& 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

Hasina Case

Court to pass order on framing charge Jan 13

Staff Correspondent
Sheikh Hasina's lawyers in the Tk 3 crore extortion case yesterday said the complaint filed against the former premier is full of flaws, inconsistencies and contradictory information.
The prosecution, however, claimed the evidence collected in support of the charge is sufficient enough to prove its merit.
After hearing both the sides, the Dhaka sessions judge's court fixed January 13 for passing order on framing charges.
The court also rejected lawyer Azmalul Hossain's appeal to move
FROM PAGE 1
on behalf of Sheikh Rehana, third accused in the case as she has been living in London for a long time and is unable to appear before the court because of illness.
The court fixed Sunday for delivering the order as the hearing of defence lawyers' submission in favour of their appeal for not framing charges against Hasina and her cousin and former health minister Sheikh Fazlul Karim Selim completed yesterday.
The prosecution lawyers showed Rehana, sister of Hasina, as fugitive in the case.
On June 13 last year, Managing Director of East Coast Trading Ltd Azam J Chowdhury filed the case with Gulshan Police Station, accusing Hasina of extorting Tk 2.96 crore from him for the installation work of a 210MW power plant at Siddhirganj.
The court of Judge Azizul Haque set up at the National Parliament complex sat at 9:30am yesterday after tire court had been adjourned several times since the hearing began on December 3 for reasons including Hasina's illness.
Hasina, who still looked ill, appeared about eight minutes after the court sat. Selim appeared at9:25am.
The defence lawyers appealed for allowing both the accused to sit in the dock, which the court granted.
Hasina was apparently not in good health as she was seen resting her head against the chair and on her palms during the hearing Towards the end of the court proceedings she was seen pressing her forehead with her hands.
The Awami League president also made a few remarks during the hearing.
"Are you sure you are free? Are you sure the judiciary is free?" she said when Advocate Yousuf Hossain Humayun said in his submission that he expected a verdict free from any influence.
The court proceedings began with the submission of Advocate Syed Rezaur Rahman for not framing charges against Selim on 44 grounds, including delayed filing of the first information report (FIR) on June 13, 2007--about seven years after the incident allegedly took place on October 24,2000.
Rezaur said the FIR should be considered doubtful as the higher courts on different occasions have used words like "doubtful", "manipulated" and "concocted" in orders regarding belated FIRs.
At this point the judge said criminal cases pass through vari ous stages and there might be delay in filing an FIR.
"The court has no authority to discharge an accused on this ground when the case is at the stage of charge-framing," he said.
Rezaur argued that tire com plainant in nowhere in the FIR has mentioned the word "extortion". The complainant has even con tradicted himself as at one point he said he had proposed a settlement with Selim over the issue, Rezaur told the court.
The defence lawyer said tire FIR does not mention how, why and where Selim demanded the money. As tire extorted money is said to have been transacted by cash cheque instead of crossed cheque, there is no evidence that the money was given to Selim,
Rezauradded.
"Moreover, the charge sheet submitted in the case does not have any deposition from relevant witnesses like an accountant, auditor, member of National Board of Revenue (NBR) and stock exchange." Rezaur argued
"If Selim had received the money, he would have paid Tk 1.20 crore in taxes. But he has not paid any such taxes and no case has been filed against him for concealing information to the NBR.
"It proves that the allegation against Sheikh Selim is baseless and made up," Rezaur said.
He also made submissions over other issues, including confessional statements, intimidation by Selim and taking Selim on remand, saying there are not sufficient grounds for proceeding against the accused and that none of the proposed sections of law apply to Selim.
Defence counsel Advocate Golam Arif Tipu said absence of material evidence, baseless allegations, and anomaly in filing the case have made the trial "malicious". He argued for not filing charges against Hasina and Selim on several grounds.
He said the FIR several times mentions about issuance of threat and the prime minister's interference, but it does not for a single time mention how and why or in which manner the activities were carried out by the accused.
Statements about any meeting or incident are also not available to prove that the extortion was planned, as the charges mention in the FIR, he added.
Chief defence counsel barrister Shafiq Ahmed made his sub-
mission over turning the non-tum-key work of commissioning and erection of a power plant at Siddhirganj into a turn-key one. He argued that the contract was made with the Russian state-owned company at a time of severe power crisis and it saved the country about S170 million.
Shafiq said the complainant claimed that he is an agent of the Russian company but he failed to proride any document confirming his relation with the company.
"So, the charges of delaying payment of the work and demanding extortion from the complainant are absurd, pre-pondered and unbelievable," Shafiq said.
He also argued over bringing the case under Emergency Power Rules and termed it illegal.
Advocates Yousuf Hossain Humayun, Fazle Nur Tapash, and Taufiq Newaz also argued in the court.
The defence lawyers said the FIR does not mention the place, date and time of occurrence, which makes the case "baseless, concocted and motivated". So, there is no scope for framing charges against the accused in the
The prosecution lawyers said, "The hearing is premature as the discussion seemed to focus on irrelevant matters. It is a case related to illegal money, not breaching a contract. And the evidence of demanding extortion, receiving the money and involvement of the accused is sufficient to frame charges."