Contempt of Courts Act, 1926
Section 2
Editor cannot escape the responsibility of scrutinizing materials published in any newspaper– The editor cannot escape the responsibility of scrutinizing materials published in any newspaper. If he allows publication of contemptuous reports, then he is equally liable. The reporter and editor of the daily Bhorer Kagoj, namely Samaresh Baidya and Abed Khan were found by the High Court Division to have committed contempt of Court. Appellate Division does not find any reason to disagree with such finding. However, upon careful consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case, this Division is of the view that ends of justice will be sufficiently met if the punishment awarded to Samaresh Baidya is reduced to fine of Tk. 1000/-only, in default, to suffer simple imprisonment for 7 (seven) days. The sentence of fine of Tk. 1000/-only imposed upon Abed Khan is maintained. However, in default of payment of fine he shall suffer simple imprisonment for 7 days. Accordingly Criminal Appeal No. 11 of 2005 is dismissed. The judgement and order of the High Court Division is upheld with modification of sentence as aforesaid.
The publisher of the daily Bhorer Kagoj is found not guilty of contempt of Court and he is exonerated of the charge levelled against him. Criminal Appeal No. 12 of 2005 is allowed. The impugned judgement and order is set aside. Saber Hossain Chowdhury is exonerated from the charge leveled against him. ...Ekramul Haque Bulbul =VS= Muhammad Faiz, (Criminal), 2021(2) [11 LM (AD) 377]
Sections 2 and 3-The
appellant being a very responsible public servant did never think even to
disobey the law or orders of the Court. The appellant has been found guilty of
contempt of the Court unjustly. Sunil Chandra Chowdhury vs Elders Limited, 64
DLR (AD) 11
Sections 2 and 3-The
contemnors have to be given a specific decision in respect of fixing seniority
of the non-cadre family planning officers appointed after 1985 at the time of
their encadrement in keeping with the Seniority Rules, 1983. In doing so if the
government comes to a wrong decision by interpretation of Seniority Rules, 1983
in its own way, there will be no contempt of Court as this Division in the
judgment did not give specific direction upon the government as to which Rules
(i.e. Rule 3(e) or 4) of BCS Seniority Rules, 1983 shall have to he followed in
determining seniority of the said noncadre officers appointed after 1985 and in
that score if anyone is aggrieved by the decision of the government may take
recourse of law in an appropriate forum, if so advised. Amanullah (Md) vs Abdul
Aziz, 65 DLR 485
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
Punishment for disobedience to courts order
When the appellants by showing disregard to the directions of the Company Court did not hold or cooperate to hold the A.C.M of the company on unfounded pretext and continued the defiant attitude without seeking any apology or expressing any remorse, the penalty of fine imposed by the High Court Division has been held by the apex court to be perfectly justified. Hamidul Haque another Vs. Akhtaruzzaman, 11 MLR (2006) (AD) 32.
Section 2
Contempt of Court–
We have given our anxious thoughts to the fact that the contemnor has tendered his so-called “unconditional apology” and has suffered eight days in jail. However, we have also to consider that the High Court Division was not satisfied that the apology offered by the contemnor was sufficient to exonerate him completely. We are not in a position to change that view since it is the High Court Division which found that the contemnor was in contempt of Court. ...S.O.M. Kalimullah =VS= Oxinel Services Pte. Ltd., (Criminal), 2021(1) [10 LM (AD) 432]
Section 2
Facebook Status– We believe that the contemnor will not commit such an offence again. However, he admits the fact that he has committed the offence and thus the damage of bringing the Court and the administration of justice to disrepute has been done. The two items published by the contemnor in the social media, namely Facebook are a direct affront to the constitutional authority of the Honourable Chief Justice and the Supreme Court and had the effect of lowering the dignity of the position of the Honourable Chief Justice and the Supreme Court. Evidently the contemnor achieved his intended goal as can be seen by the posts of his followers who apparently supported his views and applauded his comments.
At the time of issuing notice upon the contemnor on 12.08.2020,he was directed not to appear before any Bench of the Supreme Court from that date until his appearance in court on 20.08.20. He has thus suffered the inability to exercise his privilege of appearing before the Supreme Court for nine days.
We find that the contemnor has admitted his guilt. However, in view of his apology and assurance that he will never commit such offence again, and the fact that he has refrained from appearing before any Bench of the Supreme Court as ordered by this Court, we are not inclined to take the matter any further. This contempt proceeding is disposed of. ...Government of Bangladesh =VS= Syed Mamun Mahbub, (Civil), 2020 [9 LM (AD) 674]
Section 2
Contempt– Court has a duty of protecting the interest of public in due administration of justice and to protect the dignity of the Court against insult and injury– Court has a duty of protecting the interest of public in due administration of justice and to protect the dignity of the Court against insult and injury. This Court did not hesitate to use its arm of Contempt of Court when the use of such arm is necessary in order to protect and vindicate the right of the public.
Appellate Division thinks that a contumacious disregard of all decencies that exhibited by the contemnor in this case can only lead to a serious disturbance of the system of administration of justice, unless duly repaired at once by inflicting an appropriate punishment on the contemnor which must be to send him to jail alone for his misconduct.
Appellate Division hopes and trusts that this Court will play a great and singular role and establish itself in the consciousness of the people. Like all human institutions, this Court, this Division hopes, will earn reverence through truth. In endowing this Court very wide powers-the constituent Assembly-the Assembly representing the voice of the people through its elected representatives has shown complete confidence in the Court as the final body for dispensing justice between individuals and also between individual and state. This Division hopes to deserve that confidence. This Division trusts that the people of this country will also maintain the independence, honour and dignity of the Supreme Court of Bangladesh.
Appellate Division passed the following short order:
"(a) The contemnor respondent No.1, Mahmudur Rahman, is found guilty of gross contempt of this Court and is sentenced to suffer simple imprisonment for six months and to pay a fine of Tk.1,00,000.00 (one lac), in default to suffer simple imprisonment for 1(one) month more.
(b) Respondent No.4, Waliullah Noman, is found guilty of contempt of this Court and is sentenced to suffer simple imprisonment for 1(one) month and to pay fine of Tk.10,000.00 (ten thousand), in default to suffer simple imprisonment for 7(seven) days more. These contemnor Nos.1 and 4 are directed to surrender before the Central Jail, Dhaka to serve out the sentence and the Superintendent of Central Jail is directed to receive and keep them in jail to serve out their respective sentences.
(c) Respondent No.5, Alhaj Md. Hashmat Ali, is found guilty of contempt of this Court and is sentenced to pay fine of Tk.10,000.00 (ten thousand), in default of suffer simple imprisonment for 7(seven) days.
(d) The unqualified apology of the Respondent Nos.2 and 3 are accepted and accordingly they are let off.
(e) The respondents Nos.1, 4 and 5 are directed to deposit the respective fine to the Accounts Section of this Court which shall receive the same if deposited within time." ...Riaz Uddin Khan(Md.), Advocate =VS= Mahmudur Rahman, (Civil), 2021(2) [11 LM (AD) 350]
Section 2(3)
This section provides for certain cases of contempt of lawful authority of a court of justice committed in presence of the court. It is a direct contempt of court and empowers all courts including a court of Magistrate or an Assistant Judge to punish an offender be he a lawyer or anyone else summarily in respect of the offences mentioned therein. The subordinate courts can sufficiently vindicate their dignity by proceeding against the offenders under this provision. Legislature has deemed it proper to exclude such cases from the jurisdiction of the High Court Division under section 2(3) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1926. .....Bangladesh =VS= Naznin Begum(Most.), (Civil), 2017 (2)– [3 LM (AD) 66]
Ss. 2 & 3- Conviction of a person for Contempt of Court in the absence of such Contemner not justified except in exceptional cases. Editor, Daily Nawa-1-Waqt Vs. State (1966) 18 DLR (SC) 295.
Section 2- Contempt-Limits of the press- Freedom of the press is recognised in our Cons- titution 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 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-An inexperienced young Deputy- Commissioner became distraught with Court proceedings and gave vent to his vengeful feelings by making objectionable remarks against judicial officers which he would not have done with a little more experience and guidance. The sentence imposed upon him for contempt of Court is set aside. He is however censured for objectionable remarks and warned to be careful in future. Abdul Haque vs District Judgeship 51 DLR (AD) 15.
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 DLRA (AD) 235.
Section 2-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 such a sub- judice matter. Shamsuddin Ahmed vs Md Gholam Rabbani & Others 52 DLR (AD) 81.
Section 2- Contempt of Court proceeding is a quasi-criminal proceeding-In such a procee ding the petitioner must prove beyond all reason- able 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 con- tempt matters the personal liability is first and foremost consideration. Suhel Ahmed Chowdhury vs Salahuddin Ayubi 54 DLR (AD) 82.
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- 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 though tendered uncondi- tional apology but did not, by themselves, promise never again to repeat the forbidden acts and it was devoid of remorse. The contemners, by ques- tioning/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 submit- ted not for exonerating them of the charges but for censuring them for the offence. In view of the very serious allegations and the way the appel- lants 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 Sup- reme 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- 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 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.
Section 3
It is clear from the two letters that the Bangladesh Shipping Corporation asked the respondent to submit a normal joining report in compliance with the trial Court’s decree enabling the Corporation to allow him to join without delay as the prayer made in the joining letter was beyond the terms of the decree obtained by the respondent and it was loaded with extraneous demands but the High Court Division has failed to consider the same as it transpires from the said two letters there was no disobedience shown to the Court’s decree and it is not understood as to how the appellant could be found guilty for alleged disobedience of the Court’s decree for 12 months and 16 days in the face of the said two letters written to the respondent. SAM Iqbal vs State and another 3 BLC (AD) 125.
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 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 refusing 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 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.
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.
