OF 1926)


Sections—2 and 3

Contempt of Court—Whether
the respondents did commit any contempt of Court by not allowing the petitioner
to resume his duties after the order of staS’—The petitioner was not
functioning as the University Engineer when he obtained the order of stay was
passed—He was out of office when he obtained the order of stay and therefore
there was nothing to stay—In that view of the matter the respondents did not
commit any contempt of Court by not allowing the petitioner to resume his

Md. Mahtab Hossain Vs. Bangladesh University of Engineering and
Technology, Dhaka and others, 7BLD (HD) 315



Violation of stay order-Contempt
when lies—Since the appeal from which the contempt petition has arisen has been
dismissed, the petition has no legs to stand upon—As to the merit of the
petition, at the time of admission of the appeal the appellant was satisfied by
obtaining a short order of stay with respect to the High Court’s order—The
effect of Court’s order on the orders passed by the High Court Division or on
the respondents does not appear to be clear and leaves scope for wrong
understanding—Having regard to the circum-stances, it would not be reasonable
to entertain the application.

Charandwip Bhumihin Krishi Sainàbaya Samity Ltd., represented by the
Chairman, Md. Abdus Sainad Vs. The Deputy Commissioner, Cox’s Bazar and others,
8BLD (AD) 62
Contempt of Court


Punishment for
disobedience of Court’s order
—Public servant disobeying Court’s or1er—His
affidavit showed defiant justification :f his action—It is time that penal law
of the and be applied in such cases for deterrent impact upon the public
servant who chooses : disobey the orders of the Court—Punishment under the
Contempt of Court Act is not stringent enough for such glaring cases of willful
disobedience—The delinquent should be prosecuted under section 217 of Penal

Southern Fisheries Ranong Corporation and others Vs. King Fisheries
Industries Ltd. and others; 1 BLD (HCD) 487


Contempt of Court

Deliberate and intentional disobedience of Court’s order
amounts to contempt of Court— Casual, accidental or unintentional disregard of
the Court’s order may not constitute contempt of Court—It is not a single act
or omission for which the respondent has been charged—It is not his case that
he misunderstood Court’s order or there is ambiguity therein—Had he any genuine
intention to act according to Court’s order he could have sought clarification
during the long period—In the circumstances, there is hardly any scope for
holding that the violations were committed unintentionally or due to
misunderstanding of the Court’s order.

Nature of Contempt of Court proceeding— Though a contempt
proceeding is quasi- criminal in nature, the condemner is not like an accused
in a criminal case since he may Ide affidavit or make statements on oath in
refutation of the allegation against him.

Mahbubur Rahnzan Sikder and others Vs. Mujibuir Rahinan Sikder and
others; 3BLD (AD) 317

Ref: 1944 1.L.R.(Lah) 196; 45 Call 69; AJ.R.1969 Delhi 214;
A.I.R.1964 Pun jab428; 45C.W.N. 733; A.I.R.l945(P.C.)l47.


Contempt of Court

Contempt Rule was issued against some Government Officer for
violating the order of the High Court Division—Martial Law Regulation No. III
of 1983 was promulgated declaring the order of the High Court Division as void
and abating pending proceedings—The contempt proceeding cannot proceed and
consequently abates—Proclamation of Martial Law of March 24, 1982 clause
h—Martial Law Regulation III of 1983, Article. 4

Khalilur Rahinan Vs. Mr. jainsed All and others; 3 BLD (HD) 298



Violation of stay order—Contempt
when lies—Since the appeal from which the contempt petition has arisen has been
dismissed, the petition has no legs to stand upon—As to the merit of the petition,
at the time of admission of the appeal the appellant was satisfied by obtaining
a short order of stay with respect to the High Court’s order—The effect of this
Court’s order on the orders passed by the High Court Division or on the
respondents does not appear to be clear and leaves scope for wrong understanding
Having regard to the circumstances, it was not held reasonable to entertain the

Charandwip Bhumihin Krishi Samabaya Samity Ltd. represented by the
Chairman, Md. Abdus Samad Vs. The Deputy Commissioner, Cox’ Bazar and others; 8
BLD (AD)62



Proceedings for
—Such proceedings whether maintainable for contempt of Arbitrator
appointed under Ordinance 11 of 1982—High Court Division is to exercise the
same jurisdiction in respect of the Contempt of Courts subordinate to it as it
exercise in respect of contempt of itself—As the Arbitrator is not a Court at
all there could be no question of his being subordinate to the High Court Di
vision—The opposite parties cannot therefore be proceeded against by the High
CourtDivision on an allegation of contempt of the Arbitrator.

Beguin Lutfunnessa Vs. Nizamuddiiz Ahined and others, 8BLD(HcD)357



Contempt of Court—Court
finds the affidavits of contemners publishing scandalous materials to he
adequate for purging from the guilt—But since the daily was making a maiden
venture in to the field of journalism, it was essential that it was observing
the ethics of journalism a little more seriously—The let— tel—writer, a
non-descript person expressing himself on matters which are no subjects of his
concern—In discharging the Rule against contemner nos. 2—4 a note of warning
was issued for future care and caution.

A. Monir Vs. The State, 8BLD



Contempt of Court—Contempt
committed by writing a letter to the Editor imputing collective dishonesty to
the entire class of Judges—Contemner No. I, real or fictitious, cannot escape
the process of law and he has no justification for writing the letter and
sending the same for publication—He has committed a gross contempt of Court.

M.A. Monir Vs. The State; 8 BLD (HCD)434



Contempt matter—Involvement
of police officer as contemners is a case for added concern—The police are not
only the law entorcing agency of the administration hut they ‘are also the arms
of the Court—The Court can enforce its orders and decisions only through the
police—If the police flout the orders of the Court then the whole legal system
of trial and the judiciary are bound to collapse—In the present case the
contemner being a police officer not only disobeyed the orders of the
Magistrate, he also committed injustice and caused harassment to the
complainant who approached him disclosing cognizable offences— I-Ic committed
contempt of the worst type and his apology is really no apology in the eye of

Md. Abdur Razzaqe, Magistrate, Sailkupa (ipazila Vs Sheikh Serajul
Islam,0/C’, Sailkupa; 9BLD(HC’D)298


Contempt matter

When apology is no proper apology—The contemner police officer
did admit the receipt of the orders of the Magistrate upon which the contempt
proceeding had arisen and he at the same time admits his guilt and tenders
unconditional apology—The question of apology arises only when the contemner
unconditionally confesses the guilt and then tenders apology—In the present
case, therefore. there was no proper apology.

Md. Abdur Razzaque, Magistrate, Sailkupa Upazila Vs. Sheikh Serajul
Islam, 0/C, Sailkupa; 9BLD(HD)298


When contemner aggravates his offence—There is no shadow of
doubt that different orders of the Magistrate reached the conlemner in time hut
he willingly flouted the orders—He added insult to the injury by his reply to
the last memo of the Magistrate—Re instead of complying with the order had the
audacity to ask the Magistrate to send the previous orders to him and thereby
threw all decorum and decency to the wind.

Md. Abdur Razzaque, Magistrate, Sailkiipa lipazilla Vs. Sheikh Serajul
Islam, 0/C, Sailkiipa; 9BLD(HCD)298.


Failure to act in aid of the Supreme Court leads to
contempt—Since the delay in implementing the Court’s advance order of release
of the detenu cannot be explained in terms of any provision in the Jail Code or
in- terms of the Government’s instruction, the contemners have acted not in aid
of the Sup rne Court in releasing the detenus hut in aid of the Home Ministry
in facilitating the making and serving of a fresh order of detention—The
contemners have thus disobeyed the orders of the Court and are thus guilty of
the contempt of Court.—Constitution of Bangladesh. 1972. Article 112.

Ainit Kuniar Banik, Khokan Kurnar Saha Vs. Manjurul Karini, Jailor,
Dhaka Central jail, Dhaka and another; 9BLD(HD)5.


Contempt matter—Effect
of contempt to he taken into consideration—In contempt matters the intention of
the contemner is not relevant—It is the effect of the contemner’s action which
is to be taken into consideration in deciding whether a contempt was committed
or not—The effect of the contemner’s action is that the Court’s order has been
flouted—The Court cannot he a silent spectator in this state of affairs.

Mrs. Tahera Nargis Syed Vs. Mr. Sham- stir Rahinan, D.A.G. of Prisons,
Dhaka Central Jail; 10 BLD (HCD) 73


Contemner’s apology—When
a contemner tenders apology as an act of contrition, the Court must weigh that
apology and in awarding punishment—The Court must consider the apology tendered
by the contemner— If the apology is found to be a real act o’ contrition, no
action need be taken and a word of warning may be enough but if the apology is
qualified, hesitating and sought to be used as a device to escape the
consequences of the contemner’s action, it must be rejected.

Mr. Shamsur Rahinan, Deputy Inspector Geiteral of Prisons, Dhaka
Central Jail, Dhaka Vs. Mrs. Tahera Nargis Syed and another; 12 BLD(AD) 150


Contempt of Court—The
necessity of the knowledge of the executing Court is a sin qua non for
affecting its jurisdiction as well as for a committal for contempt in case of
violation—As soon as the executing Court comes to know of the stay order either
by receiving communication of passing the stay order by a Court or from an
affidavit from one of the parties to the proceeding or in other way, it will
stay its hands till further order and, if it does not do so, it not only acts
illegally but commits contempt of the Court—There is. however, no doubt that no
action for contempt can be taken against an executing Court, if it carries on execution
in ignorance of the order of stay.

Where there is no justification for doubting the authenticity
of an order of the superior Court,it is the duty of the subordinate Court to carry
out that order and it cannot take up the plea that as the order had not been
officially communicated, it was at liberty to ignore it.

If an apology is to be offered un— equivocally and at the
earliest opportunity?—A belated apology hardly shows the contrition that is the
essence of the purging of a contempt—One who has the courage of his convictions
may, however, take the risk and run the gauntlet of proving that he is not in

No stay of execution can be demanded as of right on the
strength of a private telegram or on information received from an Advocate—The
Court may stay execution in its discretion, but when an Advocate’s information
is disregarded by the Court, a reason must be given so that the exercise of
discretion may l)e scrutinised by the Superior Court—Normally, therefore, an
Advocates information will be honoured by the Court, unless a strong case for
refusal is made out by the Court in its order of refusal.

Chairinan, Kushtia Co—operative Industrial Union Ltd. Vs. Md. Mujibur
Rahinan and others, I2BLD(AD)227
Ref: (l896—97)IC.W.N.226:.(
1906)l.L.R. 33Cal-927; 8D.L.R.(W.P.)(Lahore) 15(1965);
A.I.R.1962(S.C.)l089(1093—94); A.I.R.1968(S.C.) 1348.

Law of Contempt—In
a contempt matter a Court should not be touchy and no one should be held guilty
of contempt of Court unless there is a will ful disrespect of a Court’s order with
full knowledge of it.

A person in judiciary must be deemed to be acquainted with the
law of contempt and his ignorance of law is no excuse.

Ayub Ali Mahalder Vs. Md. Shahjahan and another; 12 BLD (HD) 54Action
for violation of Courts Order


Appellate Division
passed order for keeping a vessel under attachment
— Whether the High Court
Division competent to take action for violation of such order— After the order
passed by the Appellate Division in the Civil Miscellaneous Petition the appeal
before the High Court Division was rendered infructuous—Impugned order which
may be argued to have merit, seems to hake been passed without any competence
to do so—Its legality or illegality therefore loses all significance—Anxiety to
do justice cannot have free play so as to enable the Court to overcome the
barrier of competence.

Md. Muzaffar Hossain Vs. King Fishers Industries Ltd; 4BLD (AD) 237.