Friday, July 13, 2012

12 Jun 2012: Sayedee IO cross exam day 21

Mobarek Hossain
In relation to the case of Mobarek Hossain, the tribunal fixed 19th for the inspection of documents for both prosecution and defense and for passing necessary Orders. Privileged communication for the defence lawyers was allowed in Nizami’s case.

Azam's Books
Mr. Zead Al Malum, a prosecutor, came to the dais concerning the order on supplying Mr. Gholam Azam with his required books. He said that when an under trial prisoner is detained at the Prison, the Jail Authority has to consider the application of the Jail Code. When the Jail Authority has collected the books from the library or from the market, the accused has refused to take them, and claimed the house copies of those books.

Justice Nizamul Haque: Let me read out our order again. It has been stated in the order: ‘Let the Holy Quran, Tafsir, Hadis Commentary, Biography of the Prophet Hazrat Md be supplied to the accused’. It is our ruling that the books are to supplied to the accused petitioner. But your application to the Jail Authority does not mention anything about the order of the Tribunal.

Zead Al Malum: You should not say we are not complying with the Orders of the Tribunal. You might not know what is going on in the name of privileged communication. We will converse with the Jail Authority today.

Justice Nizamul Haque: The order will be given tomorrow, and the Jail authority will come today to consult with the Prosecution about the matter.

Sayedee Investigation Officer cross examination
Mizanul Islam, the defence lawyer continued the cross examination of the investigation officer, Helal Uddin. It continues from 5 June
Defence: In case of any mistakes made in the certificates of the Public Exams, the students are usually liable for the fault y. 
Witness: I don’t know. 
Defence:  In case of any mistake the authority alters the mistake. 
Witness: I don’t know. 
Defence: You have mentioned it in the Mark-I that Yousuf Ali Shikdar was the name of the accused petitioner’s father’s name. Where did you get the info? 
Witness: During my Investigation. 
Defence: Did you collect any certificate of the name of his father from the Union Chairman of the native village of the accused? 
Witness: No. 
Defence: Did you collect any certificate from the local Upazila Chairman? 
Witness: No. 
Defence: Did you interrogate the Union Parishad Chairman and the Upazila Chairman regarding the name of his father? 
Witness: No. 
Defence: Did you interrogate anyone from Mr. Sayedee’s village? 
Witness: No. 
Defence: Did you interrogate anyone of Syedee’s relatives or in-laws? 
Witness: No. 
Defence: Did you ask about the matter from anyone of his classmates? 
Witness: No. 
Defence: His latest address is enlisted under the Dhaka City Corporation, it has been mentioned in the Mark-I. 
Witness: Yes. 
Defence: Whether you have asked the Ward Commissioner of the Dhaka City Corporation anything about the name?
Witness: No. 
Defence: Did you have a look to his national id card to ascertain the name of his father? 
Witness: No. 
Defence: Did you look at any ID Cards of the accused? 
Witness: No. 
Defence: Did you look through the voter list of 1970 to check the name? 
Witness: No. 
Defence: Did you look through the last voter list to check the name? 
Witness: No. 
Defence: You have provided some of the certificates of the petitioners to the tribunal. Have you collected those certificates in the seizure list? 
Witness: No. 
Defence: When did you collect the certificates? 
Witness: [He started juggling the documents and materials kept with him to find the answer but did not find it after almost 10 minutes.] 
Defence: You have collected all the documents relating to the exhibit no- 151 from the election commission? 
Witness: Yes. 
Defence: When did you send them a letter? 
Witness: During the investigation I have collected those. 
Defence: The Gas Bills, Electricity Bills, Documents of Income Tax, Tax, Holding No, the years of passing his Alim and Dakhil exams etc are attached therewith the material exhibit no- 151. 
Witness: Yes. 
Defence:  All those documents contains his father’s name as Mawlana Yousuf Sayedee, there is no mention of the title Shikdar anywhere. 
Witness: Yes. 
Defence: What is the year of his Dakhil Certificate? 
Witness: 1957 
Defence: In his Alim certificate, the words “Abu Noim” has been given a cross mark over it, and the title ‘Sayedee’ has been added afterwards. 
Witness: Yes. 
Defence: There is no sign mark by the Board authority over the cross mark? 
Witness: Yes. 
Defence: There is no mention of “Abu Noim” in his Dakhil Certificate. 
Witness: Yes. 
Defence: When did you go to the Madrasa Board Authority to find out who has given the cross mark over it? 
Witness: It is not in my record. 
Defence: Did you send a letter to the Madrasa Board Authority to find out what was the actual name of the accused in his Dakhil Examination? 
Witness: No. 
Defence: Did you visit the Madrasa from where the accused have passed his Alim Examination? 
Witness: No. 
Defence: Did you visit the Madrasa to verify the date of his registration in his registration card? 
Witness: No. 
Defence: Did you question any of his class teachers? 
Witness: No. 
Defence: From where have you collected the papers under the material exhibit no- 151? 
Witness: From the Pirojpur Election Commissioner’s Office. 
Defence: You came to know about the matter that the petitioner was a student of Sarsina Madrasa, on the day when you have received the documents. 
Witness: Not true. I knew it previously. 
Defence: You have seized the Registrar of the Sarsina Madrasa by the exhibit no- 152 and take it to your custody by the exhibit number- 153. 
Witness: Yes. 
Defence: From whose hand you have seized the Register? 
Witness: From the Principal of the Madrasa, Dr. Sorafot Ali. 
Defence: In that seizure list Mr. Abdur Razzak is also there as a witness with Dr. Sorafot Ali. 
Witness: Yes. 
Defence: When did you record the statements of Dr. Sorafot Ali? 
Witness: On 21-9-2010 
Defence: The above mentioned persons are still working with the Sarsina Madrasa.Witness: Yes. 
Defence: You have taken the Summons from the Tribunal to make them present before the Tribunal? 
Witness: Yes. They have come to Dhaka on 21-1-2012 and left Dhaka on the next day because of their sickness. 
Defence: Where did they taken away for their treatment? 
Witness: At the Police Hospital. 
Defence: Whether Sarsina Madrasa is situated under the Pirojpur District? 
Witness: Yes. 
Defence: It is not an immense impossible or an expensive task to make the persons present before tribunal. 
Witness: Yes. 
Defence: Whether there is a code of conduct for the students of Sarsina Madrasa? 
Witness: I don’t know. 
Defence: Whether a notice has been circulated that the students of Sarsina Madrasa are  warned to refrain from the student politics? 
Witness: I don’t know. 
Defence: Whether have you collected the register of those certificates? 
Witness: Yes I have collected the Register from 1928 to 1956. 
Defence: The material display no- 154 contains info about the certificates after 1955 also. 
Witness: Yes. 
Defence: What is the particular date for Mr. Sayedee’s certificate? 
Witness: 04-01-1960. 
Defence:  Whether the names of the students who have passed in 1957 have been enlisted in the Registrar? 
Witness: It is not there like that.
Defence: Is there any information how many students have been awarded with the certificates in 1957? 
Witness: No. 
Defence: You have stated that the registrar of those ceritificates enlist the name as Delwar Hossain Syedee. Is it true? 
Witness: Not true. It has been stated as Mostofa Delwar Hossain and his father’s name has been stated as Mawlana Yousuf Syedee. 
Defence:  Whether the word Mostofa is overwritten? 
Witness: Yes. It seems that- the next three letters after the letter “M” is being overwritten. 
Defence: No candidates of 1957 Dakhil Examination from Sarsina Madrasa has been made any witness in this case. 
Witness: Yes. 
Defence: Whether you have asked any teachers or worker of the Madrasa who are employed on 1957? 
Witness: No. I didn’t find anyone during investigation. 
Defence: The statement you have made about Mr. Sayedee that he has been expelled from the institution will be proved incorrect, so you didn’t made those relevant persons as the witnesses in this case. 
Witness: Not true. 
Defence: You have made the two persons of that Madrasa as the witnesses of this case; but if they give their deposition before the tribunal in that case there was a chance that this false information would come out the Tribunal, so you didn’t make them present before the Tribunal. 
Witness: Not true.Defence: You, yourself have crossed over those 3 letters after the word “M” 
Witness: Not true. 
Defence: When did you take the Daily Jonokontho of 25th January, 2001 on material exhibit no- 85? 
Witness: On 21-3-2011 
Defence: The report was titled as “Sayedee ke Pirojpur theke Utkhater Shopoth” [Pledge to evict Sayedee from the Pirojpur District]. Who was the reporter? 
Witness: Shofiul Haque Mithu. 
Defence: Whether the reporter is alive? 
Witness: Yes. I didn’t interview him either or made him a witness. 
Defence: Whether you have gone to Daily Jonokontho Office to find out the main report which was sent by him or whether the published report was an edited one? 
Witness: I didn’t do that
Defence: You didn’t investigate whether he has sent the report or not? 
Witness: I went. 
Defence:  To whom? 
Witness: I have tried to interview the reporter. Afterwards, I asked his brother and it was confirmed that he sent the report. But Mithu’s brother is not a witness so his name is not enlisted in my record. 
Defence: Whether you have collected the phone number of Mr. Mithu? 
Witness: No. 
Defence: “Sayedee has been expelled because of calling the freedom fighter’s as bastards”- it has been mentioned in the material exhibit- 85. Where the petitioner did gave the statement? Did you investigate? 
Witness: No. 
Defence: The report has mentioned  a statement of Major Ziauddin; did you interview him what he said? 
Witness: Yes, I have asked him, but he didn’t mention anything about it. He has not been made any witness. 
Defence: Did you investigate into the statement that has been published in the report (material exhibit- 85) that Mr. Sayedee gave his statement at an election rally in 1996 to create religious tension, did you investigate about the part of the report? 
Witness: No. 
Defence: It has been mentioned in the report in the name of Shocheton Alem Shomaj where 65 people were involved  and among them the names of Mawlana Aminur Rahman Elahabadi; Mawlana Keramot Ali; Mawlana Shibli Nomani; Mawlana Shirajul Haque Nurani; Mawlana Korban Ali have been included. Did you investigate whether they have really given any statements like that? 
Witness: No. 
Defence: Did you investigate about the existence of the Shocheton Alem Shomaj? 
Witness: No. 
Defence: In the material exhibit- 85; it has been mentioned that Mr. Sayedee has mentioned the Judge as a Dalal of India who has declared the Hilla Marriage as void. Did you investigate whether he has really said so? 
Witness: No. 
Defence: You didn’t make the above mentioned Alems and Major Ziauddin present before the Tribunal, because there is a possibility that if they came it would be shown you are giving wrong information. 
Witness: Not true. 
Defence: Some Newspapers of Bangladesh have published some malicious news reports about Mr. Sayedee; and you without verifying those reports have presented those as material exhibit with a malicious intention to degrade Mr. Sayedee. 
Witness: Not true.
Justice Nizamul Huq: The Court is adjourned till 2 P.M

Mizanul Islam said that he was feeling sick due to fever. You have another matter. This matter may be adjourned now.

Chairman said that we can adjourn if for today. But on next day this item will continue without adjournment. For physical illness you should have alternative lawyers to continue cross-examination.

No comments:

Post a Comment