Per Md Abdur Rashid J (agreeing) : In practice, this Division has been following the same path charted by the Appellate Division for taking cognizance of an offence of contempt. Mainul Hosein & others vs Sheikh Hasina Wazed53 DLR 138.
Per Md Abdur Rashid J (agreeing) A contempt proceeding is quasi-criminal in nature. The contemner is entitled to benefit of doubt, and since the Court is both prosecutor and judge, rule as to proof of guilt of the contemner must be strictly observed. Mainul Hosein vs Sheikh Hasina Wazed 53 DLR 138.
Per Md Abdur Rashid J (agreeing) : What could readily be read as contemptuous in 1900 or 1912 or 1936 is not so easily read now in the context of expanding rights guaranteed as fundamental to human existence under the Constitution. Mainul Hosein vs Sheikh Hasina Wazed 53 DLR 138.
Per Md Abdur Rashid (agreeing) : Statements based on inaccurate assessments of situation, however grossly misreading those may be, cannot amount to contempt of court. Moreover, in the absence of mens rea, no contempt is established. Mainul Hosein vs Sheikh Hasina Wazed 53 DLR 138.
Per Md Abdur Rashid J (agreeing) : It is not correct to think that the judges are above law or there is no accountability of the judges under the Constitution. The sooner it is understood the better for the whole nation. Mainul Hosein vs Sheikh Hasina Wazed 53 DLR 138.
Per Md Abdur Rashid J (agreeing) : The Prime Minister of the Republic is the leader of the House of the Nation. The Parliament comprises of members, both of the ruling party as well as of the Opposition. The aggrieved members of the Parliament could have more opportunities and better scope to hold their leader to account in the Parliament for her statements. But they preferred to abdicate their constitutional privilege and submitted before the Court to punish their leader by this Division for infraction of the Constitution. Such novel step, unprecedented in the constitutional history, I am afraid, would not create any good precedent. Mainul Hosein vs Sheikh Hasina Wazed 53 DLR 138.
Per Md Abdur Rashid J (agreeing) The people are equally and strongly divided like the lawyers. Such division demands serious circumspection from the judiciary. Then the reason for such division is nowhere found except in the politics. The judiciary must guard against all chances of the party politics creeping into the holy precincts of the citadel of justice lest it ultimately fell victim to politics. Mainul Hosein vs Sheikh Hasina Wazed 53 DLR 138.
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
—“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 nondescript people to interfere in matters which are not subject-matter of their concem—Contemner No. 1 is convicted. State vs MA Monir 40 DLR 83.
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 officer— Unqualified apology—After considering the background of the ease 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 Ali 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 UlJah 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 practising advocate will be a little more onerous than one who acts as a mere journalist. Saleem Ullah vs State 44 DLR (AD) 309.
Section 2—The Sessions Judge or any other judicial officer shall not act merely as a post box to send each and every application to this Court even if he finds no ground to send the same for taking action under the Contempt of Courts Act. Anwarul Hoque vs Golam Mahmud and Md lvlohsin 5! DLR 242.
Section 2—The Sessions Judge had no authority to accept the apology tendered by the contemner. Anwarul Hoque vs Golam Mahmud and Md Mohsin 51 DLR 242.
Section 2—If editors, printers & publishers publish news or comments even by anonymous author to malign and scandalise this Court hands of this Court are long enough to catch and punish them. Shahidul Islam vs Mahbubul Alam 51 DLR 485.
Section 2—If any presiding officer of any subordinate Court fails to comply with any order or direction of this Court made in any case then such officer is not only guilty of contempt of this Court but also of insubordination. State vs Farooq Ahmed, Subordinate Judge 51 DLR 515.
Section 2—No member of the Legislature should be questioned or penalised by any Court for anything said within its four walls. Cyril Sikder vs Nazmul Huda 46 DLR 555.
Section 2—Since the contemner has expressed his sorrow and remorse and begged for unconditional apology ends of justice will be met if the Rule is discharged giving him warning so that he is careful in future. Subbatara Begum vs Ansaruddin, Officer-in-Charge 50 DLR 339.
Section 2—The explanation that the contemner’s Advocate submitted that the Special Tribunal can dispose of the matter, since the contemner was tendering unconditional apology, cannot be accepted in view of the fact that he is a Divisional and Sessions Judge. Subbatara Begum vs Ansaruddin, Officer-in-Charge 50 DLR 339.
Section 2—Failure to obey any process of the Court, when other methods of enforcing the process are available, does not amount to a contempt of Court. In view of the decisions in the case of Bahawal Bhaloo, 14 DLR (SC) 273 and Dr MO Ohani vs Dr ANM Mahmood, 18 DLR (SC) 463 the present application filed by the plaintiff- petitioners under the Contempt of Court Act, 1926 (Act XII of 1926) has no substance. There is no reason for this Court to hold that the opposite parties deliberately flouted the order of the Court. Abu Taiyab Miah vs Nurun Nabi Miah 46 DLR 561.
Section 2—The later portion of his explanation shows that the contemner has realised his mistake and admitted his fault. So the contemner Special Judge is let off with a warning. Subbatara Begum vs Ansaruddin, Officer-in-Charge 50 DLR 339
Section 2—This case should serve as a reminder to all concerned that the Court will not hesitate to deal with member of the subordinate judiciary if he is not cautious, restrained, respectful and deferential with regard to the highest judiciary. We highly disapprove of the manner and the language with which the offending Article was written and warn the author that any repetition of the same will be visited with punishment of even a greater scale, not to be condoned on any plea whatsoever. With these observations the appeal is allowed. The conviction of the appellant for Contempt of Court and the sentence passed thereunder by the High Court Division are set aside. Ashok Kumar Karmaker vs State 51 DLR (AD) 235.
Section 2—The contemner being the Managing Director of Bangladesh Shipping Corporation and now Comptroller General of Defence showed total disrespect to the judgment and decree of the Courts and did not offer any expression of sorrow, repentance, remorse or apology for his failure to act on the orders of the Court. He is guilty of contempt of the Courts and, as such, sentenced to one month’s imprisonment and fine of Taka 1000. Raqibuddin Ahmed vs SAM Iqbal 50 DLR 209.
Section 2—In a case where no execution case is filed, the contempt petition avoiding such proceeding based on the ground of inaction on the part of the Government Officers and the defendant is misconceived. Rafiqul Alam vs Bangladesh 50 DLR 628.
Section 2—Where the writing’ cdntains scandalous’ language to bring the Court into disrespect and castigates its’‘dignity, its majesty and challenges its authority specially when the writer has knowledge about the contempt law and working of Courts of law he commits contempt of Court. We really do not need spineless men as Judges. These remarks certainly render the Judges contemptible in the eyes of the general public and undoubtedly casts aspersions on the courage and ability of the Judges and by no stretch of imagination can it be said that it is not written for scandalising the Judges or his authority and dOes not amount to contempt of Court. The atticle was written malafide in a tone to undermine ibe judiciary and it’tends to ‘breed conflict between the two organs of the state—the legislature and the judiciary. Judges of the High Court Division vs Ashok Kumar Karmaker 48 DLR 179.
Section 2—Where the writings published are proved to be that of the particular writer a lenient view may be taken in case of the ditor, the printer and the Publisher for such news item or the article. Judges of the High Court DIvision Ashok Kumar Karmaker 48 DLR 179.
Section 2—While the judgmeni of author-Judge was sub-judice under appeal and the appeal was being heard in this Division he ought not to have published any opinion on such a subjudice matter. Shamsuddin Ahmed vs Md Gholam Rabbani & Others 52 DLR (AD) 81.
Section 2—Contemner, having shown respect to this court and denied the allegations which is supported by the rejoinder published in the three newspapers, the contemner is not guilty of contempt of this court but he is a victim of the situation created by the publication of news. Bangladesh Supreme Court Bar Association vs Shah Azizur Rahman, MP 52 DLR 159.
Section 2—Contempt of Court proceeding is a quasi-criminal proceeding—In such a proceeding the petitioner must prove beyond all reasonable doubt that the contemner has deliberately violated the Court’s direction. Suhel Ahmed Chowdhury vs Salahuddin Ayubi 54 DLR (AD) 82.
Section 2—The High Court Division meant it is the office of the Secretary which is responsible for non compliance of the directive but in contempt matters the personal liability is first and foremost consideration. Suhel Ahmed Chowdhury vs Salahuddin Ayubi 54 DLR (AD) 82.
Section 2—By making undue delay in carrying out the judgment of the courts of law the respondents are committing contempt of courts. Wahidul Haque vs Bangladesh 54 DLR 165.
Section 2—The contemner taking advantage of not getting stay extended by the petitioner in time hurried’y took up the cases for hearing and passed order making ex parte the Trade Mark Application pending before the Court infructuous —This action of the contemner appears to be contempt of this Court. Elders Ltd vs Sunil Chandra Chowdhury 54 DLR 226.
Section 2—Any attempt to pollute the stream of justice before it has begun to flow or to interfere with its proper and unfettered administration will amount to a contempt. Elders Ltd vs Sunil Chandra Chowdhury 54 DLR 226.
Section 2-Contempt proceeding is quasi- criminal and anybody can file an application for initiating contempt proceeding if there be any ground. Elders Ltd vs Sunil Chandra Chowdhury 54 DLR 226.
Section 2—It is the effect of the contemner’s action which is to be taken into consideration in deciding whether a contempt is committed or not. Solaiman vs Md Mosharaf Hossain Khan 54 DLR 531.
Section 2—Apology with an attempt to justif’ the act complained of is no apology at all. Solaiman vs Md Mosharaf Hossain Khan 54 DLR 531.
Section 2—Bank Companies (Amendment) Act, 2003 introduced prospectively will have no bearing upon the AGMs for the years in question but ignoring this aspect the contemner opposite parties repeatedly hammered upon the Chairman designate to give his opinion as to the interpretation of this new section and the circular of the Bangladesh Bank. It appears in the name of seeking advice or guideline from the Chairman designate the opposite parties have obstructed the course of justice and flouted this court’s order. Akhteruzzaman Chowdhury vs Hamidul Huq, MD, UCBL 56 DLR 73.
Section 2―Contempt proceeding is a quasi- criminal proceeding and like any other criminal proceeding the contemners are also entitled to get the benefit of doubt. Akhteruzzaman Chowdhury vs Hamidul Huq, MD, UCBL 56 DLR 73.
Section 2—In the affidavit of explanation the case of the contemners is, that they have no authority to hold the AGM of the Bank but I have already pointed out that the letter dated 27-7-03 written by the contemner No. 2 to the Chairman designate Mr KZ Alam, contemner No. 1, informed him that they have decided to wait till the disposal of the Writ Petition No. 3482 of 2003 and this fact alone establishes beyond doubt that the contemners have no or any regard for this court. Akhteruzzaman Chowdhury vs Hamidul Huq, MD, UCBL 56 DLR 73.
Section 2—The contempt-petitioner having expressed remorse and thrown himself at the mercy of the court his unconditional apology is acceptd and he is exonerated from the charge of contempt of court. The judgment and order passed against him is set aside. M Saleemullah vs State 57 DLR (AD) 94.
Section 2—The Judges cannot perform their duty properly if they are exposed to libelous attacks. It is necessary as stated by Wilmot J, to keep a blaze of glory around them and to deter people from attempting to render them contemptible in the eyes of the public. At the same time, it is essential that confidence of the public in the Courts be maintained. Md Faiz, Advocate of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of Bangladesh vs Ekramul Haque Bulbul, reporter of the Daily Prothom Alo 57 DLR 670.
Section 2—The law of contempt is a law within the meaning of Article 152 of the Constitution and it is a valid law even after coming into force of our Constitution and there is no conflict of this law with Article 39 of the Constitution. Md Faiz, Advocate of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of Bangladesh vs Ekramul Haque Bulbul, reporter of the Daily Prothom Alo 57 DLR 670.
Section 2—This Court does not function individually rather it functions institutionally, and the reports have done the mischief of shaking the confidence of the people in this institution. Once a judge is appointed he can be dealt with only through due process of law and not otherwise. Md Faiz, Advocate of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of Bangladesh vs Ekramul Haque Bulbul, reporter of the Daily Prothom Alo 57 DLR 670.
Section 2—In our Constitution Article 39(2) puts a restriction on the freedom of press and made it subject to the law of contempt. Md Faiz, Advocate of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of Bangladesh vs Ekramul Haque Bulbul, reporter of the Daily Prothom Alo 57 DLR 670.
Section 2—It is true that administration of justice has become more complex, crimes have gone beyond proportion and free press can serve as watchdog in fighting against social ills. The press must bring to light the dark aspect of the society but in so doing it cannot scandalise ajudge or Court or interfere with the administration of justice. Md Faiz, Advocate of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Coufl of Bangladesh vs Ekramul Haque Bulbul, reporter of the Daily Prothom Alo 57 DLR 670.
Section 2—The respondents are guilty of gross contempt of the Court. The use of the mark of exclamation after the headline or good intention or motive or truth of the publication is of no consequence. Md Faiz, Advocate of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of Bangladesh vs Ekramul Haque Bulbul, reporter of the Daily Prothom Alo 57 DLR 670.
Section 2—If a judge is appointed without requisite qualification, the matter is not without a remedy. The very appointment may be challenged for want of proper consultation. The Supreme Judicial Council may be activated for the redress but the judge cannot be dealt with except through due process of law. Md Faiz, Advocate of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of Bangladesh vs Ekramul Haque Bulbul, reporter of the Daily Prothom Alo 57 DLR 670. ,
Section 2—A lenient view has been taken about the sentence in this case in recognition of the past services of the respondents to the nation. Md Faiz, Advocate of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of Bangladesh vs Ekramul Haque Bulbul reporter of the Daily Prothom Alo 57 DLR 670.
Section 2—Article 108 of the Constitution has conferred upon both the Divisions of the Supreme Court, as the Court of record, the power of contempt of Court. In Bangladesh this field is governed thus by. Articles 108 and 39 read with the Contempt of Courts Act. State vs Chief Editor, Manabjamin 57 DLR 359.
Section 2—Mens rea is not a relevant ingredient for committing criminal contempt. So also intention is not relevant in finding out whether a particular statement or utterance amounts to contempt or not. State vs Chief Editor, Manabjamin 57 DLR 359.
Section 2—If a man makes a statement imputing bias or motive to a judge he does so at his own risk but in a secular democratic society, where the fundamental right of freedom of speech and the press is recognised, he is at liberty to prove so. State vs Chief Editor Manabjamin 57 DLR 359.
Section 2—’Apology’ is an act of contrition but the apology in the facts and circumstances of the instant case, not being a bonafide repentant one of a penitent heart and being devoid of remorse, Court finds no reason to differ with the finding of the High Court Division regarding acceptance of the unqualified apology either to exonerate the contemner or to modify the impugned sentence. Shahudul Haque, IG Police vs State 58 DLR (AD) 15.
Section 2—They thoigb tendered unconditional apology but dd not, by themselves, promise never again to repeat the forbidden acts and it was devoid of remorse. The contemners, by questioning/casting doubt about the flag of the Supreme Court and the Judge concerned carrying the flag on his car undermined the authority of the Supreme Court. Shahudul Haque, IG Police vs State 58 DLR (AD) 150.
Section 2—Counsel for the appellant submitted not for exonerating them o the charges but for censuring them for the offence. In view of the very setioiis allegations and the way the appellants behaved, the Court could not persuade itself to exonerate them of the charge of Contempt of Court. Shahudul Haque, IG Police vs State 58 DLR (AD) 150.
Section 2—In view of the deliberate act of the appellants to disrespect the flag of the Supreme Court and deliberate commission/omission behaving in a manner undermining the authority, dignity and prestige of the Supreme Court of Bangladesh, its flag and its Judge, Court does not find any mitigating circumstances to accept the unqualified apology. Shahudul Haque, IG Police vs State 58 DLR (AD) 150.
Section 3—Adequate remedy having been provided against disobedience of an injunction order issued under Order XXXIX of the Code, as provided in Order XXXIX rule 2, a contempt petition is not maintainable on this score. Momena Begum vs Dhaka City Corporation 55 DLR 43.
Section 3—An apology usually mitigates the offence and if it is unreserved, the court may accept it. Sirajul Islam vs Wahidul Haque 55 DLR 272.
Section 3―In the impugned statement there is nothing relating to any judgment or to a person acting as a judge—it is over the activity of the Chief Election Commissioner, not of a judge—it is with no motive to lower down the dignity of the Supreme Court and, as such, it constitutes no contempt. Dr Ahmed Hussain, Senior Advocate vs Shamsul Huq Chowdhury Senior Advocate 48 DLR 155.
Section 3In the impugned statement there in nothing relating to any judgment or to a person acting as a judge—it is over the activity of the Chief Election Commissioner, not of a judge—It is with no motive to lower down the dignity of the Supreme Court and, as such, it constitutes no contempt.
Mr Shamsul Huq Chowdhury made statements in a zeal to protect the neutrality and independence ofjudiciary and it was not a criticism of any particular judge nor can it be termed as scandalisation of the Judges of the Superior Court or the Judiciary in any form. We feel that mentioning of the name of sitting Judge, Mr Abdur Rouf, in the statement is without any motive to lower down the honour, dignity, prestige and neutrality of the Supreme Court. Dr Ahmed Hussain, Senior Advocate vs Shamsul Huq Chowdhury Senior Advocate 48 DLR 155.
Section 3—Contempt proceeding—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 in the petition for drawing up a proceeding for contempt. Badsha Mia vs Abdul Latif Majumder 43 DLR (AD) 10.
Section 4—Fugitive has no locus standi to file any petition—The petitioner is a fugitive from justice when he moved the petition and obtained the Rule Nisi. This Court repeatedly argued that a fugitive from justice is not entitled to obtain a judicial order defying the process of the Court. When a person wants to seek remedy from a Court of law, he is required to submit to the due process of the Court and unless he surrenders to the jurisdiction of the Court, the Court will not pass any order in his aid. Anti-Corruption Commission vs ATM Nazimullah Chowdhury 62 DLR (AD) 225.
Section 6(5)—According to of section 6(5) of the Act the Government is to accord sanction within 60 days of the memo seeking sanction and after the lapse of 60 days it shall be deemed that sanction was duly accorded and accordingly, to proceed with the trial of the case. But in the instant case, after the expiry of 60 days period, the Government has decided not to accord sanction intimating that the Government has decided not to accord any sanction in order to proceed with the case; In view of the provision of section 6(5) of the Act meanwhile for failure of the authority to intimate within 60 days of the letter seeking for sanction it will be deemed that sanction was duly accorded after the expiry of the period of 60 days when the sanction was sought for and in view of the provision of law any subsequent letter refusing to accord sanction was of no legal consequence.
This determining clause shall prevail in respect of the proceeding with the trial of the case and that the subsequent letter of the Government replying to the letter refusiiig to accord sanction was of no legal consequence and consequently, the proceeding shall continue in accordance with law as if the sanction to prosecute has been obtained against the accused and the subsequent refusing to accord sanction and consequently not to proceed with the case against the accused was of no legal consequence. Malek Hussain Pir vs Begum Nurjahan Khanum 62 DLR (AD) 285.
Section 10—The High Court Division has correctly followed the observations made by this Division in Criminal Appeal No. 6 of 2008 in granting bail to the respondent No.1. The appeal could not be disposed of within ninety days and the respondent has already served out a substantial portion of sentence. Anti-Corruption Commission vs Sigma Huda 62 DLR (AD) 227.