Contempt of Courts Act, 1926

 

Contempt of Courts Act, 1926

 

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 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.

Ashak Kumar Karmaker Vs.
The State 8 BLT(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 Reabani & Ors. 8 BLT (AD)-79.

 

Section-2

Whether the Prime
Minister committed contempt of court by her statements in the interview with
BBC as
Ò†`Lyb
†h †`‡k Lywb‡K mn‡hvMxZv Kiv nq, Lywb‡K i¶v Kivi †Póv Kiv nq, Lywb‡`i wePvi nq
bv&, †m †`‡k nZ¨v Lyb Pj‡e| mgm¨v n‡”Q, cywjk Kó K‡i Avmvgx‡`i a‡i ZLbB
Avmvgx‡`i nvB‡KvU© †_‡K Rvwgb †`qv nq| †Kv‡U© †_‡K Rvwgb †`qv nq| †jvqvi †Kvb
e‡jbZ nvB‡KvU© e‡jb †hLv‡bB hvK †m `~Y©xwZevR nDK Avi AvmvgxB nDK Zv‡`i Rb¨ †hb
GKUv wbivc` Avkªq¯’j n‡”Q †KvU| hLbB hv‡”Q Zviv Rvwgb †c‡q hv‡”Q Avi GB Rvwgb
†c‡qB wd‡i G‡mB nZ¨v KvÛ NUv‡”Q| Avwg †Zv g‡b Kwi †h, DwKj Zvi Rb¨ Rvwgb Rvwgb
Pv‡”Q †mB DwKj‡K aiv DwPZ Ges †Kvb †KvU© Rvwgb w`‡”Q ZviI Revew`wnZv Kiv DwPZ
GUv hZLb ch©š— G‡`‡k cÖwZwôZ bv n‡e, Avi Acivax hZLb ch©š— `„óvš—g~jK kvw¯— bv
cv‡e, ZZLb ch©š— GLvb †_‡K GB cwiw¯’wZ‡K DbœZ Kiv AZ¨š— KwVb|Ó

We have gone through the
statement made by the Prime Minister to BBC and meticulously considered and
analyzed the same as a whole. It is submitted that such a statement is really
painful, unfortunate, unhappy, unpalatable and prima facte 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. [Paras- 8 & 10]

Mainul Hossain &
Ors. Vs. Sheikh Hasina Wazed 8 BLT(HCD)-410.

 

Mens rea

Held: I have read the
above statements in between the lines. Many a times. The statements arc no
doubt critical, in general, of the Courts and also of lawyers. The statements
are also not accurate, factually. In matters of bait, 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 Hossain &
Ors. Vs. Sheikh Hasina Wazed 8 BLT (HCD)-410.

 

Legal recourse—should not exceed six months

Duty of the government
officials—willful disobedience —Of course, we are aware of the fact -that after
passing of a judgment by a court against government the government may require
some time to take decision as to whether it will prefer any appeal or avail any
other legal recourse against that judgment or whether that judgment will be
given effect to. But for taking this decision, an indefinite period cannot be
allowed. The Government must take this decision within a reasonable period
which may be 3 or 4 months but should not exceed six months. The Failure or
refusal ipf the government to implement or give effect to the judgments and
orders of the courts (even if these are declaratory in nature like those of the
present case) within this reasonable periods amounts to wilful disobedience to
or flouting of courts orders.

Wahidul Haque Vs.
Bangladesh & Ors. l0BLT (HCD)-36

 

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.

 

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. 11 BLT (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 11 BLT (HCD)-168.