Attorney General Amtnul Haque yesterday told the Special Judge Court, trying deposed President Ershad. that the corruption case had been brought against him (Ersltad) to establish rule of law and It had no connection with the image of the Armed Forces.

Ershad is facing trial for amassing wealth beyond known sources of Income

The Attorney Genera) ob Jected to a remark of Chief Defence Counsel Slrajul Haque while cross-examining the prosecution witness Lt Col Atiqur Rahman Munshl. Strajul Haque said that Ershad served in the Armed Forces for 34

years and this corruption case against him was aimed not only to malign him but alao to belittle the Armed Forces. Replying to a question regarding this, the Assistant Military Secretary to the President, Atiqur Rahman Munshl said that he did not know anything about this.

The Attorney General cate gorlcally objected to the word, "belittling' the Armed Forces. Lt Col Atiqur Rahman was recalled by the Defence Counsel for cross examination.

The following were the ex cerpts from the cross examination by Defence Counsel Slrajul Haque

Sirajul Haque (Defence

lawyer) :. Do you know from where the land cruiser which was found in the garage bought?

Atiqur Rahmsn Munshl (ARM) : No. 1 don't know

DL : Were the gifts received by Ershad from home and abroad being displayed?

ARM : Yes. Those used to be kept on display at Sena Bhaban

DL : Did you say anything when the prices of copies of the holy Quran were calcu la ted?

ARM ; No. I did not comment anything

DL : Many prayer mata were found in the Sena Bhaban. Did

you say anything when the prices of those mats were being calculated ?

ARM : No. I did not say anything. Prices were fixed up by the persons other than the members of inventory committee.

DL : My client says that the accounting of prices of the Quran and the prayer mats have hurt his religious sentiment.

ARM : The committee did not fix up the prices of the Quran and the mats. So. the question of hurting anyone's religious sentiment is not true.

DU Even you accounted the price of an old petticoat.

ARM : That was done by the persons who calculated the prices.

Attorney General : All these questions are relevant to the persons who calculated the prices but Irrelevant to the persons who were members of the fnventoiy committee.

After that, the defence counsels also asked several questions on some Items which were supposed to be received as gifts by Ershad when he was the chief of the Armed Forces.

DL : Ershad served in the Armed Forces for 34 years. The case has been brought against Ershad to malign him and belittle the Armed Forces.

ARM : 1 don't know.

AO : I have an objection to the word, "belittle". The case has been brought to establish rule of law.

DL : Do you agree that President Ershad and Mr Ershad are two distinct entities.

ARM : Yes. Two distinct en-tities.

AG : These are not relevant questions.

DL : President Ershad and Mr Ershad are two distinct entitles. So this case against Ershad Is malafide.

ARM : President Ershad and Mr Ershad are two distinct entitles but I don't know whether ft is malafide.

The Attorney General who, during Saturday's hearing had mentioned a report in the London Observer newspaper, yesterday tendered the clipping of the paper under Evidence Act 57.

Chief Defence Counsel Sirajul Haque raised objection quoting Evidence Act Clause 53 and 54 saying the report published outside the country could not be Included as an evidence or exhibit in thia case. He further said that bad evidence could not be produced against an accused under Clause 53 and 54 of the Evidence Act, only good instanced could be tendered as evidence against the accused.

The Attorney General countered by saying that a newspaper report could be a proof adding that the "London Observer: tried to malign our President He said the paper alleged that Ershad had transferred 150. million dollars outside Bangladesh.

The Attorney General said the former Indian Prime Minister Mr Morarj! Desai, filed a libel suit when allegations were brought against him. But the accused Ershad did not do anything like that he added.

The accused Ershad was heard telling Mr Serajul Haq that the case (referring to the newspaper report about his marriage with Mary Mumtaz) has been dismissed.

The Attorney General further reminded the defence lawyer that he was a party to the supreme court bar association's decision about the London Observer report that Ershad should have filed a libel suit against the paper. He also quoted Section 8 and 57 of the Evidence Act and also a book on "nine years of autocracy" by Major Rafiq.

Mr Serajul Haq said the paper tried to prove that Ershad was a man of bad character and added that as per law a case could not proceed against a man of bad character. He further said that the prosecution was attempting to malign the accused by extraneous fact which is irrelevant in this case. He alleged that the prosecu-tion was doing this following their failure in legal attempt In this case.

. Since no agreement could be reached. Judge Mohammad AH Khan said he cannot order submission of any document without record. The Chief Defence Counsel said he will bring papers in favour of his argument in the next occasion. The court will take up the matter when It meets today at 10.30 am.

Meanwhile Judge Khan has ordered Ershad to restrain himself from talking to journalists and instructed newsmen not to interview the accused Ershad In court premises