Ershad\'s Radar Case
SC rejects plea for recording more statements
Published : Tuesday, 21 March, 2017 at 12:00 AM Count : 244
Ershad's Radar Case
The Appellate Division of the Supreme Court (SC) on Monday rejected a review petition of the Anti-Corruption Commission (ACC) for recording the testimonies of some witnesses in the radar purchase scam case against Jatiya Party Chairman HM Ershad.
The SC ordered to resume and dispose of the in 24-year-old graft case against the former president on the basis of the statements already recorded from witnesses.
A three-member bench of the Appellate Division of the SC headed by Chief Justice Surendra Kumar Sinha passed the order after holding hearing on the review petition.
ACC counsel Khurshid Alam Khan told journalists that the trial court will now resume the trial proceedings of the case on the current stage and finish the proceedings based on the statements already recorded from the witnesses.
"Now there is no scope for examining fresh witnesses in the case," he added.
The apex court had earlier rejected an ACC petition for examining some witnesses, who have not been testified in the case. The ACC filed a petition seeking review of the decision.
On November 24, 2016, the HC asked the authorities concerned to dispose of the radar purchase graft case by March 31, 2017.
Later, the ACC filed a petition with the Supreme Court seeking its order for recording the testimonies of some witnesses. On January 8, the SC rejected the petition. Later, ACC appealed for reviewing the order.
The now-defunct Anti-Corruption Bureau on May 4, 1992, lodged the case against Ershad for causing a loss of more than Tk 64 crore to state exchequer by purchasing substandard radar from the USA on higher price instead of buying a more modern version from France.
Charge sheet was given in the case on October 27, 1994. The lower court has so far examined 12 out of the total 38 witnesses in the trial and started hearing the arguments in the case.
The High Court on November 24 allowed the ACC plea and ordered the trial court concerned to conclude the case proceedings by March 31, 2017.
But following an appeal by another accused in the case, the apex court on January 8 dismissed the High Court order, prompting the complainant to file a review plea.