CRIMINAL REVISIONAL JURISDICTION
The 9th August, 1967.
PRESENT
Mr. Justice Baquer
Mr. Justice Abdulla
AND
Mr. Justice Abdul Hakim.
Criminal Misc. Case-No. 64 of 1966. After remand.
Rezaul Malik on behalf of the detenu
Sk. Mujibur Rahman — — Petitioner
Vs.
1. Government of East Pakistan,
represented by Secretary, Home Deptt. Eden Buildings, Dacca.
2. The Deputy Commissioner, Dacca.
3. The Deputy Inspector General of Prison and the Superintendent, Dacca Central Jail,
Dacca – – Opposite parties
AND
CRIMINAL MISC. CASE NO: 161 OF 1967.
Sk. Akram Hossain on behalf of the detenu Sk. Mujibur Rahman — Petitioner.
Vs.
1. The Govt. of East Pakistan represented by Secretary, Home Deptt. Eden Buildings, Dacca.
Page: 355
2. The Deputy Commissioner, Dacca.
3. The Deputy Inspector General of Prisons and Superintendent, Dacca Central Jail, Dacca.
–Opposite parties
Mr. A. Salam Khan, with
Mr. M. A. Rab &
Mr. Serajul Huq,
for the Petitioner in both the Rules.
Mr. Asrarul Hussain, Advocate-General, with
Mr. S. M. Abbas &
Mr. Nurullah, for the State in both the Rules.
JUDGEMENT.
Baquer, J:
Criminal Miscellaneous Case No. 64 of 1966 and Criminal Miscellaneous Case No. 161 of 1967 are being disposed of by this one Judgment. The arguments and facts are common to both the cases except that in Miscellaneous Case No. 161, there is one point peculiar to itself, namely, that of a gap being there between the last order and the present order under which the detenu is being held, in circumstances that make it impossible for the detenu to have done any fresh prejudicial act.
Miscellaneous Case No. 161 of 1967, which relates to the latest detention order dated 29th of May, 1967, will receive separate treatment only so far as the above point as to gap goes. The common points in the two cases will be treated together.
Criminal Miscellaneous Case No. 64 of 1966 which relates to the detention order dated 8-5-66 under Rule 32(1) (b) of the Defence of Pakistan Rules and was once disposed of by a Special Bench of this Court is again before the present Special Bench pursuant to the order of remand as passed by the Supreme Court on 14th June, 1967, on the basis
Page: 356
of the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in the recent case of, what is known, as the case of Malik Gulam Jilani and others.
The error of the High Court and the principles as laid down by Jilani’s case as aforesaid and which is to be followed by the present Special Bench has been broadly stated in the order of remand itself in these terms.
The detention was under Rule 32 of the Defence of Pakistan Rules and although the order of detention itself disclosed no ground. The High Court relying upon the affidavit filed on behalf of the Government of East Pakistan took the view that since the satisfaction of the detaining authority is a subjective satisfaction, it was the sole judge of facts namely, as to whether a particular activity of a particular citizen will in any way directly or indirectly affect the security or defence of the State or not.
The learned Judges constituting the majority were also of the opinion that for a Court to go behind the question would amount to substituting its mind for that of the executive without being in possession of the facts and also not being authorised by law to do it.
This conclusion is contrary to the view taken by this Court in the recent decision in the case of Malik Gulam Jilani and others wherein it has been held that even the order of the executive passed under the defence of Pakistan Rules are not immune from judicial review. It is for the Courts to be satisfied that reasonable grounds existed upon which the satisfaction of the detaining authority could be grounded, and that such grounds were reasonable and within the ambit of the law authorising the detention. It is clear therefore that the High Court has not disposed of the case in accordance with the law as laid down by this Court and the case must, therefore, go back to the High Court for determining the validity of the order of detention in the light of observations of this Court in the above mentioned case. The High Court should consider and reach a
Page: 357
conclusion as to whether upon the evidence placed before it, justification existed for the satisfaction expressed by the Deputy Commissioner.
Since we are remanding the case for of the rehearing to the High Court, we do not propose to make any further observations on the other points raised on behalf of the appellant.
In the result, therefore, this case is remanded to the High Court for the examination of the validity of the order of detention. In terms of the remand order, therefore, we have to re-examine and determine the validity of the detention in the light of the observations made in Jilani’s case and we are also to consider the other points raised on behalf of the appellant in the Supreme Court.
It may be noted here that the only other ground as taken in the Supreme Court and seriously urged before us, is that of the relatable of the impugned orders of detention to the emergency as proclaimed by the President. The shape in which this ground has been taken in the Supreme Court as appearing in the concise statements is as under :
(1) For that the majority of the Special Bench seriously erred in law in holding that the Court had nothing to do with the facts as to a particular activity of the detenu and the reasons given by the detaining authority in the order relating to Defence or Security of the State without properly applying their minds to section 15 of the Defence of Pakistan Ordinance, 1965.
(2) For that in view of section 15 of the Defence of Pakistan Ordinance, the Court has jurisdiction to see whether the facts and reasons given by the detaining authority related to the purpose for which the detention is justified under the proclamation of Emergency and the law promulgated there under and the learned majority Judges failed to exercise the jurisdiction vested in them by law.
Page: 358
It appears from this that the grievance as made to the Supreme Court was that section 15 of the Ordinance was lost sight of by the majority Judges of the High Court when they are alleged to have held that the: “Court had nothing to do with the facts as to a particular activity of the detenu and the reason given by the detaining authority in the order relating to defence or security of the State.”
The grievance further is that the High Court failed to exercise the jurisdiction vested in it by law as in the light of the said section 15 of the Ordinance, the Court has jurisdiction to see whether the facts and reasons were given by the detaining authority related to the purpose for which the detention is justified under the Proclamation of the Emergency. The grounds as above have rather been clumsily drawn and also curtails the otherwise broad scope of the grounds.
The grounds are reminiscent of the dissentient judgment of Abdulla, J, in the judgment under remand wherein it was held that in the light of section 15 of the Defence of Pakistan Ordinance, the safety Ordinance was attracted and not the Defence of Pakistan Rules. Nothing has been stated specifically about the dissenting view except a reference to it in the order of the remand itself but section 15 of the Ordinance, it seems came in for some comment in Jilani’s case and it was observed as under at pages 12, 28, 29 and 36:
Page 12. “In Malik Ghulam Jilani’s Case, a further plea was taken by his wife that as a result of the detention, the bread-winner of the family had been taken away and therefore, the provisions of section 15 of the Defence of Pakistan Ordinance had been violated. This Section requires that actions under the Ordinance should be so taken as to “interfere with the ordinary avocations of life and the enjoyment of property as little as may be consonant with the purpose of ensuring the public safety and interest and the defence of Pakistan”.
Page: 359
Page 28. “The High Court found no force in the contention that rule 32 was harsh and arbitrary because it did not fix any period for detention order there under. A period of emergency is prima facie to be regarded as of limited duration and it is to be borne in mind that an order of detention made under a temporary statute such as the Defence of Pakistan Ordinance is co-terminus with the emergency and would lapse when the legislation came to an end”.
Page 29. “The argument was raised before the High Court that section 15 of the Ordinance prescribed that interference with ordinary avocations and enjoyment of property etc. should be restricted to the minimum, in the making of orders under the Ordinance. It was suggested that action could well have been taken by the detaining authority under clause (f) of Rule 32(1). This clause enables the imposition of restrictions upon a citizen in respect of his movements or business or his association with other persons or in relation to the dissemination of news or propagation of opinion. The answer given by the High Court was that it was for the detaining authority to decide under which clause it would act. In the view I take of the circumstances existing at the time when the detention order was made, a much more comprehensive answer was possible. The question will be examined later, after consideration of the evidence available in this case.”
Page 36, “Here it may be pointed out that, in the course of the arguments in these appeals, it was mentioned that, before the detention order was made, two of the political parties which had joined in the Conference, namely, the Jammat-i-Islami and Nizam-i-Islam had disassociated themselves from any suggestion of direct action. An explanation is thus available for the fact that the detentions were confined to leaders of the other two political parties. In so acting, the authorities clearly conformed to the requirement of minimum restraint prescribed by section 15 of the Ordinance. But, as to those who were detained, the argument that the detention was bad because they were prevented from following their ordinary pursuits from which they drew their livelihood possesses no merit. Having committed themselves to a
Page: 360
crusade-cum-political campaign that became their avocation for the time being which could not be allowed to be pursued unchecked”.
Those observations are not on the basis of softer and harsher law as between two co-existing laws on the same subject, but on the basis of the application of the less rigorous step within the frame-work of the Defence of Pakistan Ordinance, 1965 itself and on the basis of not applying Rule 32, when not called for by the circumstances of the case on the principle of minimum restraint.
It appears that the very language of section 15 and the order of the remand itself rules out consideration of the choice between two coexistent Acts and Ordinances. Section 15 of the Ordinance reads :
“An authority or a person acting in pursuance of this Ordinance shall interfere with the ordinary avocations of life and the enjoyment of property as little as may be consonant with the purpose of ensuring the public safety and interest and the defence of Pakistan”.
The question, there for, is that of choice within the Ordinance itself and not outside and to apply it with moderation.
Section 15 only prescribes that interference with ordinary avocation and enjoyment of property should be restricted to the minimum in making an order under the Ordinance. This section imposes restriction upon the executive only in the matter of interference, with ordinary avocation and enjoyment of property of a citizen but does not put any bar upon the executive power in the matter of preventive detention against an individual for activities, prejudicial to public safety, public order and maintenance of peaceful condition in the country. In our opinion, the provisions of section 15 do not in any way affect the action taken by the Government under Rules 31(1)(b) of the Defence of Pakistan Rules in fit and proper cases.
Page: 361
Although the grounds are not happily worded we have allowed Mr. Salam Khan to argue about the point of detention being relatable to the emergency as proclaimed.
NO. 11
Judgment of the High Court, Dacca, in Crl. Misc. Cases Nos. 64/66 & 161 of 1967,
dt. 9.8.67
Mr. Khan has argued that the matters mentioned in the impugned order, namely, prejudicial to public safety, maintenance of public order, maintenance of peaceful condition in the country and maintenance of essential supplies and services for the reasons of which the petitioner has been held in detention is not relatable to the object specified in the proclamation of emergency.
The relevant portions of article 30 of the Constitution read as under: 30-01). “If the President is satisfied that a grave emergency exists – (a) in which Pakistan, or any part of Pakistan is (or is in imminent danger of being) threatened by war or external aggression; or
(b) in which the security or economic life of Pakistan is threatened by internal disturbances beyond the power of a Provincial Government to control, the President may issue a proclamation of Emergency.
(4) If, at a time when a Proclamation of Emergency is in force (whether or not the National Assembly stands dissolved or is in session at that time), the President is satisfied that immediate legislation is necessary to assist in meeting the emergency that gave rise to the issue of the Proclamation, he may, subject to this Article, make and promulgate such Ordinance as appear to him to be necessary to meet the emergency and any such Ordinance shall, subject to this Article, have the same force of law as an Act of the Central Legislature.”
The preamble to the Defence of Pakistan Ordinance, 1965, reads as under:
Page: 362
“An Ordinance to provide for special measures to ensure the security, the public safety and interest and the defence of Pakistan and for the trial of certain offences.
Whereas it is expedient to provide for special measures to ensure the security, the public safety and interest and the defence of Pakistan, and for the trial of certain offenses.
And whereas a Proclamation of Emergency issued under clause (1) of Article 30 of the Constitution is in force.
And whereas the President is satisfied that immediate legislation on the lines of this Ordinance is necessary to meet the emergency; Now, therefore, in the exercise of the powers conferred by clause (4) of Article 30 of the Constitution, read with clause (2) of Article 131 thereof, and of all other powers enabling him in that behalf, the President is pleased to make and promulgate the following Ordinance”.
The aim is to provide for special measures to ensure the security, public safety, interest and defence of Pakistan. By virtue of Article 131 clause 2, security and public safety of Pakistan including the economic and financial stability of Pakistan has been brought within the scope of the emergency. The measures to be provided are special measures necessitated by the emergency.
Simply because, it has not been stated in the Affidavit-in-Opposition that action under High Court Dacca, in the Defence of Pakistan Rules was necessitated for the defence of Pakistan or was relatable to the threat of war as specified in the Proclamation of Emergency and simply because it has been stated that the powers under the Rules were being exercised with a view to preventing the petitioner from acting in any manner prejudicial to public safety etc. It does not follow that the allegations are divorced from the objects specified in the Proclamation of Emergency. The activities sought to be curbed may be of such intensity
Page: 363
Court to answer the allegations after looking to the speeches as after such long time he does not remember the details of the speech.
24. That with regard to the allegation made in Paragraph 34, the detenu says that a correspondent indeed interviewed him and he expressed that 85% percent people of East Pakistan wants autonomy on the basis of the Six-Point Programme and he is ready to prove it by a referendum, if allowed by the Government the detenu categorically denies that he ever mentioned that East Pakistan wants to quit Pakistan. It is absurd, fictitious and fabricated only to suit the purpose of the opposite party.
25. That with respect to the allegation in para 35, the detenu says that instead of decrying Tashkent agreement, he in his speech supported the agreement in the wide interest of the country.
26. That with regard to the allegation in para 36 the detenu says that he did not make any speech which could create hatred or contempt between East and West Pakistan and also bring the Government into contempt.
27. That the allegations made in para 37, the detenu says that the information if any with Government, are maliciously got up, baseless and concocted and the detenu firmly asserts that he fought for Pakistan, believes in its integrity and solidarity and never had any connections with any foreign embassy or country and these allegations are being made to victimize him for his constitutional opposition to the party in power and for demanding autonomy for the two wings of Pakistan.
28. That the allegations made in para 38 are emphatically denied by the detenu and he once more asserts that he never resorted to violent and unconstitutional methods nor he has any intention of doing so in realizing the Six-Point Programme and he believes in a constitutional and peaceful method. The two cases referred to are subject matter of appeals, pending before the Sessions Judge, Dacca and another before the High Court.
Page: 346
It is, therefore, difficult to hold that the President while promulgating the Ordinance only thought of (a) and not of (b) because the internal condition of the country is also threatened and disturbed in such a situation. The emergency having thus been promulgated under Article 30(1) and not exclusively under (a) of Article 30 (1), the Defence of Pakistan Ordinance was promulgated to meet both the purposes of (a) and (b) of Article of 30 of the Constitution. In this view of the matter, the activities of the detenu if found to be prejudicial, cannot be taken to be not relatable to the emergency.
Who will decide as to whether the dimensions of the activities and allegations are such as to justify the application of the special measures?
Prior to Jilani’s case, the position was that it was the sole domain of the executive. It appears that even after Jilani’s case satisfaction on the point still continues to be the sole domain of the executive. The only difference made is that the subjective satisfaction of the executive has been made the subject matter of scrutiny and examination by the Court which does not amount to enabling the Court to substitute its own mind for that of the executive. The Court will only see whether on the allegations the satisfaction of the executive authority could be held to have been well-founded. There are also limitations on the Court’s power of review of the sources of satisfaction by reason of this power having been made subject to privilege.
In the instant case, the learned Judges of the former Special Bench had also looked into the materials for themselves to see as to how far the application of the Defence of Pakistan Rules was justified in that case but probably the Supreme Court thought that but for the impression of “the subjective satisfaction of the executive”, the probe of the materials by the learned Judges would have been deeper. Jilani’s case seems only to have given a fuller scope for examining the materials and is only meant to be a safety-valve against gross misuse of the special measures. The relevant
Page: 365
observations in Jilani’s case are on page 26 and page 30 of that judgment which read as under:
Page 26. “Indeed, once the authorities have placed before the Court oral evidence and other material, whose purpose is to justify an action of arrest and detention, judicial review by the Court has already been attracted, and the Court cannot, but be influenced in its decision by that evidence. The learned Judges in the High Court, placing reliance on the case of Liversidge, have come to the conclusion that satisfaction under Rule 32 is subjective and its reasonableness cannot be examined in a Court of law; they in effect precluded themselves from brining into the process of decision, the evidence which they had themselves recorded and received. On a true construction of the relevant provisions in the Constitution, the Defence of Pakistan Ordinance and the relevant Rules that view appears not to be sustainable.
It will, therefore, be necessary for this Judgment to consider that evidence and reach a conclusion whether justification existed for the satisfaction expressed by the Deputy Commissioner in his orders of detention”.
Page 30. “For a true appreciation of the factual position, it is necessary to bring under judicial review the reasons put forward by the concerned authorities for the making of the detention orders in these cases as well as the evidence that has been led, in the shape of documents”.
It is the reasons put forward by the authority concerned for the making of the detention as well as the evidence that has been led in the shape of documents that is subject to ‘Judicial Review.’
Mr. Abdus Salam Khan has raised a question here as to the implication and extent of Judicial Review’ as directed by the Supreme Court.
Page: 366
The learned Advocate-General has argued that the scope of Judicial Review is limited in as much as the review contemplated is not in the nature of an appeal. This according to him is just a measure for ensuring public satisfaction for what is being done by the executive. Mr. Salam Khan puts it otherwise and insists that this judicial review has opened the door for wide evidence and prolonged arguments by both sides on the sufficiency of the materials. (Incidentally, it may be mentioned here that we have allowed Mr. Salam Khan to comment upon the revelations as made in the supplementary-affidavit filed by the learned Advocate-General and also upon the further materials disclosed in the shape of the speeches made by the detenu for which the learned Advocate-General did not claim privilege. For some time we held the Court in Camera).
Mr. Salam Khan has also taken us through the additional reply in answer to the supplementary affidavit filed by the learned AdvocateGeneral.
Mr. Salam Khan wants to say that the very expression “Judicial implies full hearing of both sides.
In the light of the Civil Procedure Code, the scope of ‘Review’ is very limited and the scope of the review as contemplated here does not mean a total change in the procedure hitherto followed.
What the Supreme Court meant by Judicial Review seems to be clear from the following lines, namely, on page 26 of the Supreme Court Judgment as quoted already :
“Indeed, once the authorities have placed before the Court oral evidence and other material, whose purpose is to justify an action of arrest and detention, judicial review by the Court has already been attracted, and the Court cannot but be influenced in its decision by that evidence.”
Page: 367
It seems, therefore, that what is meant is that it is for the Court to examine the materials itself closely to see if those materials could furnish a sound basis for the satisfaction pleaded by the executive. The Court’s duty would be to examine the materials with a judicial mind as distinguished from executive outlook, to see whether there is prima facie evidence to justify satisfaction of the Deputy Commissioner in passing the impugned order and not to search for legal evidence produced under strict compliance of proof as in a trial. The Court henceforth is to examine the reasonableness of the satisfaction and not to refrain from considering the reasonableness of the satisfaction on the assumption that this is prohibited.
In this sense, no doubt the scope of the Court has been widened.
It may be mentioned here that in the lines in the remand order namely, “The detention was under Rule 32 of the Defence of Pakistan Rules and although the order of the detention itself disclosed no ground, the High Court relying upon the affidavit filed on behalf of the Government of East Pakistan took the view that since the satisfaction of the detaining authority is a subjective satisfaction, it was the sole judge of the fact, namely, as to whether a particular activity of a particular citizen will in any way directly or indirectly affect the security or defence of the State or not.”
The portions “as to whether the activities affected the security or defence of the State or not”, is a quotation from the original judgment of the High Court itself. The remand order does not, therefore, necessarily mean that the examination by us is to be with regard only to the question as to whether the activities could lead to the satisfaction that security and defence were affected. It is not that the detention order would be invalid if the activities did not affect the security and defence of Pakistan. What is meant by the remand order is that if the detaining authority holds that the activities affected security and defence of Pakistan that will not be enough. The Court will have to examine if the
Page: 368
activities are such as could reasonably be held to affect the security and defence of Pakistan. Jilani’s case, it seems, held Rule 32 of the Ordinance to be applicable on the basis that the activities went against public order, not on the basis that the activities had any bearing on security and defence of Pakistan.
In our present case, the public order problem has been pleaded. What is implied by the remand order is to see whether the provisions of Rule 32 could be applied and not to see whether the activities literally affected the security or defence of the state. Security and defence of Pakistan came in only incidentally in the observation of the High Court. It was argued before the High Court, it appears that the activities were against the security, interest of Pakistan. The remand order does not mean that 32 could be attracted only if the activities affect the security and defence of Pakistan. Since it was stated in the High Court’s judgment that it was the executive alone who can say “whether the activities attracted the security and defence of Pakistan”, those words were quoted from that judgment in the remand order. It does not mean that the order would be invalid if the examination of the activities showed that it did not affect the security and defence of Pakistan, but affected public order and peaceful conditions in the country.
A question regarding the maintainability of the petition in Miscellaneous Case No. 64 of 1966 was also pressed before us. The learned Advocate-General argued that in view of the provisions of sections 4, 14 and 16 of the Ordinance, the application under section 491, Criminal Procedure Code is not maintainable. A careful perusal of the sections shows that the contentions are not altogether without any substance but since the matter has come before us on remand from the Supreme Court with specific direction to decide the case in the light of the principles enunciated in Ghulam Jilani’s case, this Court cannot but follow the direction.
Similarly, we do not like to decide the question of in fractiousness of the Rule as pleaded in the case. The learned Advocate-General
Page: 369
argued that the period of three months detention covered by the detention order in Miscellaneous Case No. 64 of 1966, in question had expired long ago, the Rule has become infructuous. He has also submitted that after the expiry of the above three months period, another period of nine month’s detention having expired in the meantime and no separate cases having been brought challenging the three successive detention orders dated 3.8.1966, 2.11.1966 and 25.1.1967 respectively, the question of saving disqualification to stand for election, due to the effect of section 53 of the Electoral College Act and section 106 of the National and Provincial Assembly (Election) Act, does not arise in this case.
The learned Advocate-General submitted that as the detenu was now being held in detention under an existing fresh order, namely that involved in Miscellaneous Case No. 161 of 1967, which is the subject matter of our next decision, the consideration of the order in the present Miscellaneous Case No. 64 of 1966, is merely academic and not necessary. This question no doubt requires consideration, but because we are bound by the remand order of the Supreme Court, we feel embarrassed to go into this point here.
It may be incidentally mentioned here that Mr. Salam Khan made a grievance that the supplementary affidavit in the present case was sworn by an officer of the Home Department of the Provincial Government and not by the Deputy Commissioner himself as in the original counteraffidavit.
Having regard to the fact that the Provincial Government is a party and also having regard to the fact that in the original counter-affidavit sworn by the Deputy Commissioner who is the detaining authority, a nucleus has been given for the elaborate counter-affidavit that followed and having regard to the fact that the Government of East Pakistan is the delegate of the power exercised by the Deputy Commissioner, we do not find much substance in this contention.
Page: 370
The common legal points involved in the two cases having been considered and answered as above, it is now for us to proceed with the examination of the facts and materials as placed before us by the original affidavits, counter-affidavits and also the supplementary affidavit and replies of the parties.
It may be mentioned here that the supplementary affidavit filed by the learned Advocate-General on behalf of the opposite parties relates to both the cases.
The affidavits in both the petition state that the detenu who is the resident of East Pakistan Awami League is a law-abiding citizen and has never acted prejudicially to the interest of Pakistan in any manner whatsoever and that he is a constitutional agitator and has been fighting for the rights of the people throughout. He has of late formulated six points programme which has got currency all over the country and has received the widest support from the people. The aim of the detenu and his party is to remove the economic disparity between the two wings of Pakistan by amending the present constitution.
It has been stated that this Six Points programme on behalf of East Pakistan has antagonised the party in power and that is the reason for which the detenu has been detained illegally with the mala fide intention of killing the legitimate movement launched by him.
The Deputy Commissioner, Dacca, on the other hand, in the original counter-affidavits asserted that the movement launched by the detenu and his party in achieving the six points was not at all constitutional and that the detenu in the name of Six Points programme has created confusion and a spirit of parochialism amongst different sections of the people and that he is in fact indulging in highly prejudicial activities which are greatly detrimental to the interest of the country and that the detenu has started a whispering campaign amongst the students and has
Page: 371
addressed public meetings at Dacca and other places, promoting feelings of enmity and hatred between different classes of citizens and creating disaffection towards the Government established by law and thus engaged himself in activities prejudicial to the public safety, public order, the maintenance of peaceful condition in the country and that there are sufficient materials before the detaining authority to justify action under rule 32(1)(b) of the Defence of Pakistan Rules and that the Deputy Commissioner passed the orders in question on full satisfaction of the matter after applying his mind carefully to the materials on record.
It has been denied that the detention orders were devised to thwart the constitutional agitation for the realisation of Six Points programme. It has also been stated that the subject was arrested several times for his prejudicial activities.
It has further been stated in the original affidavit-in-opposition of Miscellaneous Case No. 161 of 1967, that the projection of the Six Points programme not only created confusion and spirit of parochialism amongst certain sections of the public but also that the movement for the alleged demand launched by the detenu was violent in nature and created a problem in respect of the public safety and maintenance of public order, maintenance of peaceful condition in the country and the maintenance of essential supplies and services and it has been asserted that the method adopted by the detenu in achieving the objectives is not constitutional. The replies in substance are that the movement is a constitutional movement and that the detenu has not done anything prejudicial to the safety and integrity of the State.
It appears from the above that what has come in for condemnation is not the six point programme and the movement itself but the violent method of implementation thereof. Whether the Six Point of the programme is constitutional or not is not a matter for decision here. The point for determination is whether the activities or the methods
Page: 372
adopted by the detenu implementing the six point programme was objectionable and prejudicial within the meaning of Rule 32 of the Defence of Pakistan Rules.
The above shows that the detenu has been delivering speeches all over the province and the supplementary affidavit as filed by the learned Advocate-General shows contact of the detenu with a foreign mission in 1963. In 1964, he delivered speeches at Chittagong, Barisal and Faridpur. He also in a press statement in 1964 sounded a note of warning that if the Government did not stop in taking repressive measures and allow the democracy to function the people might adopt the undemocratic method.
We have not taken much note of the activities of the detenu as disclosed in this part of the supplementary affidavit by reason of the fact that those related to 1964, which is long before the present orders of detention.
It is from paragraph 12 onwards of the supplementary affidavit that we get a picture of the very recent activities of the detenu.
These show that within a week of the Cease Fire, the detenu started acting in a prejudicial manner by promoting feelings of hatred and contempt between the citizens of East Pakistan and West Pakistan by delivering a number of speeches throughout the province tendentious of disruption and disaffection towards the Government established by law.
In paragraph 13 of the supplementary-affidavit, it has been stated that on 30.9.1965, in course of discussion with his political friends, the detenu criticised inadequacy of defence measures in East-Pakistan and that he opposed the resolution condemning Indian aggression, although it was ultimately passed. This allegation has been denied to be false in the reply and the learned Advocate-General could not satisfy us as to this.
Page: 373
It appears on the other hand that he was not slow in condemning the Indian aggression. In paragraph 14 it has been stated that in the 3rd week of October, 1965, in a meeting held in the office of Alpha Insurance Company, the detenue explained the helplessness of East Pakistan during the 17 days war with India and stated that if demand for defence installation in East Pakistan was not accepted, the Awami League would launch agitation for full autonomy for East Pakistan and would advocate disintegration of Pakistan. In paragraph 15 it has been stated that on 18.1.1966, the detenu held a meeting with the leaders of East Pakistan Student League at the office of Alpha Insurance Company and advised the students to carry on whispering campaign about the senseless war that Pakistan fought with India and that Pakistan had bartered Kashmir at Tashkent. It has been also stated that he advised students to make the people in general hostile against the Tashkent agreement so that they might stage an agitation when the emergency was withdrawn.
Agitation after the emergency was withdrawn, reduces the force of these allegations and moreover, it appears that the detenu did not openly decry the Tashkent agreement itself. In paragraph 16 it has been stated that on 20.1.1966, the detenu addressed a meeting of Khulna District Awami League held at Khulna town in which he again brought into hatred and contempt the Government established by law and that violence will follow unless emergency was withdrawn. He also demanded the withdrawal of the levy system and suggested violent means to achieve his objectives.
These allegations have been denied and moreover the AdvocateGeneral having claimed privilege with regard to the matters contained in paragraphs 13-16, we do not lay much importance to those.
In paragraph 17 it has been stated that on 21.1.1966 the detenu congratulated Mrs. Gandhi for being elected as leader of Congress Parliamentary Party and welcomed her as Prime Minister of India being the aggressor in respect of Pakistan.
Page: 374
We do not find anything serious in this. In paragraph 18 it has been stated that on 4.2.1966, he issued a statement to the Press demanding Provincial autonomy and that he wanted separation of East Pakistan and disintegration of Pakistan.
It appears that he did not state so in so many words but there is a veiled threat of separation if the demands were not fulfilled.
In paragraph 19 it has been stated that on 10.2.1966 the detenu reiterated his demand for provincial autonomy at Lahore and that he told the Press representatives at Lahore that it was the love of the country which kept the solidarity alive.
This could not be fully substantiated. Paragraph 20 shows that after his return from Lahore on 11.2.1966, in a statement to the Press the detenu gave out details of his Six Points programme which was not discussed in the Lahore Conference and as a consequence of which he severed all connections with both conference and its resolutions.
There is nothing prejudicial in this also. So far as paragraph 21 goes, it has been stated that the detenu on 22.2.1966 attended a reception arranged by the American Consulate, Dacca on the occasion of American National Day celebration. We do not find anything serious in this, particularly having regard to the fact that the learned Advocate-General has covered the materials behind this paragraph by privilege. Coming to paragraph 22, it has been stated that on 25.2.1966, the detenu addressed a public meeting at Laldighi Maidan, Chittagong town in which he promoted feelings of hatred and contempt between the citizens of both wings of Pakistan by stressing that the country is being exploited by a coterie of West Pakistan since last 18 years.
This speech like several others is a very fiery speech. In paragraph 23 it has been stated that on 27.2.1966, the detenu addressed a public
Page: 375
meeting at Begumganj in Noakhali where he again promoted feeling of hatred and contempt between people of East Pakistan and West Pakistan by stating that although East Pakistanis are in majority, the military Head Quarters, the Naval Head Quarters, Air Force Head Quarters are in West Pakistan. He also said that although the bulk of the revenue was from East Pakistan it was not being spent for the development of this wing. He also stated that if he could get 20,000 supporters of his policy, he would be able to realise the six points demand.
This speech also is very inflammatory and there is a threat.
It has been stated in paragraph 24 that on 27.2.1966, the detenu addressed a conference of Noakhali District Awami League Councillors held at Maijdi where he stated that East Pakistanis who are five crores24 in number were always being tortured and deceived of their legitimate economic rights. The allegations as above contained in paragraph 24 having also been covered by privilege, we have not laid much importance to those although the speech clearly tends to create disaffection. Paragraph 25 speaks of a meeting on 10.3.1966 at Mymensingh in which the detenu stated that oppression and exploitation of British Rule over India for 200 years was not so great as that of West Pakistan over East Pakistan in 18 years. He talked of disparity between the wings and added that 14 percent of the income of the country was spent in East Pakistan and rest utilised in West Pakistan. He wanted 20,000 volunteers to meet any eventuality.
This is a very fiery speech. It is exciting and also threatening. In paragraph 26 it has been stated that on 14.3.196.6 he held a public meeting at Sylhet and urged the audience to get themselves ready for achieving the six points demand by making such sacrifices as may be necessary. In paragraph 27 it has been stated that on 20.3.1966, the detenu addressed a public meeting at the outer Stadium at Dacca. No privilege has been claimed with regard to this. The main features of this
Page: 376
speech are: “For the last 18 years sucking of the life blood of the Bengalis of East Pakistan is going on “……..”. All taxes must be collected by the two provinces “……..”. We earned 70 percent of foreign currency which you have been looting; we do not know where the money goes. This should be divided “………” I have earned a bad name of trying to separate East Pakistan.”
At the same time, he stated that he did not advocate separation. “For state language lives of students have been given but we must obey”. This is exciting. “During the 17 days war, Pakistan was saved only by God”. Rather creating want of affection. “President has got his power by force”. “No nation (particularly meaning his party) can realise its demand without the sacrifice of life and devotion. But at the same time, he clearly says that this has to be peaceful”. This is highly exciting and there is a call to arms, “Gold of East Pakistan at the rate of Rs. 150/- while the gold of West Pakistan is Rs.120/-. Market price Rs. 6/- in East Pakistan and Rs. 2/- in West Pakistan”. It creates hatred.” The President called the Bengalese slaves “……..” Bidis cannot come to the East but it can go to West “……. ” Be ready for the battle, be ready for going to jail”. This is a clear call to violence and bloodshed and disturbance of public order. “University has been locked.”
This has a tendency to excite the students. “Claim of 55 crore cannot be suppressed by jail. Be ready for sacrifice and battle.” This is a call at the violation of public order. “If a hand is placed on one Awami Leaguer we will fill the jails.” Rather objectionable “Go out into the village and try to realise the emancipation;” calls for no comment. The speech concluded by stating that the movement should be carried on peacefully but this seems to be a clever saving device only. The damage has been done and feelings have been roused already.
In paragraph 28 it has been stated that the detenu spoke in a similar way on 27.3.1966 at Chittagong. In paragraph 29 it has been stated that
Page: 377
on 7.4.66 he held a public meeting at Pabna and spoke almost to the same effect. In paragraph 30 it has been stated that on 9.6.1966 he similarly spoke at Rangpur. In paragraph 31 it has been stated that on 11.4.1966 he addressed a similar meeting at Rajshahi, where he stated that capital at Islamabad and Rawalpindi was being built at the cost of the Bengalees. In paragraph 32 it has been stated that on 14.4.1966 he similarly addressed at Faridpur. In paragraph 33 it has been stated that on 17.4.1966 he addressed a public meeting at Khulna in which he spoke inter alia that the Government was fighting for restoring the rights of 60 lacs of Kashmiris, but made no adequate measures for the protection of 4 crore of East Pakistan Bengalees and that a time would come when the people would hold trial of the President of Pakistan. This speech also seems to be inciting. In paragraph 34 it has been stated that the detenu expressed to Cyril Dun, Special Correspondent of Sunday Observer, London, that: “East Bengal wants to quit Pakistan. I do not like East Pakistan to be a colony of anyone.” We do not place much reliance on this, the news has emanated from an unreliable source, namely, the Daily Amrit Bazar Patrika of 26.4.1966. In paragraph 35 it has been stated that on 29.4.1966, the detenu addressed a public meeting at Comilla to the same effect as in the other districts.
In paragraph 36, it has been stated that on 8.5.1966, the detenu delivered a speech in a public meeting at Chashara, Narayanganj in the district of Dacca in which also he brought into contempt the Government established by law and also promoted a feeling of hatred and contempt between the people of West Pakistan and East Pakistan. We have been taken through this speech closely in the same way as the speech of 20.3.1966 delivered at Dacca Stadium discussed already. No privilege has been claimed with regard to this speech also.
Mr. Salam Khan for the detenu was present when the two Dacca and Narayanganj speeches along with others were read out and he sought to cover them by saying that these were legitimate criticisms of the
Page: 378
Government policy. Reading the whole speeches together we do not feel convinced of their innocence.
This Narayanganj speech like the Outer Stadium speech is highly inciting and provocative. The keynotes are: “Speech making difficult “………..” Ayub Khan uncontrollable “……..” Head Quarters in the West “……” Helplessness of East Pakistan during the war “…………” We have given everything to West Pakistan, in return, they have oppressed us.”
This clearly creates hatred towards the other wing and is rather disruptive. “Lathi charge, firing and jail to students”, This is inciting. “I know how to enforce adult franchise”.
This is likely to endanger peaceful condition. “They did not accept Bengali as State Language except by shedding blood”. “No gold in State Bank of Pakistan”. This is trying to create panic and reflect on economic stability. “You have been treacherous with us for 18 years” Note that during these 18 years there was a time when the detenu himself was a Minister. “You can kill me but not the 55 crores.” Rather exciting. “If East Pakistan is sucked by West Pakistan that news cannot be published “……….” We will die but not allow Bengalees to die and we give you a warning.”
Here there is a hint at violence. There can be no doubt that the speeches tend to violation of public order.
It has been stated in paragraph 37 that during the emergency the detenu had I contact with foreign embassies including that of India and in paragraph 38 that he wanted to enforce his six points by violence and unconstitutional methods and it appears that for his prejudicial speeches at different places, twelve cases have been started against him and in two cases he has also been convicted by a First Class Magistrate, Dacca.
In paragraph 39 it has been stated that the Deputy Commissioner, Dacca having perused the materials on record and the speeches delivered
Page: 379
by the detenu in different places in Dacca District and being satisfied that the detenu is likely to act in a prejudicial manner and in anti-state activities passed the order of detention on 8.5.1966, for a period of three months and from time to time revised the orders before its expiry and thereafter from time to time reviewed the whole situation and passed orders of continuous detention till 3.5.1967, on which date on substantive order of conviction, no further order under the Defence of Pakistan Rules was made.
In paragraph 40 it has been stated that the Deputy Commissioner, Dacca having considered all the materials, the situation reports and information reports and being satisfied that on 29.5.1967 it was necessary to make an order of detention under Rule 32 of the Defence of Pakistan Rules in order to prevent the detenu from acting in a manner prejudicial to the public safety and the maintenance of public order, the maintenance of peaceful conditions and the maintenance of essential supplies, as his substantive order of detention was suspended by the granting of bail, passed the said order for a period of three months which was served on the detenu on 1.6.1967.
This portion of paragraphs 39 and 40 has special bearing in the next Miscellaneous Case No, 161 of 1967.
The speeches above particularly that at Dacca and Narayanganj are not only highly explosive but suggestive of violations of public order and peaceful condition of the country. Not only a feeling of hatred has been generated between the two wings, but also all affection for the Government established by law, has been made to disappear of other preceding continuing orders.
Points common in both the Miscellaneous Cases on law as well as fact having already been answered and found against the detenu we will deal in this part only with the specific peculiar law point of this case, namely, as to how far the present order of detention dated 29.5.1967 was
Page: 380
valid having regard to the fact that in between this order and the last order a period of 26 days elapsed in such circumstances as not to permit any fresh prejudicial activities on the part of the detenu.
The circumstances under which the present order was passed have been given elaborately in paragraphs 14 to 17 of the petition which may be reproduced here:
14. “That the last order extending the period of detention under the Rules was issued on 25th January, 1967, which was served on him or 4.2.67. But on the expiry of the above order dated 25th January 1967 further order extending his detention was served on the detenu.”
15. “That in the meantime, Mr. Afsaruddin, Magistrate, 1st Class, Dacca by his judgment and order dated the 27th April, 1967, convicted the detenu in a criminal case under sub-rule (5) of Rule 47 of the Rules and sentenced him to suffer imprisonment for one year and three months.”
16. “That against the order of the learned Magistrate the detenu preferred an appeal to the Sessions Judge, Dacca and prayed for bail and the learned Sessions Judge, by his order dated 29th May, 1967 directed for releasing the detenu on bail after hearing the detenu’s lawyer and the lawyer of the State who opposed the prayer for bail.”
17. “That the release order of the detenu in pursuance of the order of the learned Sessions Judge was communicated to the Jail Authority on the 1st of June, 1967 and on receipt of the order of release the detenu was brought to the Jail gate by the Jail Authority for release but in the meantime an order of detention under clause (b) of sub-rule (2) of Rule 32 of the Rules purported to be under the signature of Mr. M. K. Anwar, Deputy Commissioner, Dacca. dated 29th May, 1967, was served on the detenu on 1.6.67 at 6 P.M., inside the Jail gate and he is
Page: 381
being detained there. True copy of the said order is annexed here to and marked as Annexure “C”.
The counter-affidavit as originally filed by the Deputy Commissioner in answer has been stated in paragraph 12 thereof and is as under:
12. “That with regard to the statement made in paragraph 14 of the petition to the effect that “But on the expiry of the above order dated 25th January, 1967, no further order extending his detention was served on the detenu”, is not correct and is, therefore, denied by this deponent; that it is stated that the first order of detention dated 8.5.66 under Rule 32(1)(b) of Defence of Pakistan Rules was served on the detenu on 9.5.66; that the said order being on initially for a period of 3 months Second order was passed on 3.8.66 and the same was served on the detenu on 6.8.66; that the said order being also for a period of 3 months third detention order was passed before the expiry of the Second order on 2.11.66 and was served on the detenu on 5.11,66; that the fourth order of detention under Rule 32(1)(b) of Defence of Pakistan Rules, 1965, was Passed on 25.1.67 and was served on 4.2.67; that this order being also for a period of 3 months the same was to expire on 3rd May, 1967; that before the expiry of the last order the detenu was convicted on 27.4.67 in a Criminal Case and was sentenced to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of 15 months; that the detenu remained in jail on the basis of the said order of conviction and was released on bail on 1.6.67; that this deponent being satisfied that it is necessary to pass an order under Rule 32(1)(b) of the Defence of Pakistan Rules, 1965, with a view to preventing the detenu from acting in a manner prejudicial to the public safety and the maintenance of public order, the maintenance of peaceful conditions in the country and the maintenance of essential supplies and services, made the said order to detain the detenu for a period of 3 months from the date of service of the said order in the Dacca Central Jail and the said order was served upon the detenu on 1.6.67″.
Paragraphs 39 and 40 of the supplementary affidavit on the same subject already mentioned may be reproduced again.
Page: 382
39. “That the Deputy Commissioner, Dacca having perused the materials on record and the speeches delivered by the detenu in different places in Dacca District being satisfied that the detenu is likely to act in a prejudicial manner and in anti-State activities passed the order of detention on 8.5.66 for a period of 3 months and from reviewed the Order before its expiry and thereafter from time to time reviewed the whole situation passed orders of continuous detention till 3.5.67 on which date substantive order of conviction no further order under the D.P.R. was made.”
40. “That the Deputy Commissioner, Dacca, having considered all the materials the situation reports and information reports and being satisfied that on 29.5.67 it was necessary to make an order of detention under Rule 32(1)(b) of the Defence of Pakistan Rules in order to prevent the detenu from acting in a manner prejudicial to the public safety and the Maintenance of public order, the maintenance of peaceful conditions in the country and the maintenance of essential supplies and services as his substantive order of detention was suspended by the granting of trial passed the said order for a period of 3 months which was served on the detenu on 1.6.67.”
The affidavit and the counter-affidavits as above speak themselves fully.
for
Mr. Salam Khan has argued that the present order is a mala fide order having regard to the fact that the circumstances did not permit of fresh materials when the detenu was in jail.
The learned Advocate-General, however, has argued that the present order is quite valid. He has cited the decision in the case of Basanta Chandra Ghose Vs. Emperor, reported in A.I.R.20 (32) 1945 F.C. 18.
He has relied on the lines on page 21 left-hand top, namely, “There is equally no force in the contention that no order of detention can be passed against a person who is already under detention”.
Page: 383
The whole paragraph needs quoting to show in what context it was said so. The whole paragraph reads:
“It was next argued as a matter of law that once the order of 19th March 1942 had been cancelled there was no power to pass a fresh order of detention except on fresh materials and it was contended that the learned Judges of the High Court were not justified in presuming that fresh materials must have existed when the order of July 1944 was made. The first step in this argument seems to us unwarranted. The observations of the Court of Appeal in (1942) 1 All E.R.373 show that in this broad form the proposition is untenable. It may be that in cases in which it is open to the Court to examine the validity of the grounds of detention a decision that certain alleged grounds of detention did not warrant detention will preclude further detention on the same grounds. But where the earlier order of detention is held defective merely on formal grounds there is nothing to preclude a proper order of detention being based on the pre-existing grounds themselves, especially in cases in which the sufficiency of the grounds is not examinable by the Courts. There is equally no force in the contention that no order of detention can be passed against a person who is already under detention. The decision of the Patna High Court in 23 Pat 252 cannot be understood as laying down any such proposition as a general proposition of law. The learned Judges seem to have drawn an inference of fact from the circumstances of the case that the order then in question was not one made in the bona fide exercise of the Governor’s powers.”
Of Course, the observations seem to cover cases where the previous order was found to be formally defective which is not the case here. Here the old order had expired on 3rd of May 1967 and was succeeded by the present fresh order dated 29.5.1967 after a gap of 26 days and this order was served on the detenu on 1.6.1967. The need for the present order was not felt until his bail.
Page: 384
Further, the lines “especially in cases in which the sufficiency of the grounds is not examinable by the Courts” indicates that if the sufficiency of the grounds could be examined by the Court the position might be different.
The lines as above are too pithy and condensed but nevertheless they indicate the principle that there can be a second-order after a gap and in that case, the gap was of nearly 4 months.
In our present case, the order has come as soon as the detenu was released on bail. During the period he was in punitive detention, the question of renewal of the detention order did not arise and it was only when the detenu was released that the necessity of the fresh order was felt having regard to the antecedents, trends and tendencies of the detenu.
Rule 32 has placed no limit as to period and proceeds upon the principles of the necessity of the detention.
Having regard to the antecedents, the authorities could be reasonably satisfied as to its necessity when the emergency was still on. In this connection the observation of the Supreme Court at page 28 (a) may be mentioned here:
“The High Court found no force in the contention that Rule 32 was harsh and arbitrary because it did not fix any period for detention order there under. A period of emergency is Prima facie to be regarded as of limited duration and it is to be borne in mind that an order of detention made under a temporary statute such as the Defence of Pakistan Ordinance is co-terminus with the emergency and would lapse when the legislation came to an end.”
Mr. Salam Khan seems to rely on the decision in Rameshwar Shaw Vs. District magistrate, Bardwan and another, reported in A.I.R. 1964 S.C. 334, in which it was observed inter alia:
Page: 385
“It is obvious that before an authority can legitimately come to the conclusion that the detention of the person is necessary to prevent him from acting in a prejudicial manner, the authority has to be satisfied that if the person is not detained, he would act in a prejudicial manner and that inevitably postulates freedom of action to the said person at the relevant time. If a person is already in jail custody, how can it rationally be postulated that if he is not detained he would act in a prejudicial manner? At the point of time when an order of detention is going to be served on a person, it must be patent that the said person would act prejudicially if he is not detained and that is a consideration, which would be absent when the is dealing with a person already the authority in detention. The satisfaction that it is necessary to detain a person for the purpose of preventing him from acting in a prejudicial manner is thus the basis of the order under section 3(1)(a) of the Preventing Detention Act, 1950 and this basis is already absent in the case of the petitioner,”
That was a case under the Preventive Detention Act and the facts thereof show that the detenu was arrested on January 25, 1963, and was in custody on February 15, 1963, when the order, of detention was served on him. The learned Judges of the Indian Supreme Court ordered his release on the ground that the satisfaction that it was necessary to detain him for the purpose of preventing him from acting in a prejudicial manner which was the basis of the order of detention under section 3(1)(a) was clearly absent in the case.
It appears that the learned Judges also observed in that case that section 3(1)(a) did not preclude the authority from passing an order of detention against a person whilst he is in detention or in jail and that it depended upon the circumstances of each case.
S. A. Mahmood, J. of the West Pakistan High Court delivered judgment in the Special Bench in the case of Mst. Nasim Fatima Vs.
Page: 386
Government of West Pakistan and others as reported in P.L.D. 1967 Lahore 103 observed :
“Rule 32 (1) (b) is intended to prevent the commission of prejudicial acts and activities. The power to detain is to be exercised when the Government or authority is satisfied that a person is likely to act in a prejudicial manner. Therefore, in all cases where a person is likely to act prejudicially, a detention order can be made, so long as the officer is satisfied that he is likely to so act. If this is the case, why is it not possible for the detaining authority to make an order of detention if it feels that the person, if released, is likely to act prejudicially? Of course, if a person has been imprisoned for a long term there is no justification for making an order of detention, for he will remain in jail and there will be no possibility of his committing a prejudicial act, but if a person is about to be released can it be said that by his merely being under detention or in jail custody the likelihood of his acting in a prejudicial manner disappears? This is certainly not a legitimate conclusion to draw from his being under detention or being in jail for the short term. The position may however, be different where a person has been in detention for years because in that case locus penitential may be afforded to him and it may be that his long detention may have had the salutary effect of curbing his tendency to commit prejudicial acts. Where, however, a person has been in detention for a short term and the period of detention is expiring, it is in our view open to the competent authority to consider and decide whether his further detention is necessary to prevent him from acting in a prejudicial manner. For arriving at a decision that it is necessary to detain him, the authority is expected to apply its mind carefully to his antecedent history, past conduct and evidence or indication if any of his future activities, which he is likely to indulge in and all the attending circumstances, so as to be satisfied that it is necessary to detain him further. If on an honest and careful application of his mind he arrives at the conclusion that it is necessary to detain him with a view to prevent him from acting in a prejudicial manner then the rule confers on him the power of ordering his detention.
Page: 387
We find ourselves in respectful agreement with the views as expressed therein and it seems to us that the principal test is that of the person being likely to act prejudicially after release and not that of fresh materials.
The detention order dated 29.5.1967 which is the subject matter of this Rule is, therefore, valid.
The common law points and the common facts having been already found unfavourable to the detenu and there is no substance in the grounds as to the intervening gap in the order, this Rule in Miscellaneous Case No, 161 of 1967 is also discharged.
Sd/- A.K.M. Baquer.
Abdul Hakim, J:
I agree.
Sd/- Abdul Hakim.
Page: 388
Abdulla, J.
I am sorry that I have not been able to come to the same conclusions as my learned brothers and as such I am stating my views in this separate judgment.
NO: 11 Judgment of the High Court, Dacca.
dt. 9-8-1967
Miscellaneous Case No. 64 of 1966 and Miscellaneous Case No. 161 of 1967 relate to the detention of the same person Sheikh Mujibur Rahman and were heard together by this Special Bench. The facts leading to the two petitions are as follows:
The detenu was arrested on 9.5.66 pursuant to an order dated 8.5.66 passed under Rule 32 of the Defence of Pakistan Rules by the Deputy Commissioner, Dacca. A number of other Persons were also arrested and detained under the said Rule 32 of the Defence of Pakistan Rules. The detenue along with other detenues filed applications under section 491 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The applications namely Miscellaneous Case Nos. 63, 64, 65, 66, 69 and 70 of 1966 were heard together by a Special Bench of this Court of which I was a member. For reasons stated in Writ Petition No. 247 of 1966 I held that the order of detention passed under Rule 32 was made without lawful authority and as such, I had made the Rule absolute in all the cases. But the majority of my learned brothers held otherwise and the Rules were discharged in accordance with the majority opinion. This detenue preferred an appeal to the Supreme Court with Special leave. The learned Judges of the Supreme Court held that the decision of the majority of the learned judges of the Dacca High Court was contrary to the view taken by the Supreme Court in its recent decision in the case of Malik Golam Jilani and others. The particular view which was contrary to the view of the learned Judges of the Supreme Court was quoted in the Judgment of the Supreme Court in the appeal and it is to the effect that the satisfaction of the detaining authority was subjective satisfaction and it was the sole judge of the fact, namely, as to whether a particular activity of a particular citizen will, in any way, directly or indirectly affect the security or defence of the State or not. It is stated in this judgment of
Page: 389
appeal by the Supreme Court that in the case of Malik Golam Jilani and others Supreme Court had held that even the orders of the executive passed under the Defence of Pakistan Rules are not immune from judicial review. It was for the Courts to be satisfied that reasonable grounds existed upon which the satisfaction of the detaining authority could be grounded and that such grounds were reasonable and within the ambit of the law authorising detention. Having held thus the Supreme Court was pleased to remand the case to the High Court for the re-examination of the validity of the order of detention in the light of the observations of the Supreme Court made in the Case of Malik Golam Jilani and others. It has been directed in the said order that the High Court can and should consider and reach a conclusion as to whether upon the evidence placed before it justification existed for the satisfaction expressed by the Deputy Commissioner. Some other points were agitated before the Supreme Court but as their lordships of the Supreme Court were remanding the case for hearing to the High Court they did not make any further observations on the other points raised on behalf of the appellant and left them to be considered by the High Court in due course.
Although the order of Detention was passed on 8.5.1966 for a period of three months it appears that the detention was continued for a period of three months each by orders dated 3.8.1966, 2.11.1966 and 25.1.1967 and the period of detention for three months by the last order dated 25.1.1967 was to expire on 3rd of May, 1967. It is claimed by the detaining authority that before the expiry of the last order the detenue was convicted on 27.4.1967 in a criminal case and was sentenced to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of 15 months and the detenu remained in Jail on the basis of the said order of conviction and sentence and was directed to be released on bail by an order of the District Judge of Dacca on 1.6.1967. It is claimed that the detaining authority being satisfied that it was necessary to pass an order under Rule 32(1)b of the Defence of Pakistan Rules, 1965, with a view to preventing the detenu from acting in a manner prejudicial to the public safety and the
Page: 390
maintenance of public order, the maintenance of the peaceful conditions in the country and the maintenance of essential supply and service made another order on 29th May, 1967 directing the detenu to be detained for a period of three months from the date of service of the order which was served on the detenu on 1.6.1967 in the Dacca Central Jail. The detenu thereafter moved this Court and obtained another Rule which is Miscellaneous Case No. 161 of 1967. This Miscellaneous Case No. 161 of 1967 was directed to be heard along with the Miscellaneous Case No. 64 of 1966 which had been sent back by the Supreme Court.
When these applications were taken up for consideration in light of the observations of the Supreme Court the learned Advocate General wanted to place the materials before this Court as had been the previous practice. When considering the grounds of detention which was held to be based on the subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority this Court had looked into some of this record to which the detenu was not allowed to reply.
The Court had, therefore, to come to a conclusion that there are materials for satisfaction of the detaining authority on a unilateral examination of the said materials, a procedure not prescribed by any law. If the Government claims to privilege and if the Court finds that the Government is entitled to claim the privilege then the matter cannot be considered by the Court at all. However, the practice had grown up due to the courtesy of the Government Law Officers and the detaining authorities who in order to show to the Court their bona fides has placed those materials for the perusal of the Court alone although they were not bound to do so under the law. Although the adjudication itself based on such unilateral examination of documents might not be justified in law this practice was adopted by the Court in the interest of the detenu himself. But after the judgment of the Supreme Court in Malik Jilani’s Case which has categorically laid down that actions by authorities under Rule 32 like all other actions relatable to the power delineated in clause X of Section 3(2) of the Ordinance are susceptible of judicial review subject only to the right of the state to claim privilege in respect of secret
Page: 391
information and the Court’s power to hold proceedings in Camera, it was felt that such unilateral examination of the documents would not be justified. Actions of the detaining authority having been thrown open to judicial review it was felt that the detenu should be allowed to reply to the allegations made by the detaining authority subject to the claim of any privilege by the State or subject to any request by the State to hold off the proceedings in Camera. There upon the learned Advocate General proposed to file a further affidavit giving the materials on which the detaining authority had passed its order of detention and proposed to serve a copy on the learned Advocate of the detenu on condition that the learned Advocates on behalf of the detenu and the detenu gave an undertaking that the matters placed in the affidavit should be kept secret and the court should hold its sitting in Cameral while this supplementary affidavit and the affidavit in reply were placed. The Court accordingly gave the necessary directions. The learned Advocate General filed a supplementary affidavit which was, incidentally affirmed by a Section Officer disclosing the materials on which the detaining authority had made up its mind. The detenu also filed an affidavit in reply. The learned Advocate General claimed the privilege under Section 123 of the Evidence Act on grounds of public policy with respect to the documents mentioned in the supplementary affidavit in paragraph 3-5. 13-16, 21-24 only. Although privilege was not claimed with respect to the statements made in the other paragraphs of the supplementary affidavit but as the learned Advocate General had prayed for discussion of the supplementary affidavit and the affidavit in reply in camera it would not be proper to discuss fully in details the matters covered by the said affidavit as, in my opinion, our judgment being a public document, it may be prejudicial to the detaining authorities to discuss those materials in detail.
I shall now proceed to discuss matters placed in the said supplementary affidavit in light of my observation made above. Paragraph 2 of the said affidavit is a general observation as to the character of the detenu who is described as a great political agitator
Page: 392
suggesting violent means to achieve his objective and it is stated that for his subversive, prejudicial and anti-state activities he had been detained several times under the public safety Ordinance since 1948. The learned Advocate General failed to produce any paper substantiating this allegation. On the other hand, the detenu claims in the affidavit in reply that the detenu never resorted to any means which can be termed as violent and he always advocates peaceful and constitutional method in the interest of Pakistan as a whole and asserts that he was put into detention by way of political victimisation. It is claimed on behalf of the detenu that he was an active member of the Muslim League up to 1949 and actively participated in all activities in achieving Pakistan. He was Council member of the Bengal Provincial Muslim League since 1943. He attended all India Muslim League Council Session in Delhi in 1943, All India Muslim League convention in 1946 in Delhi and worked in several By-elections on behalf of the Muslim League and worked in Sylhet in 1947 during the referendum. As regards his activities after partition it is claimed on behalf of the detenu that he was a member of the Provincial Assembly in 1954 and was elected a member of the National Assembly in 1955 and he was a Minister of the in Provincial Cabinet in 1954 and in 1956, and in 1957.
As regards the allegation made in paragraph 3 which is an alleged incident of 1960 the detenu denies completely the allegation made.
Paragraph 4 relates to an incident of 1963 and is denied by the detenu. No action was taken against the detenu for the alleged incidents.
With respect to the allegation made in paragraph 5, it is claimed by the detenu that autonomy was claimed not for East Pakistan alone but also for West Pakistan. The detenu claims that he and his party, Awami League advocates complete Provincial autonomy for the whole of Pakistan. It is stated that the autonomy which the detenu advocates and always advocated is for an integrated and strong Pakistan on the basis of autonomy to be enjoyed by both East and West Pakistan equally.
Page: 393
With respect to the allegation in paragraph 6, the detenu denied the allegations and the speech produced by the learned Advocate General in support of the allegation does not contain any such incitement by the detenu. This has reference to a speech alleged to have been made by detenu on 30.4.64.
With respect to the allegation made in paragraph 7 the supplementary affidavit is categorically denied by the detenu and it is claimed that he merely indicated that foreign loans should not be taken sacrificing the sovereignty of Pakistan. No report of the alleged speech made on 17.4.64 was produced excepting the confidential report which does not bear out the allegation made in the supplementary affidavit.
With respect to the allegation in paragraph 8, the detenu has stated that he had said in his speech that the Government should have taken stronger measures for suppressing the communal riot. It is admitted by the learned Advocate General that this was a criticism of the policy of the Government
With regard to the allegation made in paragraph 9, the detenu denies to have made any such statement and the speech produced by the learned Advocate General does not support the allegation made in the said paragraph.
The incidents mentioned in paragraph 3 to paragraph 9 relate to a period from 1960 to 1964. It has been argued on behalf of the detenu that no action under the Public Safety Ordinance was taken for the speeches or activities mentioned in the said paragraph. It is claimed that the speeches reflected only a fiar criticism of the policies and actions of the Government and was intended to remove the disparity between the two wings of Pakistan which disparity has been recognised by the present Constitution itself. It must be taken into consideration that the public safety Ordinance was in force at the time the alleged prejudicial activities were indulged in by the detenu and it must also be taken into
Page: 394
consideration that the detenu was not put under preventive detention by the Government at that time. From a perusal of the above paragraphs of the supplementary affidavit and the affidavit in reply, it is clear that the petitioner was a prominent political leader and a prominent member of the opposition party. Viewed in this background the activities would appear to be normal, considering that the Government refrained from exercising the power under the Public Safety Ordinance against the detenu during the relevant period.
Paragraph 10 and 11 of the supplementary affidavit is merely a statement of the incidents leading to the proclamation of emergency and due to the dastardly and unprovoked invasion of Pakistan territory by India.
In paragraph 12 it is stated that within a week of the cease-fire the detenu started acting in a prejudicial manner by promoting a feeling of hatred and contempt between the citizens of East and West Pakistan and bringing into hatred or contempt and exciting disaffection towards the Government established by law by addressing public meeting throughout the province of East Pakistan. The detenu in paragraphs 10 and 11 of the affidavit in reply has clearly stated that he along with his party rendered full support to the Government during the War. That he was the first amongst the political leaders to issue the statement condemning the Indian aggression in Pakistan and the statement was broadcast from the Radio Pakistan, Dacca for several days and he issued circulars to all members of his party in East Pakistan to co-operate with the Government in its war efforts. The circular in question has been annexed as Annexure A to the affidavit in reply.
With regard to paragraph 12 of the supplementary affidavit, the detenu gives a complete denial.
With regard to paragraph 13 of the supplementary affidavit, the detenu gives a complete denial and states that it was he who moved the
Page: 395
resolution passed by the party condemning the Indian aggression and the said resolution has been marked as Annexure B to the petition. In the light of the statement made in the affidavit in reply that he was the first political leader who issued a statement condemning the Indian aggression which was broadcast by Radio Pakistan itself which was not denied by the Advocate General and in view of the resolutions, annexures A and B, the allegations made in paragraph 13 of the petition seem to be mere concoction.
With regard to the statement made in paragraph 14 the allegation is denied by the detenu and in view of the open speeches made by him referred to in the later paragraphs of the supplementary affidavits it seems hardly possible that he would make such statements in secret.
With regard to the statement made in paragraph 15, the detenu denies the allegation and the document produced by the learned Advocate General does not substantiate the allegation at all. All the more so as the detenu had openly supported the Tashkent Declaration. In support of the fact that the detenu supported the Tashkent Declaration, the learned Advocate on behalf of the detenu pointed to the statement made in paragraph 20 of the supplementary affidavit where the Government itself acknowledged that the detenu left the Lahore Conference and severed all connections with the said Conference and its resolutions. He has stated that the detenu openly supported the Tashkent Declaration and in support of that he produced a press cutting in which it is stated that the detenu before departure from Lahore Conference has stated that he would boycott the Lahore Conference of any resolution was adopted against the Tashkent Declaration.
Paragraph 16 to 33 are allegations based on speeches made by the detenu in different meetings all over the Province which the detenu addressed in support of his Six Points programme. The detenu has admitted that he did deliver the speeches but he never suggested any violent means to be adopted for obtaining the said objectives of the six
Page: 396
points programme formulated by him. The learned Advocate General has produced before us the relevant speeches and I have not been able to find anywhere in the speeches any incitement to violence. The Six Points programme were formulated by him. The Six Point programme themselves has been adjudicated by a Division Bench of this Court in Miscellaneous Case No. 95 of 1966 (Syed Fazlul Haque on behalf of the detenu Abdul Aziz Vs. The Government of East Pakistan represented by Secretary, Home Department & others). My learned brother Mr. Justice Baquer and Mr. Justice Abdul Hakim have held indulging in Six Points programme is no offense. In that case, the Government had contended in paragraph 19 of the affidavit in opposition as follows:
“That the statements made in paragraph 20 of the petition are not correct. It is stated that the detenu was legally detained for his indulging in a prejudicial six point programme which seeks to create a parochial feeling among different sections of people. The activities of the detenu were prejudicial to public safety, maintenance of public order, maintenance of peaceful condition and maintenance of supply and services in the country.”
My learned brothers accepted the contention of Mr. Abdus Salam Khan that neither the Supreme Court nor the High Court has ever stated that the Six-Point programme by itself is a prejudicial act and that is the position the detaining authority was wrong in treating “indulging in SixPoint programme as a prejudicial act” by itself. My learned brothers held there is no offence as “indulging in prejudicial Six-Point programme” and they went on to hold that the detaining authority was under the obsession that taking part in Six-Point programme was by itself sufficient for detention. Ultimately my learned brothers made the Rule absolute in that case.
It further appears that Awami League is a political party functioning in the country. It has admittedly adopted the Six Point programme as a political platform. The basic idea of the Six Point programme seems to
Page: 397
be to give complete Provincial Autonomy to both the wings of Pakistan in accordance with the Lahore Resolution of 1940. Admittedly no steps have been taken by the Government to refer either the Six Points programme or the activities of the party under section 6 of the Political Parties Act, to the Supreme Court. In these circumstances, the detenu who is the president of the party could not be said to have indulged in prejudicial activities in his attempt to project the Six Points programme to the people. It has been argued on behalf of the Government that these speeches created parochialism and the detenu advocated full Provincial Autonomy for East Pakistan so that it could manage its own affairs independent of West Pakistan and thus it was urged the detenu was advocating secession of East Pakistan from West Pakistan, thus lending to the disintegration of Pakistan. I have carefully read these speeches and I have been unable to find any such indication. It appears that the detenu felt aggrieved by the rejection of his Six Points programme even by the parties in opposition in West Pakistan and as such he has endeavoured to convince the West Pakistani brethren regarding the in equal treatment alleged to have been given to East Pakistan. He has pointed out that East Pakistanis conceded parity in the representation to the National Assembly by conceding their majority. He has also pointed out some other facts showing the concessions made by East Pakistan in favour of West Pakistan. He has urged that West Pakistanis should reciprocate. He advocated full Provincial Autonomy for both wings of Pakistan and has pressed the need of East Pakistan as more acute in view of the experience of the last September War. The whole purport of the speeches was not to create hatred or contempt either against West Pakistan is or the Government but to point out the acute need of full Provincial autonomy for East Pakistan in the background of the experience of the last War. It is true that the language is often emphatic but it is nothing beyond what occurs in every political speech advocating a particular cause. I do not want to enter into the details of the speeches but the interpretation made by the Government of these speeches are not reasonable and it supports the contention that the speeches were interpreted in a manner which would indicate that the Government intended to stop the project of the
Page: 398
Six Points programme by the Awamy League without proceeding under the Political Parties Act.
In paragraph 34 is an allegation regarding an interview with a Foreign Press Correspondent based on a news item which was published in a foreign newspaper on materials received from another foreign newspaper. The learned Advocate General produced the newspaper in question but the headlines and comment of the correspondent of the second foreign newspaper did not tally with the report and it does not at all support the allegation made in the said paragraph 34.
With regard to paragraph 37 privileges was claimed but in the background of the detenu’s political career, the allegation seems to have no substance.
In paragraph 38 a reference has been made to 12 cases which has been started against the detenu. The learned Advocate General has placed a list of these cases. From the said list it appears that the first 5 cases were started in 1964. All these cases are subjudice and I do not want to make any comment excepting that they relate to the period prior to an emergency. Of the remaining 7 cases, 4 were covered by paragraphs 26, 27/29 and 23 of the supplementary affidavit. Of these cases the case started on the speech referred to in paragraph 27, a conviction has been made under rule 47(5) of Defence of Pakistan Rules ’65 and the detenu was sentenced to 15 months simple imprisonment and on appeal obtained the bail order already referred to from the District and Sessions Judge, Dacca. As such these cases are also subjudice and I do not want to make any comment on them.
It has been argued on behalf of the Government that the starting of so many specific cases would show that the detaining authority was reasonably satisfied that the detenu was a person who was acting, or likely to commit prejudicial acts as defined in the Defence of Pakistan Rules. Of the 7 cases after the September War, only one relates to a
Page: 399
speech made in Dacca within the jurisdiction of detaining authority. All the other speeches after the September War out of which specific cases have been started was made in different parts of the province beyond the jurisdiction of the Deputy Commissioner, Dacca, who is the detaining authority. In the gist of the case given in the second column of the list supplied by the learned Advocate General it is stated as follows:
“It is case for delivering prejudicial speech in a meeting held at Dacca Stadium on 20.3.66, explaining the 6-point demands and criticising present regime for alleged denial of fundamental and democratic rights to the people intending thereby to promote feelings of enmity and hatred between different classes of citizens of Pakistan and to cause fear and alarm to the public etc.”
From the above it appears that the statement that the detenu intended to promote feeling of enmity and hatred between different classes of citizens of Pakistan and cause fear and alarm to the public was a mere inference arrived at by the detaining authority from the speech which is stated to have been made explaining Six Point programme and criticising the present regime for alleged denial of fundamental and democratic right to the people. Be that as it may, this single speech cannot be held to have satisfied a reasonable man that the detenu was about to or likely to commit prejudicial acts.
It may be argued that the 5 cases namely, case Nos. 1-5 which were all based on incidents prior to 1964 were also before the detaining authority as they relate to the district of Dacca. I have already stated that no order of preventive detention was made on the detenu prior to the order dated 8.5.66 which shows that the detaining authority had not thought those activities sufficient for any preventive detention.
The learned Advocate General placed before us the relevant papers with respect to the 8 other cases not specifically covered in his
Page: 400
supplementary affidavit. Of the 12 eases 5 as already stated related to a period prior to 1965 in which there was one acquittal and one conviction. Appeals against those orders are pending. The other cases as per the gist of cases submitted by the learned Advocate General are based on speeches of the same nature as are covered by paragraphs 26, 27, 29 and 23. I, therefore, did not look at the records of those cases.
All the more so as the records not have been placed during the hearing in Camera before the Court we did not have the advantage of hearing the replies on behalf of the detenu.
These are all the materials which have been placed before us: on a dispassionate examination of the materials, these conclusions arise: Firstly materials show that the detenu is a prominent political leader and president of a political party-in-opposition. The detenu in such capacity has criticised the policy of the Government whenever the occasion arose and after the September War had started an extensive campaign to mobilise public opinion in favour of the Six-Points programme which aims at giving full provincial autonomy to the Province. There is no incitement to violence in any of the speeches. No violence is reported to have been committed by anybody pursuant to any speech. Considering all the circumstances it cannot be said that the detenu could be found to have committed or likely to commit any prejudicial Act as defined in the D.P.R. and as such the order under rule 32 D.P.R. passed by the Deputy Commissioner Dacca on 8.5.66 was without lawful authority as also the subsequent orders continuing the detention up to 3.5.67. I would, therefore, make the Rule absolute in Misc. Case No. 64 of 1967. Secondly, it must be held that we have actually no materials before us which can be said to have satisfied the detaining authority himself. In the order of remand, the Supreme Court has held that the order of detention itself disclosed no ground. No ground has been placed on behalf of the detaining authority even after the order of remand. The materials which have been placed before us in the supplementary affidavit dated 29th July, 1967 has been placed by a Section Officer of the Government of East Pakistan, Home
Page: 401
Department, Dacca. Neither the Section officer nor the Government of East Pakistan is the detaining authority. Therefore it has been rightly argued on behalf of the detenu that the detaining authority has placed before us no materials from which it can be adjudicated whether the detaining authority had reasonable grounds for making the order. I am not satisfied that the detaining authority had any materials before him which could form the basis of his order. It must be remembered that the order in question has been purported to be exercised by the power conferred by Clause B Sub-rule 1 of rule 32 of the Defence of Pakistan Rules, 1965 delegated by the Government of East Pakistan Notification No. 115-Poll. (II) dated 13.9.65 to the Deputy Commissioner as stated by him in the order itself. Therefore it was for the Deputy Commissioner himself to be satisfied with the materials before him. By the said notification the East Pakistan Government had delegated the power to make the order under Rule 32 (1)(b) but the satisfaction of the Government had not been delegated as it could not be. The order is the order of the Deputy Commissioner and the satisfaction on reasonable grounds must also be his. But, as I have already stated, the Supreme Court has held that the order did not disclose any ground for the satisfaction and even after remand the Deputy Commissioner himself has not filed any affidavit showing what grounds he had considered when passing the order of detention. The supplementary affidavit filed by the Section officer relates to incidents ranging from 1960 and covers all over the province. It has not been shown how the Deputy Commissioner who passed the order could consider all those materials which relate to a period when he might not have been the Deputy Commissioner of Dacca and when the incidents relate to areas outside his jurisdiction as Deputy Commissioner of Dacca.
On this ground also I would make the Rule absolute in Miscellaneous Case No. 64 of 1966.
So far as the Miscellaneous Case No. 161 of 1967 is concerned the order is exactly in the same wordings as that the order of 8″ of May, 1966. The only difference is that this order has been made on 29th May,
Page: 402
1967 by Mr. M. K. Anwar, Deputy Commissioner of Dacca whereas the order dated 8.5.1966 was made by Mr. P. A. Nazir. In fact, so far as Mr. Anwar is concerned there cannot be any other material which would enable him to come to any conclusion regarding the activities of the detenu. Obviously, Mr. Anwar had taken charge after Mr. Nazir and it is an admitted fact that the detenu was continuously in jail since the order dated 8.5.1966 made by Mr. P. A. Nazir. It has not been alleged anywhere either in the counter affidavit filed by Mr. Anwar or in court by the learned Advocate General that the petitioner did anything during the period of detention in jail which would lead any reasonable man to conclude that the detenu would indulge in any prejudicial activities. If it is contended by the Government that Mr. Anwar in his official capacity as successor in office to Mr. Nazir could pass the said order of detention on the same materials which had induced Mr. Nazir to make the order, I would hold first that there is absence of any material to show that there are reasonable grounds for Mr. Anwar the present Deputy Commissioner to base the order of detention as I have already held in Miscellaneous Case No. 64 of 1966; secondly, I would hold that the satisfaction must be that of Mr. Anwar himself and he cannot depend on the satisfaction of his predecessor-in-office to make the order. He has himself said in the order that he was satisfied and that he was exercising the powers conferred by Clause b Sub-rule (1) of Rule 32 of Defence of Pakistan Rules as delegated to him by the Government of East Pakistan by Notification No. 115-Poll. (II) dated 13.9.1965. The order clearly shows that it is an independent order made independently by Mr. Anwar in the exercise of his on delegated powers. But no materials have been placed before us from which Mr. Anwar could have derived his satisfaction and as such his order has been made without lawful authority. In this view of the matter, I also make this Rule absolute.
Before I leave this aspect of the case that is the examination of the materials on which the order of detention was made I would like to observe that the original order of detention dated 8.5.1966 made by
Page: 403
Mr. P.A. Nazir was only for three months. Mr. Nazir himself continued the detention by successive orders which ultimately expired on 3.5.1967. Therefore on 3.5.1967 the original detention under the Defence of Pakistan Rules had come to an end. In this connection, an argument was advanced by Mr. Abdus Salam Khan that there is no authority in law for making successive orders under the Defence of Pakistan Rules. But the alternative would be making an indefinite order which, in my opinion, would be to the detriment of the citizens. In my opinion, it would be far better for the citizens to submit to successive orders extending the original period of detention than to have an indefinite period of detention. In holding this view I am not unaware of the argument that before the order of detention is passed continuing a previous order of detention the detaining authority cannot have any new materials for deducing prejudicial activities of the detenu for the simple reason that the detenu was in jail. But the wordings of the Ordinance and of the Rules enable the authorities to pass an order if they are satisfied with materials that the detenu is likely to act in a prejudicial manner. Hence it cannot be said that successive orders cannot in law be made. It is true that the circumstances will have to be very convincing before an order continuing detention is made. The original estimate of the requirement of the period of preventive detention may have been faulty or may have to be modified due to the circumstances not known to the detaining authority at the time of making the first detention order.
Be that as it may, the first detention order, however, continued, expired on 3rd May, 1967. In that view of the matter the Rule in Misc. Case No. 64 of 1966 would have become infructuous. But this Court has dealt with this Rule namely, Miscellaneous Case No. 64 of 1966 on the same reason as appealed to the Supreme Court when dealing with the case of the detenu in Malik Jilani’s case where appeals had become infructuous as the detenu had already been released. So far as Miscellaneous Case No. 161 of 1967 is concerned, as I have pointed out, it was a fresh order of detention and I have dealt with the order as such and given my reasons for making the Rule absolute.
Page: 404
I will now take up the other points raised before us as directed by the Supreme Court.
In this category, the first question of importance that arises is whether the order which was made under rule 32 of the Defence of Pakistan Rules was relatable to the emergency as declared by the President on 6th September, 1965. It is precisely on this point that the Supreme Court has been pleased to set aside the order of the majority judgment. As quoted by the Supreme Court the majority judgment had held “as to whether a particular activity of a particular citizen will, in any way, directly or indirectly affect the security or defence of the State or not ” was the subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority who was the sole judge of the fact. The learned Judges constituting the majority were considering the argument, at this stage, advanced for the petitioner before them as well as in writ petition No. 247 of 1966 that the reasons for which the petitioner had been detained is not relatable to the defence or security of Pakistan the proper law to be applied in these cases was the preventive Detention Ordinance, 1958 and not the Defence of Pakistan Rules. The Supreme Court has held that the learned Judges constituting the majority were also of the view that for a Court to go behind this question would amount to substituting its mind for that of the executive without being in possession of facts and also not being authorised by law to do it. Both these views were held by the Supreme Court to be contrary to the view taken by the Supreme Court in the recent decision in the case of Malik Golam Jilani and others wherein it had been held that even the orders of executive passed under the Defence of Pakistan Rules are not immune from judicial review. The Supreme Court has held in the order passed in an appeal that it is for the Courts to be satisfied not only that reasonable grounds existed upon which the satisfaction of the detaining authority could be granted but also that such grounds were reasonable and within the ambit of the law authorising the detention. The order of detention, in this case, has been made under rule 32 of the Defence of Pakistan Rules. The Defence of Pakistan Rules has been framed under the Defence of Pakistan Ordinance. The Defence of Pakistan Ordinance
Page: 405
was made to provide for special measures to ensure the security, public safety and interest and the defence of Pakistan and for the trial of certain offences. As stated in its preamble the power exercised by the President is the power conferred on him by Clause 4 of Article 30 of the Constitution read with Clause 2 of Article 131 thereof. As also stated in the preamble the occasion for promulgating the ordinance is the immediate necessity for legislation to meet the emergency declared under Clause 1 of Article 30 of the Constitution as also stated in the preamble. The proclamation of emergency reads as follows:
“Whereas the President is satisfied that a grave emergency exists in which Pakistan is in imminent danger of being threatened by war;
Now, therefore, in the exercise of the powers conferred by Clause (1) of Article 30 of the Constitution, the President is pleased hereby to issue this Proclamation of Emergency.”
Article 30(1) reads as follows: 30-(1) If the president is satisfied that a grave emergency exists
(a) in which Pakistan, or any part of Pakistan, is (or is in imminent danger of being) threatened by war or external aggression; or (b) in which the security or economic life of Pakistan is threatened by internal disturbances beyond the power of a Provincial Government to control the President may issue a Proclamation of Emergency.
Reading the Proclamation of Emergency in the light of provisions of Article 30 of the Constitution it is clear that the Proclamation of emergency was made by the President as he was satisfied that the conditions prescribed in Article 30(1)(a) had made it necessary. In the Proclamation there is no reference to the condition required under Article 30(1)(b) of the Constitution. The emergency may arise under the later provision if the security of the economic life of Pakistan is threatened by internal disturbances beyond the power of Provincial Government to
Page: 406
control. It is nobody’s case that on 6th of September, 1965 when the Proclamation of Emergency was made at any time thereafter the security or economic life of Pakistan was threatened by internal disturbances and such internal disturbances were beyond the power of Provincial Government to control. Such being the case the legislation which Article 30(4) enables the President to make must-have reference only to the emergency created by the threat of war. Article 30(4) reads as follows:
30(4). If, at a time when a Proclamation of Emergency is in force (whether or not the National Assembly stands dissolved or is in session at that time), the President is satisfied that immediate legislation is necessary to assist in meeting the emergency that gave rise to the issue of the Proclamation, he may subject to this Article, make and promulgate such Ordinance shall, subject to this Article, have the same force of law as an Act of the Central Legislature.”
The sentences “the President is satisfied that immediate legislation is necessary to assist in meeting the emergency that gave rise to the issue of Proclamation” clearly indicates the scope of the legislative power of the President under Article 30(4).
In my opinion, the legislation must have reference to something relating to the threat of war and the special measures as referred to in the preamble must also be relatable to the emergency proclaimed by the President. This is also all the more clear as the President in promulgating the Defence of Pakistan Rules of 1965 did not repeal the East Pakistan Public Safety Ordinance which covers the field indicated by Section 3(2) X of the Defence of Pakistan Ordinance. The powers under the Rules which have been framed for dealing with matters covered by matters enumerated in section 3(2)X of the Ordinance are also to be found in the East Pakistan Public Safety Ordinance, 1958, which covers the same field excepting the power under Rule 32(1)(a). Therefore, for any action taken under Rule 32 the detaining authority must be satisfied that it is necessary to apply the said rule 32 in order to carry out the object of the
Page: 407
legislation namely the Defence of Pakistan Ordinance of 1965. In short, the prejudicial activities must be shown to be relatable to the threat of war; that is, the activities must be deemed to either retard the prosecution of the war or to impair the defence of Pakistan. The two legislations namely the Defence of Pakistan Rules and the Public Safety Ordinance deal with the same subject and the authorities can exercise their power under both the legislations as both are co-existent but in choosing which law is to be resorted to the authorities must consider whether the actions sought to be corrected or prevented is relatable to the object of the legislation. Neither in the order itself nor in the supplementary affidavit nor in materials produced by the learned Advocate General is there any indication that the order of detention was passed because the detenu was hampering the prosecution of the war of the defence of Pakistan. In the counter affidavit filed in Writ Petition No. 64 in paragraph 23 it is stated “when there are two acts covering the field, the authority is the best Judge to apply the provisions of the one or the other, which is permissible in law.” But the Supreme Court has directed us to find out whether the order was within the ambit of the law authorising the detention. Examined from this point of view the order is not one which could have been made under rule 32 of the Defence of Pakistan Rules. The provisions of Public Safety Ordinance of 1958 were applicable and adequate even if the act attributed to the detenu could be taken as prejudicial acts. If actions had been taken under the said Ordinance namely the East Pakistan Public Safety Ordinance of 1958 then the detenu could have had the right of his case being reviewed by the Board set up under the said Ordinance under section 19(B).
In Maxwell’s Interpretation of Statutes 11th Edition in page 117 it is laid down:
“Where, as in a multitude of Acts, something is left to be done according to the discretion of the authority on whom the power of doing it is conferred, the discretion must be exercised honestly and in the spirit of the statute,” According to his discretion” means, it has been said, according to the rules of reason and justice, not private opinion,
Page: 408
according to law and not humour, it is to be, not arbitrary, vague and fanciful, but legal and regular; to be exercised, not capriciously, but on judicial grounds and for substantial reasons and it must be exercised within the limits to which an honest man competent to the discharge of his office ought to confine himself, that is within the limits and for the objects intended by the legislature.”
Again it has been laid down at page 116:
“Enactments which confer powers are so construed as to meet all attempts to abuse them, either by exercising them in cases not intended by the statute, or by refusing to exercise them the occasion for their exercise has arisen. Though the act was ostensibly in the execution of the statutory power and within its letter, it would nevertheless be held not to come within the power if done otherwise than honestly and in the spirit of the enactment.”
Here even if the authorities are accepted to have the discretion to use either of the two enactments the authorities should have resorted to the less stringent measure namely the Public Safety Ordinance. I find the support of this principle in section 15 of the Defence of Pakistan Ordinance itself where the President has laid down that ordinary avocation of life is to be interfered with as little as possible. Ordinarily, even accepting that the detenu was indulging in prejudicial acts, the ordinary law of the land namely the Public Safety Ordinance was quite sufficient to meet with the situation. The resort to the Defence of Pakistan Rules was therefore illegal. I have expressed the same view already in Writ Petition No. 247 of 1966. In this case, also, I had made the rule absolute in the first Special Bench on this ground. I see no reason to differ from my previous view and on this ground also I would hold that the order of detention in both the cases were made without lawful authority.
The learned Advocate General had argued that the materials placed before us would show that the detenu was creating contempt or hatred of the Government set up by law. The order of detention itself,
Page: 409
however, in both cases, does not disclose this. It is stated in the said order that the detenu “is reported to have acted and likely to act in a manner prejudicial to the public safety and the maintenance of public order, maintenance of peaceful conditions in the country, maintenance of essential supplies and service.” I do not, therefore, see any basis for the argument of the learned Advocate General. He has referred to some of the speeches and said that certain passages promoted the feeling of hatred against the Government. But the nature of criticism of Government actions which can be said to amount to a feeling of hatred against the Government has been discussed at length in the Special Bench case of the Dacca Times reported in 17 D.L.R. page 498 (Tofazzal Hossain Petitioner, Motahar Hossain Siddiqui Petitioner Vs. Province of East Pakistan and others … Respondents.) where the majority of the Judges constituting the Special Bench has indicated what amounts to bringing the Government established by law into hatred or contempt. Their lordships have further laid down” it is an accepted principle that while construing of offending publication, the same should be considered as a whole in fair, free and liberal spirit, without laying stress or emphasis on strong or irrigating words used here and there; the matter should be viewed in its proper perspective, along with the surrounding circumstances.” Viewed in this light the said passages in the speeches cannot be deemed to have produced any feeling of hatred or contempt against the Government established by law.
The learned Advocate General lastly argued that section 16 of the Ordinance bars the powers of this Court to enquire into the validity of any order made under the Defence of Pakistan Ordinance or the Rules. The same argument was made before the Privy Council in the case in the case of Emperor V. Vimlabai Deshpande reported in A.I.R. 1946 Privy Council page 123, the Counsel on behalf of the Government Mr. Meckenna relied on section 16 Sub-Section (1) Of the Defence of India Act, 1939 which provided, “no order made in exercise of any power conferred by or under this Act shall be called in question in any Court,” Their lordships of the Privy Council held that if the order made by the
Page: 410
police or the Provincial Government were invalid they were not made in exercise of a power conferred by the Act. I respectfully follow the said dictum of the Privy Council and as I have held that the orders of detention were illegally made they cannot be deemed to be orders under the Defence of Pakistan Ordinance or Rules there under.
In the circumstances and for the reasons stated above I make the Rule absolute in both the cases and direct the detenu to be released forthwith.
Sd/- Abu Md. Abdulla.
PRESENT
Mr. Justice Baquer
Mr. Justice Abdulla
&
Mr. Justice Abdul Hakim.
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS CASES NOS. 64/1966 & 161/1967.
(Special Bench)
The 9th of August, 1967
Order of the Court.
In accordance with the majority view, the Rules stand discharged.
Certificate for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court as prayed for by Mr. Salam Khan for the petitioner in both the cases is granted.
Sd/- A.K.M. Baquer.
Sd/-Abu Md. Abdulla.
Sd/- A. Hakim.
Page: 411
No: 12 PETITION OF APPEAL TO THE SUPREME COURT
NO. 12
Petition of Appeal to the Supreme Court,
dt. 8.9.67.
DT. 8.9.1967
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PAKISTAN
(Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction)
Criminal Appeal No. 20-D of 1967
In the matter of
A petition of Appeal under Article 58 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan
AND
In the matter of
The judgment and order dated the 9th August, 1967 in Criminal Miscellaneous cases Nos. 64 of 1966 and 161 of 1967
AND
In the matter of
Shaikh Akram Hossain son of Shaik Mahfuzul Haque of 667 of Dhanmondi Residential Area, Dacca.
………….. Appellant.
-Versus
The Government of East Pakistan represented by the Secretary, Home Department, Eden Buildings,
Dacca-2.
2. The Deputy Commissioner, Dacca.
Page: 413
3. The Deputy Inspector General of Prison and Superintendent, Dacca Central Jail, Dacca.
….Respondents.
To
Mr. Justice A.R. Cornelius, the Chief Justice and his companion Justices of the Supreme Court of Pakistan.
The Humble petition of the appellant above-named most respectfully
SHEWETH:
1. That the petitioner is a citizen of Pakistan and is a citizen of Pakistan and is a relation of the detenu.
2. That the detenu Mr. Sk. Mujibur Rahman is the President of East Pakistan Awami League, which is a popular all Pakistan Political party legally functioning in Pakistan as a Powerful Opposition to the present Political Party in Power namely, the Pakistan Muslim League (Convention Group), hereinafter referred to as Muslim League.
3. That the said detenu had acted as the Secretary of the said Political Organisation for about 12 years and was elected as a Member of the Provincial Assembly in 1964 and also elected to the National Assembly of Pakistan in 1955. He was also a Minister in the Cabinet of Mr. Ataur Rahman Khan which was formed in 1956 and held the Portfolios of Commerce, Labor and Industry.
4. That the said detenu actively and untiringly worked for achieving Pakistan and his contribution in achieving Pakistan is widely appreciated and acknowledged.
Page: 414
5. That the said detenu has also been regarded by a large section of people as a great constitutional agitator in ventilating public grievances but in doing so he has always been a law-abiding citizen and never resorted to any unlawful and anti-state activities.
6. That recently the detenu formulated a Six-Point programme and got it approved by his party and has projected the said Six-Point programme before the people of Pakistan for amending the Constitution of Pakistan in the light and this Six-Point programme also envisages full and proper economic development of the country as a whole with special reference to East Pakistan and provides for a solution of the economic disparity between East Pakistan and West Pakistan.
7. That on the basis of the said Six-Point programme the detenu has launched a constitutional movement in Pakistan for achieving its objective and had been addressing public meeting in various part of East Pakistan and had been explaining the meaning and purpose of Six-Point programme and the necessity of amending constitution in the light of the said programme and it has received so for the widest support from the people.
8. That in all public meetings and discussions with the workers of his party and people the detenu always stressed that the movement for realising Six-Point Programme must be peaceful, constitutional and democratic. His sole purpose was to create public opinion in support of the said programme in a peaceful and constitutional method.
9. That the said fact would be evident from the fact that in April, 1966 Mr. Zulfiqur Ali Bhutto the then Foreign Minister of Pakistan wanted to have public debate on the Six-point Programme and on getting information about it, the detenu accepted the proposal and threw a challenge that if in any public debate he cannot get majority support of the people, he and his party will not propagate Six-Point Programme anywhere but since Mr. Bhutto did not agree to come to such a debate, it
Page: 415
was not held and it is submitted that this shows that the detenu wants to realise the objective of Six-Point Programme in a peaceful manner.
10. That on 8.5.66 a police party presumably headed by an Additional Superintendent of Police, Dacca made a mid-night raid upon the detenu’s residence at Dhanmondi Residential Area, P.S. Lalbagh, Dacca apprehended the detenu and served upon him an order under clause (b) of Sub-rule 1 of Rule 32 of the Defence of Pakistan Rules, 1965 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules) under the purported signature of the Deputy Commissioner, Dacca dated 8.5.66.
11. That after the arrest the detenu was taken to Dacca Central Jail and is being detained there.
12. That the aforesaid order of detention of the detenu was purported to be for 90, days and commenced from the date of service of the said order and the said order of detention was extended from time to time by serving orders for a period of 3 months.
13. That the detention of the detenu was challenged by an application under section 491 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and a Special Bench of the High Court presided over by Mr. Justice B.A. Siddiky held by majority judgment and order dated the 9th August, 1966 that the detention of detenu was under a valid order and thereafter an appeal was preferred to this Hon’ble Court on behalf of the detenu, and this Hon’ble Court was pleased to accept the appeal and remand the case to the High Court for re-hearing.
14. That the last order extending the period of detention under the Rules was issued on 25th January, 1967 which was served on him on 4.2.67. But on the expiry of the above order dated 25th January, 1967 no further order extending his detention was served on the detenu.
Page: 416
15. That in the meantime, Mr. Afsaruddin, Magistrate, 1st Class, Dacca by his judgment and order dated the April, 1967 convicted the detenu in a criminal case under sub-rule of rule 47 of the Rules and sentenced him to suffer imprisonment for 1 year and 3 months.
16. That against the order of the learned Magistrate the detenu preferred an appeal to the Session Judge, Dacca and prayed for bail and the learned Session Judge, by his order dated 29th May, 1967 directed for releasing the detenu on bail after hearing the detenu’s lawyer and the lawyer of the State who opposed the prayer for bail.
17. That the release order of the detenu in pursuance of the order of the learned Sessions Judge was communicated to the Jail Authority on the 1st of June, 1967 and on receipt of the order of release the detenu was brought to the Jail gate by the Jail Authority for release but in the meantime an order of detention under Clause (b) of sub-rule (2) of rule 32 of the Rules purported to be under the signature of Mr. M. K. Anwar, Deputy Commissioner, Dacca dated 29th May, 1967 was served on the detenu on 1.6.67 at 6 P.M. inside the jail gate and he is being detained there.
18. That the aforesaid order of detention was purported to be for 90 days and commences from the date of service of the said order.
19. That on behalf of the detenu another application under section 491 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was filed challenging the detention of the detenu under the said order and a Division Bench of the High Court issued a fresh Rule being Criminal Miscellaneous Case No. 1610f 1967.
20. That the aforesaid case and the case remanded by this Court for rehearing came up for hearing before a Special Bench comprising of Mr. Justice A.K.M. Baquer, Mr. Justice Abdulla and Mr. Justice Abdul Hakim.
Page: 417
21. That on behalf of the Respondents two supplementary affidavits were filed and on behalf of the detenu an affidavit-in-reply was filed.
22. That the Special Bench of the High court, by the majority judgment of their Lordships, discharged the Rules and held that the detention of the detenu was legal and valid.
23. That on prayer on behalf of the detenu their Lordships of Special Bench of the High court were pleased to grant a Certificate under SubClause (a) of Sub-Article (2) of Article 58 of the Constitution for an appeal to this Hon’ble Court.
24. That being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the majority judgment and order of the Special Bench of the High Court, the Appellant begs to file this Petition of Appeal on the following amongst others.
GROUNDS: 1. For that the learned Judges of the High Court seriously erred in law in holding that the detention of the detenu was justified without properly considering the fact that detaining authority did not swear the supplementary affidavits on behalf of the Respondents and without his affidavit it was not proper to hold that the alleged materials upon which Respondents tried to justify the detention of the detenu were the materials upon which the Respondent No. 2 passed the order of detention of the detenu.
2. For that the learned Judges of the High Court seriously erred in law in holding that the detention of the detenu was justified in view of several “inflammatory speeches” delivered by the detenu without properly applying their mind that the detenu being the Chief of a Political Party was creating public opinion in support of his party programme, namely Six-Point Programme and for such speeches the detenu could not be detained under the Rules.
Page: 418
3. For that the learned Judges seriously erred in law in failing to consider that the activities of the detenu were related to Six-Point Programme of his party and the said programme having not been declared by the Supreme Court as a contravention of section 3 of the Political Parties Act, 1962 the respondent No. 2, had no lawful authority to direct his detention on the basis of the aforesaid activities of the detenu.
4. For that the learned Judges failed to consider that the Special Bench was a Division Bench as per Rules of the High Court and consequently the decision of the division Bench of the High Court in the case of detenu Abdul Aziz where a Division Bench held that detention for any alleged prejudicial activity with regard to 6-Point programme cannot be the basis of detention should have been followed.
5. For that the learned Judges erred in not holding that the allegations as regards the activities of the detenu do not relate to the purposes of the proclamation of the 6th September, 1965 by the President of Pakistan and as such his activities are not relatable to the Defence of Pakistan Ordinance, 1965 and the Rule and consequently his detention under the Rules is not sustainable.
6. For that, the learned Judges erred in law in relying on the materials which cannot be the grounds of detention under the Rules.
7. For that there being specific cases with regard to the speeches of the detenu, the learned Judges of the High Court erred in law in relying on those speeches in upholding the order of detention of the detenu.
8. For that the detenu has been detained for collateral purpose and as such his detention is void.
9. For that, the detaining authority did not properly apply his mind in passing the impugned order.
Page: 419
10. For that, the said order is mala fide.
11. For that there being no valid satisfaction as required under the law the impugned order is not sustainable in law.
Wherefore the Appellant most humbly prays that your Lordships will be graciously pleased to take the appeal into consideration allow the appeal and set aside the judgment and order of the High Court and set the detenu at liberty or to pass such other or further order or orders as your Lordships may deem fit and proper.
And the Appellant, as in duty bound, shall ever pray.
Drown by :
Sd/- M.A. Rab,
Senior Attorney, Supreme Court of, Pakistan.
Filed by:
Sd/- M/S Huq-Rab & Co.,
Attorneys, Supreme Court of Pakistan, Law Chamber,
9, Arambagh (2nd Floor), Dacca -2.
Page: 420
Glossary
1. Paisa: Coin.
2. T.I. parade: Identification of accused by the witness during investigation.
3. “PARAS” or “PARASH”: Code name of Sheikh Mujibur Rahman in Agartala Conspiracy.
4. Bakr-Idd: Eid-ul-Azha an Islamic festival.
5. Jimmanama: Custodian of seized item.
6. Chapati: Unleavened flatbread originating from Indian subcontinent.
7. Karsaz: Navy Housing at Faisal Cantonment, Karachi, Pakistan,
8. Thana: Police Station.
9. Combined Opposition Party (COP): An alliance of 5 political parties (Awami League, Muslim League (council), National Awami Party, Nijam-e-Islam and Jamat-e-Islam) against President Ayub Khan in 1965 President Election.
10. Khas land: Government owned land under Khatian No-1.
11. Defence of Pakistan Rules: Rules framed under Defence of Pakistan Ordinance 1965 (XXIII of 1965).
12. Chayanat: A Cultural Institution.
13. East Pakistan Awami League: Awami League was the first opposition party in the then Pakistan. At its birth the party adopted a 42-point programme with a special emphasis on provincial autonomy. Later evolved as Awami League, lead and achieved independence.
14. Six-Point programme: Six-point Programme is a charter of demands enunciated by Sheikh Mujibur Rahman for the Autonomy that prompted Independence Struggle of Bangladesh.
15. Ayub Khan: A Pakistan Army General and the second President of Pakistan who assumed the presidency from the first President Iskander Mirza through a military coup in 1958.
16. H. S. Suhrawardy: Huseyn Shaheed Suhrawardy was a Bengali politician, one of the founders of Awami League, mentor of Bangabandhu Sheikh Mujibur Rahman. He served as the fifth Prime Minister of Pakistan.
17. Quaid-e-Azam: Title of Muhammad Ali Jinnah, Father of the Nation of Pakistan.
18. Magna Carta: British charter of liberties in 1215 constituting fundamental guarantee of rights and privileges.
19. Ijara: Leasing of a property for a fixed period and price.
20. Banya mentality: Uncivisized mindset.
21. Shirker: One who ascribes partners beside Allah.
22. Tashkent declaration: A peace treaty between India and Pakistan signed on 10 January 1966 after 17 days India-Pakistan war of 1965.
23. Resolution of 1940: Lahore Resolution.
24. Crore: Ten million.
25. Bidi: Kind of cigarette.
26. A.I.R. : All India Reporter introduced in 1922, the oldest law publisher covering all the High Courts and Supreme Court of India.
Page: 421
—X—