After the tribunal had finished hearing the application on behalf of Nizami, the court proceeded with the opening statement in the trial of Salauddin Quader Chowdhury. The order of indictment against Chowdhury was given on 4 April.
Fakhrul Islam on behalf of the defence told the tribunal: ‘My lord, we have filed an application for adjournment. In fact, charge was framed on 4 April and we have filed 2 applications for review but these two applications were disposed of on 25th April. My lord, you have told us repeatedly that you will give us time for preparation. It is an incident of 40 years old; so, time should be given to us for collecting evidence from abroad and prepares defence witnesses. Therefore, my lord, reasonable time should be allowed to us.
My lord, prosecution has provided a list containing the names of prosecution witness but full name of those witnesses have not been specified, only names are given in an abbreviated form.
Justice Nizam: Okay, return it to the prosecution.
Fakhrul islam: My lord, please allow us time for defence preparation.
Sallahuddin raised his voice from the dock and said my lord there is factual distinction between the formal charge and framing of charge. Therefore, my lord, I want those substantive copies of document which has been changed.
Justice Nizam: Copy of these documents has been included in the charge frame. However, if find any distinction then you will get benefit and copies will be given to you.
Order given by the Justice Nizam (summary):
Justice Zaheer: Why do you read out the history of Bangladesh? You just submit the allegation against the accused in your opening statement.
Zead-al-malum: No my lord, it is necessary to read it out.
Fakhrul Islam on behalf of the defence told the tribunal: ‘My lord, we have filed an application for adjournment. In fact, charge was framed on 4 April and we have filed 2 applications for review but these two applications were disposed of on 25th April. My lord, you have told us repeatedly that you will give us time for preparation. It is an incident of 40 years old; so, time should be given to us for collecting evidence from abroad and prepares defence witnesses. Therefore, my lord, reasonable time should be allowed to us.
My lord, prosecution has provided a list containing the names of prosecution witness but full name of those witnesses have not been specified, only names are given in an abbreviated form.
Justice Nizam: Okay, return it to the prosecution.
Fakhrul islam: My lord, please allow us time for defence preparation.
Sallahuddin raised his voice from the dock and said my lord there is factual distinction between the formal charge and framing of charge. Therefore, my lord, I want those substantive copies of document which has been changed.
Justice Nizam: Copy of these documents has been included in the charge frame. However, if find any distinction then you will get benefit and copies will be given to you.
Order given by the Justice Nizam (summary):
This is an application from the defence for adjournment. Today is fixed for opening statement and charge hearing of the ICT BD case no. 2/11.
Defence counsels Fakhrul islam submitted that charge has been framed on 4th April and they filed an application for review on 25th April. Date of opening statement and recording statement was fixed on 29th April. However, for non-preparation of themselves they are seeking time for taking preparation.
Upon considering both sides, we are not inclined to adjourn today, let the prosecution to start opening statement from today and defence will be allowed 15 more days to deposit witness and preparing documents.Then the Prosecution counsel Zead-al-malum started to read out the history of Bangladesh from 8th century as the beginning of opening statement.
Justice Zaheer: Why do you read out the history of Bangladesh? You just submit the allegation against the accused in your opening statement.
Zead-al-malum: No my lord, it is necessary to read it out.
No comments:
Post a Comment