12 Jul 2012: Sayedee witness absence order

Justice Nizamul Huq first read out the order in response to the review application of an order under section 19(2) of the ICT Act-1973 allowing the prosecution to introduce written statements of the investigation officer as evidence . The text is directly taken from the original.

This is an application filed by the accused Delwar Hossain Sayeedi under Rule 26(3) of the Rules of Procedure for review of the order dated 29.03.2012 allowing an application filed by the prosecution under section 19(2) of the International Crimes (tribunals) Act, 1973, by which this Tribunal allowed the prayer to receive in evidence the statements of 15 witnesses recorded by the investigation officer.

On 20th March, 2012 the prosecution filed an application praying for receiving in evidence the statements made by 46 witnesses recorded by the investigation officer on the ground that their attendance cannot be procured without an amount of delay. In the petition it was stated that P.W [prosecution witness] Usha Rani Malaker was too ill and lost her memory and was unable to travel to the tribunal at Dhaka. P.W Sukharanjon Bali has left the house about 4(four) months earlier and since then he is traceless. P.Ws Ashish Kumar Mondal, Sumoti Rani Mondal and Samar Mistri are traceless since 1st week of February, 2012 and it is told that they have secretly left for India. P.Ws Suresh Chandra Mondal, Gonesh Chandra Shaha, Shahidul Islam Khan Salim, Md. Ayub Ali Howlader, Gopal Krishna Mondal Bazlur Rahman, sitara Bcgrrm, ltani Begum, Md. Mustofa, Abdul Latif l{owlader, onil Chandra Mondal, ojit Kumar Shill, Khalilur Rahman Sheikh and Eshaque Ali Khan have been given threatening by the arms cadre of Pirojpur who are supporters of the accused, as a result of which the witnesses have become terrorized and went in hiding and their whereabouts cannot be traced out and the said witnesses are all eye witnesses. P.Ws Syed Sorafat Ali, Kadir Bepari, Ruhul Amin Howlader, Bankim shaha Talukder, Manik Howlader, Chan Mia poshati, Bimol chandra Howlader, Abdul Halim, Goiam Hossain Talukder, Ram Gopal shaha Talukder, Tojammel Hossain, Md. sador uddin, Jafor Iqbal, Sufia Haider, Afuoza Parvin, Mukunda chakrabarti, Major Zia uddin, Sosra Biswas, Pulok Chowdhury, Ali Haider I(han, Fosiul Islam Bacchu, A.K.M Joglul Haider Afrik, Juel Aich, Shahriar Kabir, Muklesh Poshari, Khandoker Shahidullah and Ayub Ali Howlader are not eye witnesses but the recorded statements of them by the investigation officer are very much essential for the case. And as such their statements are to be received in evidence under section 19(2) of the Act as their attendance cannot be procured without an amount of unreasonable delay.

The accused contested the petition by filing a reply on 28.03.2012 contending inter-alia that the application if allowed will seriously hinder a fair trial, and the criminal legal system both domestic and international. The statements were concocted by the investigation officer in the names of P.Ws with a malafide intention. It was also stated therein that prosecution by the time has recorded statements of 27(twenty seven) witnesses but when they failed to bring the remaining witness as the witnesses are not ready to give false evidence against the accused, they were taking time after time and when last of all, the Tribunal cautioned that they will pass appropriate order in case of failure of the prosecution to bring witnesses, the instant petition was filed. They have also annexed some reports of Daily Sangram dated 24.03.2012, Daily Amer Desh dated 24.o3.2012 and Daily Naya Diganta dated 27.03.2012 in support of their claim that the prosecution is unable to bring witnesses and the witnesses are not ready to support the statements which were prepared in their names. With respect to witness Usha Rani Malaker it was stated that no supporting document has been placed to show that this witness has lost her memory and it has not also been stated as to when this statement was recorded before or after her mental disorder. Regarding Sukharanjan Bali it was stated that if he was really missing then at least general diaries would have been filed. As regards witness Ashish Kumar Mondal, Sumoti Rani Mondal and Samor Mistri the defence denied that they were ever missing. It was stated that these witnesses were brought to Dhaka in January, 2012 and kept in witness hostel for more then one month. And when they denied to glve false evidence in the Tribunal they went out and became missing. On 2nd February, 2012 the prosecution informed the Tribunal that these witnesses left witness hostel to visit their families and did not return back. As regards the witnesses for whom the prosecution claimed that they were threatened by armed terrorist group of pirojpur in favour of the accused and as such they arc in fear and had concealed themselves, it was stated that there was no document placed in support of such claim and that it is not possible to give threats as the administration is keeping sharp eyes on the P.Ws. It was stated therein that P.W Gopal Krishna Mondal named in this group is an advocate and regularly attend Pirojpur court. The report submitted by the concerned police station in support of the missing of these witnesses does not contain names of Gopal Krishna Mondal, Khalilur Rahman Shiekh, Bazlur Rahman and Eshaque Ali Khan. With regard to other witnesses, prosecution failed to give any reason as to their failure to bring them in the Tribunal and as such the petition is liable to be rejected.

The Tribunal by its order dated 29.o3.2o12 allowed the application in part. It was ordered that out of 46(forty six) witnesses the statements made by l5 (fifteen) witnesses and recorded by the investigation officer is received in evidence under section 19(2) of the Act. In passing the order this Tribunal observed the following

'We are cautious about the matter that these witnesses are not being brought and produced before the Tribunal and cross examined by the defence and no oath is there for consideration of them as evidence. The law will take its own course. These statements will be treated in evidence considering all these aspects.” Regarding the statements available in the news papers clippings, this Tribunal observed.

‘We have also perused the newspaper clippings annexed with written objection filed by the accused side specially the newspaper named Daily Naya Diganta has made detail reports about the discussion of the journalist and some of the witness. We wonder how a journalist can talk with a witness on a sub Judice matter and reproduce it in the newspaper, and make comment involving merit of the matter. This is not accepted and highly contemptuous. First we wanted to issue notice upon the reporter and the newspaper, but on rethinking, we refrain ourselves from issuing notice. Moreover Mr. Razzaq, the leamed counsel also submitted before the Tribunal that this type of occurrence will not occur in future and everybody will be careful in future in writing or reporting regarding a pending proceeding in the Tribunal. On the submissions or Mr. Abdur Razzaq we refrained ourselves from taking further action in this matter, but we caution the writer of this report to be more careful in future in writing regarding pending proceeding in future. We also observe here that this report satisfied ourselves that the allegation of the prosecution that the people in support of the accused are going to the prosecution witnesses and threatening them from coming to this Tribunal are true."

The accused then filed the instant review application against the order dated 29.03.2012 under Rule 26(3) of the Rules contending inter-alia that the basis of the order was the report of the investigation officer which is not sustainable in law. In absence of an independent evidence verifying the reasons submitted by the investigation officer, the order was passed wrongly and it was also placed to be considered. The statements made in the reply filed by the accused were re-iterated in the review application. Moreover, some reports of Dainik Janata, Amer Desh were annexed. It may be re-called here that in the reply filed by the accused, the news clipping from the Sangram, the Naya Digonta and the Amer Desh were annexed, and those were considered by the Tribunal.

The defence further filed a supplementary statement on 22.05.2012 to the review application contending inter-alia that two reports were aired by Diganto Television on 11.05.2012 and Islamic Television on 15.05.2012 regarding some statements of prosecution witnesses Usha Rani Malaker, Sukharanjan Bali, Ghanesh Chandra Shaha and Chan Mia Poshari and those two television transcripts were annexed. The said reports clearly show that these prosecution witnesses did not give any statement against the accused and these are contrary to the statements tendered into evidence by the prosecution in the name of the prosecution witness.

The prosecution filed a reply to the application for review and supplementary statement in favour of the review contending inter-alia that the order passed by the Tribunal receiving in evidence of the statements of the 15(fifteen) witnesses made before the investigation officer under section 19(2) of the Act is legal and proper and the review application on the same statements as stated in the reply to the petition cannot be entertained. It was further contended that the information of missing of Sukharanjan Bali was informed to the police station on 25.02.2072 and it was recorded as G.D.E No.7/73 and that the news clippings annexed with the application for review are not true and the Tribunal after hearing both the sides and considering the materials on record have allowed the prayer in part and as such the order cannot be reviewed. The accused then filed a reply on 03.06.2012 where in the photocopies of the registrar and other books allegedly kept with the office of the witness house were annexed in support of the case of the defence that those witnesses were in the witness home at the relevant time. Then the prosecution filed another reply to the written objection dated 03.06.2012 filed by the accused person wherein the documents produced by the accused person were denied as being forged. A supplementary statement to the reply of the accused dated 03.06.2012 were also filed by the accused on 09.06.2072. Last of all, two applications were filed by the defence on 07.06.2012 one for call for the record to confirm the mobile numbers and badge numbers in the witness house and the authenticity of the information recorded in the diary notes of the general dairy book of the witness safe house and for drawing up proceedings under section 11(4) of the Act against the investigation officer and for discharge of the accused and a direction for fresh investigation. All the papers are now before the Tribunal for consideration.

Before going into the merit of the review case we want to mention here that after the passing of the order allowing the prayer of the prosecution to receive in evidence the statements of 15 witnesses recorded by the investigation officer, we have noticed that many people including lawyers in support of the defence claim gave statements in the press which have been published in the newspapers that the Tribunal has acted illegally in passing the said order. Some people went beyond their scope to comment that by allowing this prayer the Tribunal has proved it to be politically bias and for that, in the matter we had to issue notice upon two journalists and some lawyers under section 11(4) of the Act for committing contempt of the Tribunal and the two journalists were found guilty and they were convicted and sentenced. We have also swallowed many statements from inside and outside the country that no where in the world the statement of witnesses who has not been produced in the Tribunal is allowed to be accepted as evidence.

In this respect, we want to mention here that in many Tribunals, this provision is available. Reference may be made about Special Court of Seara Leon (SCSL),International Criminal Tribunal of Rwanda (ICTR) and Lebanon Tribunal.

In Special court for Seara Leon (SCSL), Rule 92 Quarter may be mentioned which allows the evidence of a person if unable to testify orally may be admitted in evidence. It states as follows:

Rule: 92 Quarter of SCSL: Unavailable persons: (a) The evidence of a person in the form of a written statement or transcript who have subsequently died or who can no longer with reasonable diligence be traced or who is by reason of bodily or mental condition unable to testify orally may be admitted, whether or not the written statement is in the form prescribed by Rule 92 BIS, if the trial chamber: (i) is satisfied of the persons availability as setout above; and (ii) finds from the circumstances in which the statement was made and recorded that it is reliable; Similarly Rule 158 of Lebanon Tribunal also allows, which shows the following

Rule: 158. Unavailable person: (a) Evidence in the form o[ a written statement, any other reliable record of what a person has said. written or otherwise expressed or transcript of a statement by a person who has died, who can no longer with reasonable diligence by traced, or who is for good reason otherwise unavailable to testify, orally may be admitted, whether or not the written statement is in the form prescribed by Rules 93, 123,155,1,56,157 if the trial chamber (i) is satisfied of the person unavailability and (ii) finds that the statement, the record or the transcript is taking into account how it was made and maintained.

Moreover Rule 92 BIS of International Criminal Tribunals of Rwanda also speaks the similar provision.

Upon perusal of this two Rules of SCSL and Lebanon Tribunals, it is clear that the statement of witnesses recorded by an investigation officer can be received into evidence when the maker is not produced in the Tribunal for different reasons. Section 19(s) of our Act (ICT) was enacted in 1973, much more earlier than the above mentioned Tribunals and other Tribunals now functioning throughout the world. This provision was taken by us in the Act and the foreign tribunals specially the three mentioned above have taken it in the Rules, signaling that our framers of the said Act were more advance and developing in framing the laws. The persons who have made statements that no where in ,the world this provision is available only expressed their ignorance of law and this Tribunal only feels pity for them. We have even marked that some senior counsels of our country have also made similar statements supporting the persons who was opposing the view of the Tribunal in this respect and section 19(2) of the Act. This Tribunal while allowed the prayed and passed the order, stated clearly that we are conscious about the fact that the persons of whom the statements, made to the investigation officer are being received in evidence have not been produced in the Tribunal for cross examination and none of them have administered oath while they made statement before the investigation officer and it was recorded. This Tribunal is very conscious that this statements have got a lesser value for consideration but even then when the Act permits the same, the tribunal cannot go beyond the Act and have to receive the statements in evidence. It is only after the evidence recorded by the parties, the Tribunal will consider everything and arrived at the finding that whether the requirement of 19(s) of the Act has been complied with by the investigation officer and only after that if everything goes positive in favour of the prosecution then only the statements may be accepted in evidence that too with lesser probative value. In this respect we want to mention here that even our code of criminal procedure allows this type of acceptance in evidence. Section 509A of Code of Criminal Procedure states that where in any inquiry, trial or other proceedings under this Code the report of a post mortem examination required to be used as evidence and the civil surgeo or other medical officer who made the report is dead or is incapable of giving evidence of is beyond the limits of Bangladesh and his attendance cannot be procured without an amount of delay, expense or inconvenient which, under the circumstances of the case, would be unreasonable, such may be used as evidence.

In section 510 the Code of Criminal Procedure the report of Chemical Examiner, Serologist, handwriting expert, finger print expert or fire arm expert may without calling him as a witness be used as evidence in any inquiry trial or other proceedings under this Code.

This makes clear that without being present the report prepared by a proper person may be admitted in evidence. There may be some condition in accepting these documents that that does not bring the submission that every witness is to be present in court to give evidence and he must be placed for cross examination and the evidence must be on oath otherwise the material prepared by him cannot be accepted in evidence. Although we have hold in our order that in case of accepting in evidence, we shall consider that the absent witness was not produced for cross examination and he has not stated them on oath. But this observation of us was not at all considered or stated by the persons who stated against the passing of the order. These observations we made considering our consciousness about the trial process and fair trial but was not required to be made because our Act does nor prescribe so. The tribunal expects that everybody will be cautious in passing statements regarding the instant law, Rules of procedure and the orders passed by this tribunal in future.

Now coming to the merit of the case the petition was filed under section 19(2) of the Act for accepting the statement of 46 witnesses recorded by the investigation officer to receive in evidence and this tribunal after due consideration of the fact and position of law allowed the prayer for only 15 witnesses. On finding that with respect to these 15 witnesses, the prosecution has successfully satisfied the requirement of section 19(2) of the Act.

Regarding witness Usha Rani Malakar it was stared that the Investigation officer found her sick for old age ailment and her son and the neighbors informed that she cannot move because her old age and she continues her natural call in her bed, if she is taken to Dhaka her life may be endanger. Whereas the defence has stated that no proof of such illness has been given by an independent medical authority and in fact Usha Rani Malakat is not sick and no summons was issued to Usha Rani Malakar. Moreover she stated in a television interview that she has not stated anything involving Sayeedi in the killing of her husband. Regarding witness Sukharanjan Bali it is stated that he could not be traced in his house and his wife, his daughter informed that he left the house in Ograhayon and did not come back and has become untraceable. The neighbors also stated that he has become untraceable since that time. The defence stated that the prosecution could not file any document in support of this statement and they did not file any G.D. entry in the local police station. The Naya Diganta on 27.03.2012 reported that this Sukharanjan Bali is not ready to give any false evidence, and for that he is not being produced in the Tribunal. Regarding witnesses Ashish Kumar Mandol, Sumoti Rani Mandol and Samor Mirtry the prosecution stated that after 31.01.2012 they went for village from Dhaka and then they have become traceless. People say that probably they have gone to India. Then the local police officer was requested to send them to the Tribunal and he informed that they are not available in their home. They might have left for India as such their presence is not possible. while the defence stated that on 2nd February, 2012 the prosecutor informed the Tribunal that these witnesses have left the witness safe house on the previous day in the name of visiting their families and did not return back. The defence further stated that on 17.03.2012 the daily Naya Digonta reported that the close relative of those 3(three) persons said that in fact these witnesses denied to give false evidence and that is why they were not produced in the Tribunal. Further on 14.04.2012, the daily Amar Desh reported that the official books which are maintained for the witnesses of the tribunal in the safe house shows that they were in the control of the prosecution till 16.03.2012 and as such the statement of the prosecution is false. As regards the remaining witnesses it was stated by the prosecution that the investigation officer went to their house and found only witness Setara Begum sick in her house and others could not be found, it was also stated by the prosecution that during his investigation the investigation officer found that local arms cadres gave threatening to those witnesses and due to fear of their life the witnesses have kept themselves in secret place so that they cannot be produced in the Tribunal. It was also stated that the terrorist group are man of the accused. Wherin the defence stated that these are false statements and has not been substantiated having no factual basis, that witness Shahidur Islam Khan Salim was brought on 10.01.2012 in the witness home and he was there till 12.01.2012 but was not produced in the Tribunal because they were not ready to support the false case and this was reported in the Amar Desh on 12.04.2012. Regarding witness Ayub Ali Howlader the same report of the Amar Desh stated that he was present in the safe house from 07.01.2072 to 10.01.2012. Regarding Setara Begum defence sated that no medical certificate was produced in support of sickness of Setara Begum and the allegation of threatening is false, in the report of daily Naya Digonta dated 27.03.2012 it was stated that she is not ready to support the false statement of the prosecution. With regard to witness Rani Begum and Md. Mostafa the Naya Digonta on 27.03.2012 reported that Md. Mostafa denied any threat from any people of the accused, to his mother Sitara Begum and his sister Rani Begum. They are staying in their house. With regard to PW Abdul Latif Howlader the defence stated that he was never missing, he came to the Tribunal on 02.o4.2012, and the Amar Desh report on 12.04.2012 shows that he was taken to the prosecution room 4(four) times. Before that also he was in Dhaka and brought to the safe house on 16th November and stayed there until 22nd November,2012. Then on 31st December he was again brought there and he stayed there till 5th January but he was not produced any time in the Tribunal. He was sent back to his house. Regarding witness Onil Chandra Mandol on 12.04.2012 Amar Desh reported that he was brought on 12.01. 2012 and stayed in the safe house till 16.01.2012 as he was not ready to give false evidence as such he was sent back. PW Ajit Kumar shill was brought on 10.02.2012 and kept their until 13.02.2012 as reported by same Amar Desh and he was sent back because he did not agree to give false evidence. The defence in support of the news report of daiiy Amar Desh dated 12.04.2072 stated in the review application to the effect that the witnesses were brought to Dhaka and kept in the witness safe house and claims of the prosecution in support of the petition filed under section 19(2) of the Act is nor true.

The alleged photocopies of the PWs attendance register, safe house general dairy book and food book, all allegedly maintained in the safe house has been annexed as annexure A, B and c respectively by the defence. But it is found that those annexed are named as witness and guests register, General Dairy book and food register of witness and guests. Moreover the two television interviews which have been mentioned by the defence have also been exhibited as annexure 1 and 2 as supplementary application to the review, which was telecast in Islamic Television on 15.05.2012 and Diganto Television on 11.05.2012 respectively. The prosecution on the other hand has denied the existence of those attendance register, general dairy book and the food book maintained in the safe house as not genuine. They have stated that no such register and books are maintained in the witness safe house.

We have already observed that under section 19(2) of the Act if the Tribunal is of the opinion that the attendance of a witness cannot be procured without an amount of delay or expertise which the Tribunal considers unreasonable, then the Tribunal may receive in evidence any statement of the witness recorded by the Investigation officer. Upon consideration of the fact as stated in our order dated 29.03.2072 we allowed the statements of 15 witnesses out of 46 witnesses to be received in evidence which was recorded by the Investigation officer. At the time we considered the petition filed by the prosecution and the reply of the defence to that application. Regarding the annexure of some newspaper clippings of the sangram dated24.03.2012, Naya Digonta dated 27.03.2012 and Amar Desh dated 25.03.2012 which were annexed with the reply of the defence. This Tribunal took a serious view of some matters stated in those reports which includes interviewing some witnesses and publishing and placing those before the Tribunal after annexing them with the reply while the matter was in seisine of the Tribunal and order has not yet been passed. This was clearly interfering the justice process. Then we wanted to issue notice upon the newspaper concern for interference with the due process of the Tribunal, Mr Abdur Razzak the learned counsel stood up and expressed regret for the same and he openly submitted that those newspapers will be cautious in future and will not do the same mistake again. Only on that submission, we refrained ourselves from passing the appropriate order with respect to this and did not consider those newspaper clippings in the order. But in the instant review application also, the same statement available in the said newspapers have been stated upon giving reference to them with respect to witnesses Sukahranjan Bali, Ashish Kumar Mandol, Sumoti Rani Mandol, Samor Mistry, setara Begum, Rani Begum and Md. Mostafa. This is regretted.

We do not know how after the exoneration of the 3(three) newspapers for reporting of a subjudice matter and praying for exoneration on submission that those will not occur in future, how one of the said newspapers namely the .{mar Desh has again pubrished a report on 12.04.2012 mentioning witness Ayub Ari Howlader, Abdul Latif Howlader, Onil Chandra Monrial, Ojit Kumar Shill and stating similar statements in the Report. There is no reference as to the fact that how the witnesses stated in the newspaper the Amar Desh that they did not agree to give false evidence against the accused and as such they were sent back. The defence has produced photocopies of documents allegedly of witness safe house, witness and guests register, general dairy book and the food book and annexed as annexure A, B and c respectively. It has not been stated how they have collected these documents when the very existence of those documents are challenged by the prosecution and on that challenged in a camera proceedings in presence of two counsel from the defence and two prosecutors we have examined the persons in charge of the witness safe house and they also denied the existence of the documents. Moreover when the prosecution has denied the existence of the documents, the defence is to prove the same, as they had produced the alleged photocopies of the same.

The defence has stated and annexed a news report of daily Amar Desh dated 12.04.2012 to support the claim that those 3 (three) documents are maintained in the safe house which show that most of the witnesses came to the witness safe house for giving evidence. But they are not produced before this Tribunal since they did not agree to glve false evidence against the accused petitioner. The defence has not stated from where they have got this photocopies but it appears that in the news report dated 12.04.2012 the materials have been stated. Now defence is to disclose from where they have collected the said photocopies in order to get any benefit out of those documents. However in disposing of this review application we do not want to go further into the question of genuineness of those documents and leave it to the parties to do the needful. We are of the view that on the finding of the genuineness of the claims of the parties, we can finally decide on evidence whether the witness statements received in evidence shall be considered by us or not. But if we get on evidence that either of the party or somebody belonging of them, is responsible for misleading the Tribunal or for forgery then proper action will be taken against the responsible persons for misleading this Tribunal or for committing forgery. But for consideration of the matter in issue, we will not consider the statements available in the newspaper clippings on 12.04.2012 in the daily Amar Desh, the original 3(three) newspaper clippings report and the television interview for the same reason as we did not consider in our earlier order. And also for the reason that when they were taken, whether any inducement and threat were there and source of information is to be clearly stated.

In consideration of the application under section l9(2) of the Act, its reply by the defence, our impugned order and the review application, we get that the questioa of acceptance of the statement of Usha Rani Malakar, Sukharanian Bali, Ashish Kumar Mandol, Sumoti Rani Mandol and Samor Mistry finding to the effect that Usha Rani Malakar is sick and she cannot move because her old age and she continues her natural call in her bed if she is taken to Dhaka, her life may be endanger cannot be disproved by the defence at this stage. Regarding Sukharanian Bali, the fact that he could not be traced out and he has left the house and did not come back and he has become untraceable also could not be disproved. With regards to Ashish Kumar Mandol, Sumoti Rani Mandol and Samor Mistry the prosecution stated that from February, 2072 they are missing and the defence claim that they on 31.01.2012 were brought in the Tribunal and the prosecution informed the Tribunal that they have gone to the house of their relation and has not come back could not disprove the fact that from after 37.01.2012 they are missing. May be they have gone to India or they are hiding that also prima facie establish the case that upon threat of the terrorist, they are hiding themselves and as such without any evidence as to the fact that after 31.01. 2012 they were available, the finding of the Tribunal in the impugned order could not be unproved. The statement available in the so-called register, general dairy and food book that these 3(three) witnesses were in the safe house until 16.03.2072is a matter to be established by evidence. If it is proved that this statement in the so-called documents are true then their evidence will not be considered but at this stage we do not get any materials to review our order with regards to them. With respect to other 10 (ten) witnesses, although if it is found that the writing in the so-called documents regarding the witnesses are true then their case will not be considered. But at this stage we do not get anything to disprove that and to review our order regarding them

We have already found and observed that the statements of the 15(fifteen) witnesses have only been received in evidence if it is found that the facts and circumstances of the case established that the witnesses may be some of them or all cannot be considered for this matter then appropriate measures mav be taken in course of time- But at this stage we do not find anything to deviate our findings passed in the impugned order and as such there is no merit in the review application and it stands rejected.

After the order was read out, the following interchanges took place in the tribunal

Mr. Abdur Razzak: My Lord, you three were present when presenting the review petition but today you two are passing the order.

Justice Nizamul Huq: the other judge is sick today.

Mr. Abdur Razzak: Then you could wait for his recovery and presence.

Justice Nizamul Huq: The order has been passed by the Tribunal not by two of the members. So you can’t challenge that we are not unanimous.

Mr. Abdur Razzak: The presence of the three members was very much necessary.

In the meantime Mr. Tajul Islam has started saying some words which had annoyed the Tribunal and the Chairman urged Mr. Tajul not to try to mislead or misinterpret anything.

Tajul Islam: I am not doing so, but we are prejudiced.

Justice Nizamul Huq: Mr. Razzak, you have submitted some documents regarding the safe home, we have left it for you to prove by evidence. You are the defence lawyer, you know how to prove your case.

Mr. Abdur Razzak: We have already submitted some documents in favor of this, now what else left to prove.

Tajul Islam again interfered.

Justice Nizamul Huq: Mr. Tajul, I repeat don’t do it.

Mr. Abdur Razzak: The presence of all the members was expected and needed but I’m feeling prejudiced for this. It will not sound as reasonable.

Justice Nizamul Huq: It is the Order of the Tribunal.

Haidar Ali: My Lord, who are they to decide, what is reasonable or not. The Tribunal will decide that.

Tajul Islam: Yes, all will go in your favor. [Saying towards the Prosecutor.]

Justice Nizamul Huq: Mr. Tajul, you are crossing your mark. You must control your tongue. We are giving you warning for the last time. You are practicing for nearly about 15 years, these are not expected behaviors from you. You must be more careful.

Tajul Islam: Whatever I have seen in the very first stage of my practice is not found today, I feel disappointed for that.

Mizanul Islam: My Lord, I have a query, if you two could pass order after hearing the matter by the presence of three members; then how can three of you pass the order after hearing today’s matter, when one member is absent.

Justice Nizamul Huq: The other member is sick today.

Mr. Abdur Razzak: My Lord, we would like to receive today’s order immediately in our hand.

Justice Nizamul Huq: In easy Bangla, we hereby state that you have to prove all the things which you have produced.

Mr. Abdur Razzak: Much obliged My Lord.