& çâÌæÚUæð´ ·¤è ¥ôÚU Îð¹Ùæ ÁæÚUè ÚU¹ð´ ¥ÍæüÌ ¥ÂÙð ÜÿØ ÂÚU ŠØæÙ ÚU¹ð´Ð ãæÚU Ù ×æÙð´, €UØô´ç·¤ ·¤æ× ·¤ÚUÙð âð ¥æÂ·¤ô ©gðàØ ·¤è Âýæç# ãôÌè ãñ ¥õÚU ÁèßÙ ·¤æ ¹æÜèÂÙ ÎêÚU ãôÌæ ãñÐ ÖÜð ãè ÁèßÙ ×ð´ ç·¤ÌÙè Öè ·¤çÆÙæ§ü €UØô´ Ù ¥æ°, çÁ™ææâæ ¥õÚU ©ˆâæã ÕÙæ° ÚU¹ð´Ð ŠØæÙ ÚU¹ð´, ÜÿØ ã×ðàææ ¥æÂ·Ô¤ Âæâ ãôÌð ãñ´ çÁ‹ãð´ ÂæÙð ·Ô¤ çÜ° ÂýØæâ ¥æÂ ·¤Öè Öè àæéM¤ ·¤ÚU â·¤Ìð ãñ´Ð

Judgement on Ershad's arms case transfer likely today

By Staff Correspondent
Attorney General Aminul Haque said on Sunday that the Defence petition for transferring Ershad’s arms case from the special Tribunal to any other court was not based on fact
Arguing against the petition before the two member High Court Division Bench, the Attorney General said, "This application suffers from infirmity. which tantamounts to illegality of the fact"
He said. "This transfer petition was made after the deposition of Defence Witnesses". The petition w submitted on behalf of the accused on May 12. which waa not a motion day
It was evident from the argument yesterday that the High Court used its power to accept the petition "sue motto" in spite of a bar laid down tn the Section 526 of the Criminal Procedure which states that intimation should be given to the trial Judge before any petition to the higher court under Section 526
In the petition the accuaed feared that he might not get fair judgement from the Special Tribunal as the Judge himself was biased
During the submission of the petition yesterday before the High Court Division Bench. Defence Lawyer Strajul Haque said that he was convinced the accused would not get Justice In the Tribunal and accordingly on the advice of the accused the petition for transferring the case who filed.
Attorney General Amlnul Haque said that the contents of the petition were not true.
Intimation of transfer of the case was once given to the trial court on March 27. 1991 but since then no question had been raised by the Defence Lawyers about the fairness of the Judge till May 12. 1991.
Attorney General said that the petition was made at this stage for inordinate delay of the trial which is if so facto Illegal.
About the alleged bias of the trial court the Attorney General presented the Court proceedings published tn the daily newspapers and said that the allegation was false and without sufficient grounds.
He said that the materials in support of the allegation of bias of the trial Court produced by the Defence, was not correct and practically not relevant
Again the non-lntimation of the petition to the trial court If so-facto rendered the petition Illegal, the Attorney General said
The Division Bench comprised of Justice Anwarul Haque Chowdhury and Justice Habtbur Rahman Khan gave a patient hearing to the arguments of both the parties and fixed the next date for hearing
icxiay (monaayj
Justice Anwarul Haaue Chowdhury to arguing on behalf of the Court with both the Attorney General and the Defence Lawyers trying to come to a conclusion by Interpreting the laws from different ""^ast Thursday the High Court Division Bench issued a rule on the Deputy Commissioner of Dhaka asking him why will the case not be transferred from the Special Tribunal.
Due to hearing of this peti Hon the Special Tribunal scheduled to resume today, waa adjourned till May 21.
The Judgement on the petition to the High Court may be given today.