Contempt of Court
Intention of the contemner, whether relevant—
Effect of contemner’s action to be taken into consideration—Dignity and authority of the Court trampled and transgressed—Court cannot be silent spectator to this state of affairs.
No other authority other than Appellate Division has any power to delay, stay or set aside the order of the Supreme Court (High Court Division) directing an immediate release of any detenu—No other direction issued by any Minister of Department staying or thwarting the order of the Court is binding upon any functionary of the Government.
Tahera Nargis Syed Vs. Shamsur Rahman, DIG Prisons, Dhaka Central Jail 41 DLR 508.

—“Show cause” notice issued to the contemners asking them why they shall not be convicted and punished for contempt of Court for writing, editing, printing and publishing a letter to the Editor captioned “পেশকারের পেশী” in the issue of the daily Inqilab at page 5 of the 12th June, 1986 containing scandalous allegations against the Judges as a class and the Bench officers of the Judges as a class, thus undermining the dignity and authority of the Courts of law in Bangladesh and lowering the reputation of the entire judicial system in the estimation of the public. The letter writer, namely MA Monir, Contemner No. 1, was a non—descript person venturing into the field of administration of justice—Contemner Nos. 2—4 offered unconditional apology to the Court which was considered adequate but were warned to be very careful in printing such offending materials written by ill—equipped, unqualified and non—descript people to interfere in matters which are not subject—matter of their concern—Contemner No. 1 is convicted.
State Vs. MA Monir 40 DLR 183.

Contempt of Courts Act, 1926
[XII of 1926]
Section 2—
The Magistrate having appeared to have violated the order of the Court through misreading of the order and there being no mens rea in the violation, he need not be asked to show cause as to why he should not be held guilty of contempt of the Court.
Abdul Jabbar Vs State 44 DLR 21.

Section 2—
Contempt by judicial official— Unqualified apology—After considering the background of the case and the power to punish a person for contempt in extreme necessity, only to keep the flow of administration smooth and undisturbed, court does not accept the apology but considers this as a mitigating factor and, instead of sentencing him to imprisonment, the court is inclined to take a lenient view in the matter of sentence. The contemner Assistant Judge is accordingly let off with an admonition only.
Ayub Mi Mohaldar Vs Md Shahjahan 44 DLR 101.

Section 2—
Contempt—Limits of the press—Freedom of the press is recognised in our Constitution—a court is to suffer criticism made against it. Only in exceptional cases of bad faith or ill motive it will resort to law of contempt.
Saleem ullah Vs State 44 DLR (AD) 309

Section 2—
Nabbing of contemner—It is not possible for a court to take note of all kinds of contemptuous utterances made in the press or in public gatherings. As an officer of the court the counsel may bring any matter to the notice of the court that may call for action.
Saleem Ullah Vs State 44 DLR (AD) 309.

Section 2—
Contempt by Court reporter—the responsibility of a reporter who is also a practicing advocate will be a little more Onerous than one who acts as a mere journalist.
Saleem UlIah Vs. State 44 DLR (AD) 309.

Section 2—
Contempt by allegations in transfer petition—The Munsif concerned did not deny the statements made in the application under section 24 CPC although his report was called for In view of this the allegations made by the contemners in their transfer petitions do not come within the mischief of contempt law.
State Vs Joynal Abedin 43 DLR 261.

Section 3—
Contempt pro ding—There being no specific denial of the incident stated in the petition for Contempt of Court, High Court Division correctly found the appellants guilty of contempt of court Power of a High Court to institute a contempt proceeding is a special jurisdiction which is inherent in all courts of record and the High Court Division can deal with it summarily and adopt its own procedure. Normally contempt proceedings are disposed of by affidavits and counter—affidavits. Question of taking evidence would have arisen if the petitioners specifically denied the statements made m the petition for drawing up a proceeding for contempt.
Badsha Mia Vs. Abdul Latif Majumder 43 DLR (AD) 10.