Apology belated or not
Apex
Court —a contemner may challenge a competent rule and file counter affidavit giving alternative facts and circumstances but before hearing of the Rule if he changes his mind and offers unqualified apology acceptable to the court withdrawing his earlier Affidavit, then the apology cannot be said to be a belated one.
The State Vs. Mst Monowara Begum & Anr 16 BLT (HCD) 202
On rejoinder, Principle of
A newspaper is bound to publish the rejoinder of any news or comments made against any person or organization if sent by the person or organization concerned to the newspaper concerned.
Md. Saidur Rahaman Vs. Mr. Shah Azizur Rahaman MP 7BLT (HCD)-249
Publication of News—Explanation
Contemner, a Member of the Parliament having shown respect to this Court and having denied the allegations which is supported by the rejoinder published in the three newspapers we are of the view that contemner is not guilty of contempt of this Court.
Md. Saidur Rahaman Vs. Mr. Shah Azizur Rahaman MP 7BLT (HCD)-249
Duty of the journalists—be liable for
In the instant case it appear to us that the two newspapers did not care to verify the truth or otherwise of the news published concerning the prestige and dignity of this Court. We hope that in future journalists would be more careful and cautious in publishing news concerning this Court or its Judges. If they fail in their such duty they would be inviting trouble for them and would not be spared and the law would take its own course.
Md. Saidur Rahaman Vs. Mr., Shah Azizur Rahaman MP 7BLT (HCD)-249
Contempt of Court
Charge of Contempt of Court—unconditional apology tendered at a belated Stage.
In the instant case, the appellants stated that “now the poor appellants condemners have come up with this Review petition throwing themselves at the mercy of the Hon’ble Court” and in paragraph 12 of the review application the appellants also stated that “under the above facts and circumstances the Opposite party No.2/ Applicant No.1 most benignly is throwing himself at the mercy of the Hon’ble Court to consider review of the order and accept an unconditional apology” and in the prayer portion the appellants also prayed “to allow the review petition and allow the Applicants to offer unconditional apology and your Lordships show mercy to the poor appellants by accepting the unconditional apology offered herein.” —Held; considering the special facts and circumstances of the present case as stated above, end of justice will be met if we accept the apology offered by the appellants, though tendered at a belated stage, but with the warning that the henceforth, they should be respectful while addressing or communicating or dealing with the Court.
Md. Awlad Hossain & Anr. Vs Joynab Bibi & Anr 13 BLT (AD)186
Contempt of Courts Act, 1926
Since the contemner has realized the gravity of the act done by him and expressed his regrets and tendered unqualified apology and prayed for mercy of this Court, considering that this has been done by him for the 1st time, we accept his apology.
The State Vs. Mr. Faruque Ahmed 7BLT (HCD)-251
Condemners submitted separate applications tendering unqualified apology and also stating that the lease in question was granted without knowing about the order of statuesque and by order dated 12.7.99 the said lease has been cancelled—Held: Unqualified apology is accepted and the condemners are exonerated
Md. Jamshed All & Ors. Vs. Md. Abdus Samad & Ors. 7BLT (HCD)-250
Section-2
Whether the Prime Minister committed contempt of court by her statements in the interview with BBC as “দেখুন যে দেশে খুনীকে সহযোগিতা করা হয়, খুনীকে রক্ষা করার চেষ্টা করা হয়, খুনীদের বিচার হয় না, সে দেশে হত্যা খুন চলবে। সমস্যা হচ্ছে, পুলিশ কষ্ট করে আসামীদের ধরে। তখনই আসামীদের হাইকোর্ট থেকে জামিন দেয়া হয়। কোর্টে থেকে জামিন দেয়া হয়। লোয়ার কোর্ট বলেনতহাইকোর্ট বলেন যেখানেই যাক সে দুর্নীতিবাজ হোক আর আসামীই হোক তাদের জন্য যেন একটা নিরাপদ আশ্রয়স্থল হচ্ছে কোর্ট। যখনই যাচ্ছে তারা জামিন পেয়ে যাচ্ছে। আর এই জামিন পেয়ে ফিরে এসেই হত্যাকাণ্ড ঘটাচ্ছে। আমি তো মনে করি যে উকিল তার জন্য জামিন চাচ্ছে সেই উকিলকে ধরা উচিত এবং কোন কোর্ট জামিন দিচ্ছে তারও জবাবদিহিতা করা উচিত। এটা যতক্ষণ পর্যন্ত এদেশে প্রতিষ্ঠিত না হবে, আর অপরাধী যতক্ষণ পর্যন্ত দৃষ্টান্তমূলক শাস্তি না পাবে, ততক্ষণ পর্যন্ত এখান এই পরিস্থিতিকে উন্নত করা অত্যন্ত কঠিন।”
We have gone through the statement made by the Prime Minister to BBC and meticulously considered and analysed the same as a whole. It is submitted that such a statement is really painful, unfortunate, unhappy, unpalatable and prima facie appears to be highly objectionable and contemptuous because it had threatened and shaken the very confidence of the people upon the judiciary as a whole—Held
: that the Hon’ble Prime Minister shall be more careful and respectful in making any statement or comment with regard to the Judiciary or the Judges or the Courts of Bangladesh in future.
Mainul Hosein & Ors. Vs. Sheikh Hasina Wazed 8BLT(HCD)-410
Mens rea
Held: I have read the above statements in between the lines. Many a times, The statements are no doubt critical, in general, of the Courts and also of lawyers. The statements are also not accurate, factually. In matters of bail, the weaknesses in the process of investigation by the police, failure of the law officers appearing for the prosecution and the loopholes in the judgment delivery system as were pointed out in the submissions of the learned Counsels on both the sides were not reflected. Failure of the administration in handling the situation was also Missing in the statements. But, the statements based on inaccurate assessments of situation, however gross Misreading those may be, cannot be tantamount to be contempt of court. Moreover, in the absence of mens rea, no contempt is established.
Mainul Hosein & Ors. Vs. Sheikh Hasina Wazed 8BLT(HCD)-410
Section-3
When High Court Division directed police for compliance of an order within a time frame it is to be executed and enforced in full within the time and in the manner specified therein. The law enforcer in course of enforcement of court order should not put any artificial meaning or construction or execute any order partly half heartedly and haphazardly thereof or just as matter of free choice, out of whims and caprice but promptly obey and enforce order strictly timely and in full that he is required by such order to do. In case any difficulty arises in understanding the meaning and purports thereof concerned police personnel is to seek guidance from his superior or the of court which issued the order immediately. For failure to obey and comply with any order or direction passed by the High Court Division knowingly and deliberately the concerned officer come under the Mischief of offence of contempt of court within the meaning of section 3 of the contempt of court Act, 1926 (XII of 1926) and he is liable to be committed and punished under the said Act.
The State Vs. O.C. Kafrul & Ors. 11BLT (HCD)-511
Section-3
Apology— An apology usually mitigates the offence and if it is unreserved, the court may accept it. According to the first proviso of Section 3 of the Contempt of court Act 1926 the accused may be discharged or the punishment awarded may be remitted on apology being made to the satisfaction of the Court.
Md. Sirajul Islam Vs. Wahidul Haque. 11BLT(HCD)-168
Section- 3
Contemnor Salahuddin Soyeb Chowdhury in response to the Suo-moto Rule appearing in person offered unconditional and unqualified apology expressing remorse regret a repentance and placed in the mercy of the court.
Held;
Mr. Salauddin Shoyeb Chowdhury, contemner opposite party No.1 in paragraph 6 of his application for apology stated categorically that he moved the prayer for bail before the connected trial court without understanding the consequence of the pending rule. The suppression of pendency of rule is neither deliberate nor intentional. We have accepted his apology and exonerated him from the charge of contempt.
The State Vs Salahuddin Shoyab Chowdhury & Ors. 14 BLT (HCD)246
Section-3
On the basis Of unspecified, indefinite and vague statement, not supported by any material whatsoever, no proceeding should be drawn against any citizen for contempt of Court.
S. S. Halder Vs. Delowar Hossain Sayedee & Ors. 12 BLT (HCD)-79
Contempt of Court
Apology—belated—being ill advised appellant filed a lengthy affidavit justifying his reports that were being made by the appellant to the Government from time to time—Held: We think it will meet the ends of justice if we accept the apology, though a belated one, in mitigation of the sentence only—better late than never. Having gone through the entire matter, we got the impression that an inexperienced young Deputy Commissioner, as the appellant then was, became distraught with the many Court proceedings involving him and the administration and in making his official report gave vent to his vengeful feelings by making objectionable remarks against the local judicial officers. He should not have done it.. We know he would not have done it with little more experience and guidance. Not only a Government official, high or low, but everybody should try to uphold the image of the Court, not for the sake of the Court but for the sake of the society, for their own sake—warned to be careful in future.
Md. Abdul Haque Vs. Kurigram District Judgeship 6BLT (AD)-166
Contempt of Court
Duty of Editor, Printer and Publisher of a newspaper—when a news of a court or of a Judge come before them, it is expected that being responsible and conscious people of the society they should be more careful.
State Vs. A. M. M. Bahauddin & Ors. 5BLT(HCD)-172
Contempt of Court
The allegations against the judicial officers by sending its copy to different agencies of the Government by the Deputy Commissioner(contemner) — the executive branch of the Government to which the contemner belong is completely distinct from judiciary and the contemner has no manner of supervision or control over the judicial officers and the Government has in no conferred any,
authority to the contemner in the case of duty of the Deputy Commissioner except preferring appeal or revision against the judgment and order of any court if the Government interest is hampered and nothing else. So the reportings by the contemner about the local judicial officers to the different agencies of the Government are ex-facie illegal and for which he must pay. The reportings by the contemner to the authorities against the local judicial officers are considered to malign the judicial officers which comes under the Mischief of contempt of court —relied on 7 DLR 34.
Kurigram District Judgeship Vs. Mr. Md. Abdul Haque, D.C. SBLT (HCD)-194
Contempt of Court
In the whole counter—Affidavit of the contemner-appellant, there was not a single word of expression of sorrow, repentance, remorse or apology of any kind.
The basis for filing this contempt petition before the High Court Division was that respondent No. 2 was not allowed to join as Secretary of BSC after the final disposal of his case before the Appellate Division. The trial court decreed the suit of respondent No. 2 with a direction on the BSC to reinstate him in his service as the Secretary of the Corporation. There is the simple direction given by the trial court which was upheld upto the Appellate Division. Respondent No. 2 in all his applications of joining made a prayer for fixing his seniority and that is why the appellant sought the opinion of the parent Ministry and the Legal Adviser in the matter. Immediately the opinion of the Legal Adviser was sought for without any delay and on 19.5.1994 respondent No. 2 was directed to submit a normal and proper joining report. It thus appears that within 112 months from the first letter praying for, joining as Secretary, the appellant directed respondent No. 2 to file a normal joining report and to join as Secretary of BSC, but respondent No. 2. without joining moved the High Court Division in a contempt proceedings on 5.5.1994. Respondent No. 2 did not even wait for 112 months but moved, the High Court Division in contempt. In the
background of the admitted fact, and correspondence it is difficult to hold ‘that the appellant had wilfully shown any disrespect and disobedience ‘towards the order of the court. As’ the matter was not a simple joining report the appellant in bonafide and good faith immediately sought clarification of the Ministry and the opinion of the Legal Adviser, as directed by the Ministry. In those correspondences there was nothing to show that , any contumaciousness was shown regarding the implementation of the order of the court. There was also no delay or laches on the part of the appellant in taking ‘effective steps in implementing the court’s order. We do not find that the conduct of the appellant was such of flouting the order of the court deliberately and to treat the court’s order with some degree of hatred or malice—in this case, the appellant challenged the contempt Rule and filed a Counter Affidavit setting up his defence upon alternative facts and circumstances in which he acted under a bonafide and good faith. As a matter of fact he had no authority also ‘to fix the question of fixation of seniority and promotion. Thus, in the facts of the present case probably no apology was sought for as he was in fact acting with honest belief for clarification. The apology in this case would have shown that he had committed the offence of contempt. In the present case, it appears that within 112 months of the filing of the joining report respondent No 2 was asked to join. There was in fact no delay and no attempt was made to obstruct the, order of the court. In the facts and circumstances as indicated above, we have no hesitation in Our mind in holding that no contempt was committed by the appellant.
S. A. M. lqbal Vs. The State & Anr. 6BLT(AD)-198
Contempt of Court
(a) A contempt proceeding is a quasi criminal proceeding, unless an alleged contemner receives the intimation of an order of stay. Knowledge of the stay on the part of others will not make him liable for contempt.
Umme Noor Habiba Vs. M. Asaduzzaman Al Faruque & Ore. 2BLT (AD)-114
(b) Petitioner’s personal intimation to the office of respondent over telephone cannot be said to be communication of the court’s order of stay of respondent.
Umme Noor Habiba Vs. M. Asaduzzaman Al Faruque & Ore. 2BLT (AD)-114
Contempt of Court, 1926
Whether the statements of the Prime Minister that in two days (25 and 26 August, 1998) the High Court (Apparently she meant a Bench of the High Court Division) had granted bail in 1200 cases and when the attention of Chief Justice was drawn to it, he only changed the Bench but did not take any other step, people would not have any doubt about the Judiciary, amount to contempt of Court
The Chief Justice has felt extremely uneasy over the remarks made in respect of him, for, he cannot give a public reply nor he is obliged to justify or explain to the Executive any matter falling within the domain of his administration
—the Court expected more circumspection, understanding, discretion and judgment on the part of the Prime Minister because of the high office she holds in making off hand remarks in respect of constitutional functionaries which have been alleged to be contumacious.
Habibul Islam Bhuiyan, President, Supreme Court Bar 7BLT(AD)-127
Contempt of Court
Following the publication of an Article under the caption “The parliament and the Judiciary at Loggerheads’ written by the appellant, a sou motu rule was issued
—Held: This is not to say that such kinds of conduct. are to be condoned because of age, inexperience and fresh entry into service. This case should serve as a reminder to all concerned that the court will not hesitate to deal with a 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 he 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.
Ashak Kumar Karmaker Vs. The State 8BLT (AD)-6
Contempt of Court
While the judgment of the 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 a sub-judice matter before this Division— the learned Judge will desist from committing such an act in future which is not in keeping with judicial propriety.
Shamsuddin Ahmed Vs. Mr. Justice Mohammad Gholam Rabbani & Ors. 8BLT (AD)-79
Contempt of Court
Unconditional apology—in the explanation, learned Joint District Joint District Judge has also tendered unconditional apology. We accept the explanation with the apology. We also expect of his that he would be more circumspect and careful about his conduct in the discharge of him duties in future.
Mofizur Rahman Chowdhury & Ors. Vs. Most Layla Begum & Ors. 10 BLT (HCD)-268.