When the judges came into the tribunal at 10.30, the prosecutor dealing with the hearing that day had not reached the Tribunal to submit his reply to the review application.
Then within a few minutes Zead-al-malum reached the Tribunal and Justice Nizam said, it is the judges to get the privilege of being late not the counsel. Then Zead –al-Malum wanted to explain the reason for the delay but Justice Haq said he does not need to explain, he should just start his submission.
Zead-al-malum then said that he wanted to say something about Salahuddin Quader Chowdhury’s case and said that someone threatened him and the wife of Shiru Bangali – the prosecution witness number 3 - from the same phone number.
Justice Nizam: You can file a GD at the Police station.
Malum then carried on by responding to the review application of Golam Azam. Summary of main arguments below:
Then within a few minutes Zead-al-malum reached the Tribunal and Justice Nizam said, it is the judges to get the privilege of being late not the counsel. Then Zead –al-Malum wanted to explain the reason for the delay but Justice Haq said he does not need to explain, he should just start his submission.
Zead-al-malum then said that he wanted to say something about Salahuddin Quader Chowdhury’s case and said that someone threatened him and the wife of Shiru Bangali – the prosecution witness number 3 - from the same phone number.
Justice Nizam: You can file a GD at the Police station.
Malum then carried on by responding to the review application of Golam Azam. Summary of main arguments below:
I just want to say that after a long hearing this Order was passed on 13 May 2012. Then the 5 June was fixed for opening statement and defence counsels was directed to submit their witness list. So there is nothing which is not complying with the section 16 of the Act.
From Nuremberg Trial to this trial it is always stated by the defence that charge is vague. But my lord, there is nothing which is violation of the section 16(c) of the Act. Charge has been framed properly under section 16(a) (b) (c). There is nothing which is needed to omit and expunge.
Review should only be applied in all cases where there is serious omission of the law and the rules not in other respects.
And defence counsels has referred many foreign judgements but in this application these references will not be effective as the charge has been framed properly. ICT Act maintains its international slandered by its rules, so there is nothing which is needed to be reviewed.
Mistake in date of Birth or Place of Birth of the accused petitioner is nothing but a clerical mistake. There is no scope of interfere by the name of review.
In nut shell, my submission is, defence has no substances to review the application, and therefore, this review application should be rejected.
No comments:
Post a Comment