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. [Para- 14 & 15]
Md. Abdul Haque Vs. Kurigrain 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. [Para-3]
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 come under the mischief of contempt of court — relied on 7 DLR 34. (Para-9]
Kurigram District Judgeship Vs. Mr Md. Abdul Haque, D.C. 5 BLT (HCD)-194
The 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 simpie 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 courts 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. [Paras-19 & 23]
S. A. M. Iqbal 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. [Para-4]
Umme Noor Habtha Vs. M. Asaduzzaman Ali Faruque & Ors. 2 BLT (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. [Para-5]
Umme Noor Habiba Vs. M. Asaduzzaman Ali Faruque & Ors. 2 BLT (AD)-1 14
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 121)0 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 failing 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. [Para-12 & 13]
Habibul Islam Bhuiyan, President, Supreme Court Bar 7BLT (AD)-127
Contempt of Courts Act, 1926
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. [Para-4]
Md. Saidur Rahaman Vs. Mr Shah Azizur Rahaman MP 7 BLT (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. [Para-5]
Md. Saidur Rahaman Vs. Mr. Shah Azizur Rahaman MP 7 BLT (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. [Para-6}
Md. Saidur Rahaman Vs. Mr. Shah Azizur Rahaman MP 7BLT(UCD)-249
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. [Para-5]
The State Vs. Mr. FaruqueAluned 7BLT(HCD)-251 Contemners submitted separate applications tendering unqualified apology and also stating that the lease in question was granted without knowing about the order of statusque and by order dated 12.7.99 the said lease has been cancelled—Held : Unqualified apology is accepted and the contemners are exonerated. [Para-2 & 3]
Md. Jamshed Ali & Ors. Vs. Md. Abdus Samad & Ors. 7 BLT (HCD)-250