& 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

Defence concocted story to save Ershad : AG
The defence evidences in the corruption case against deposed president Ershad were yesterday described by the prosecution as "absolutely blatant lies, concocted and fabricated" and designed to save the accused, reports UNB.
Making a strong argument in favour of the main charge of amassing wealth beyond known sources of income against the accused. Attorney General Aminul Haq dashed down the defence claim that the money found in Ershad's official residence belonged to Jatiya Party.
It is absolutely a blatant lie that more than Tk 2 crore was raised by Jatiya Party through subscription from its rank and file and the money kept with party chairman Ershad for buying the party house, observed the Attorney General.
Ershad was charged by the Bureau of Anti-corruption with amassing wealth of Tk 2,21.65.238 including a cash of Tk 1,90.81,565 beyond known source* of income estimated at around Tk 73 lakh. The money found wrapped in sarees and clothes in 22 trunks was seized from Senabhavan. his official residence, soon after he was overthrown by a mass movement.
Continuing his argument the Attorney General referred lo the defence evidence of Jatiya Party resolution of July 11, 1990 and submitted nowhere it was mentioned in the resolution that subscription will be raised for the purchase of the party house.
Again, he contended, according to the party conatitu-tion Jatiya Party's highest body is the presidium and the second highest I* the central ex-
ecutive committee. But is is not clear which committee adopted ihc resolution for raising Ihc fund.
The prosecution recalled deposition of defence witness Shah Moazzcm Hossain (JP Secretary General) who said the parly central committee had nol decided to raise the fund. He cuuld neither say which committee adopted the resolution.
Therefore, the wry basis of fund raising as claimed by the defence falls through. "It is absolutely a concocted paper of resolution to •save ihe skin of Ershad observed the Attorney General.
The Attorney General further recalled the statciiKnl of defence witness Tajul Islam who was claimed lo have authorised to collect funds from the party rank and file. He contended ihul Tajul Islam had categorically staled that he himself did nol receive moiK-y. office clerks (numbering six) did it from whom he riajhl) later collected.
Whereas, the Attorney General argued, all Ihc nine other defence witnesses said they hud deposited ‘the subscription lo Tujul Is'lum. Tlie inconsistent statement of the witnesses showed the defence claim Is fictitious, he sold.
Again, Tajul failed lo give identity and addresses of the Jatiya Parly office clerks wlx> received Ihc money so ihul they cun be brought to the stand as wll.ie*#, Aminul Huq pointed ouL
The. receipt* against payment of subscription bears the signature of the office secretary. But the parly constitution provides the receipt* should have signature and seal of treasurer and general secretary.
the prosecution argued.
The prosecution also pointed to the interpolations in money figures in tbc Jatiya Parly registers which were submitted to the court as defence evidence. This, he said, tanlamounts to forgery.
About the party constitution produced in the court by thc defence. the Attorney General observed "Il is fabricated, forged and a product of afterthought".
The Attorney General contended that it (constitution) bears no .date of printing, name of the publisher nor the printing house. He said under the Printing and Publication Ordinance 1973 every book and paper published should have those and a copy should be submitted to the relevant department of the govern-nK-nt. The so-called constitution of Jatiya l’arty suffers from gross violation of the law. he added.
This copy of the Jatiya l’arty constitution provides for keeping funds with ihe purty chairman and that funds may be raised without giving receipt signed by treasurer and the secretary general.
This book was published after InlUatlon of this case even the printing press refused to divulge Ils name", the Attorney General submitted.
A different copy of Jatiya l’arty constitution produced by the prosecution was published by party secretary general Mahmudul Hasan on January 15, 1984. It provides for keeping party funds with bank and that Joint signature require* for withdrawal of money.
The defence claimed it was a draft constitution which was later finalised with apicnd-
mcnls. The word "draff was however not nK-nlioncd anywhere in the book.
Again, the prosecution argued that section 5 of the Political Parlies Ordinance 1978 provides ihal all funds of a political parly should be deposited in scheduled bank. Keeping funds with party chairman negates the existing law.
The Attorney General referred lo the seven letters Ershad wrote lo the Authorities including the Home Ministry following his detention. Nowhere In those letters he mentioned that he left behind such a huge amount of money of Jatiya Party at Scnjibhavan.
He argued that the accused had adequate chuncc lo inform Ihc authorities. Il Is an absurd proposition that he would not inform the authorities about Jaliya Party's moiK-y kept with him which he left behind 1n his official residence.
The Attorney General further argued that Mustafizur Rahman, brolhcr-ln-law of Ershad who wu» on the 8-member Inventory committee that prepared the list of articles al Senabhavun also did not claim that the money belonged to Jutlyu Party.
It wus the onus absolutely on them (the defence) to prove tluit the money belonged lo Jailya Party, prosecution is not bouixl to examine each and everybody, argued the Attorney General.
He mentioned the unusual manner in which the money was kept in 22 trunks, and the unusual time of raising fund when the situation was boiling to a mass upsurge.
Referring.to the defence desperate attempt to prove that the money was kept with party chairman for ready payment for the Dhanmondl house, the prosecution said such an argument is not acceptable for. the treasury rules provide for payment In cheque as well.
As for the first charge of misappropriation of gift materials by the accused received during his tenure of presidency. the Attorney General said a total of 120 such articles were listed. After analysing and sifting the inventory 31 articles worth over Tk 11 lakh were seized which were given to the Toshakhana.
Interrupting. Judge Mohammad All Khan, wanted to know the whereabouts of the rest 89 gif fed articles as listed by the inventory com- . mtttee.
The Attorney General Informed the court that those were given to Mustaflzur Rahman, nominee of Ershad for receiving his personal effects.
'Those must be returned", ruled the learned Judge and said it cannot be that gift Items are with someone for. the court must dispose off those gift materials — some belong to the government and some lo Jatlya Party.
The Attorney General agreed, on recovery (of gifts) count, the court may pass an order.
The learned Judge was heard directing his clerk : Please note, those 89 items are lo be produced before the court.
The court was adjourned till Monday morning when defence counsel Slrujul ilaq just rose lo place his argument.