Assaulting Court Officers and Ransacking Records | Case Reference

সতর্কীকরণ! কেস রেফারেন্স ওয়েবসাইটে প্রকাশিত অধিকাংশ নজীর বিভিন্ন বই ও ওয়েবসাইট থেকে সংগ্রহ করা হয়েছে। এই সকল নজীর এর সঠিকতার বিষয়ে কেস রেফারেন্স ওয়েবসাইট কোন নিশ্চয়তা প্রদান করে না। কেস রেফারেন্স ওয়েবসাইটে প্রকাশিত নজীর এর উপর নির্ভর এর আগে সংশ্লিষ্ট নজীরটির রেফারেন্স মিলিয়ে নেওয়ার অনুরোধ করা হচ্ছে।

Assaulting Court Officers and Ransacking Records

Whether the conduct, behavior and activities like shouting, assaulting the Bench Officer and ransacking the case records, fall within the purview of con- tempt of court-The High Court Division held that contempt may be constituted by any conduct that brings authority of the court into disrespect, disregard and/or dis- repute or undermines the dignity and pres- tige of the court. By the aforesaid act of the Advocates, the administration of the justice and the court proceedings had been se- riously interfered with and the course of justice had also been obstructed following the aforesaid acts of the Advocates. The behavior and the conduct of the Advocates by beating and assaulting the Bench Officer is insulting, disrespectful and threatening to the administration of justice. The conducts of the Advocates are bound to infect the other members of the bar of the country. In order to stop this kind of activities exemplary punishment is required to be meted out to them. The purpose of con- tempt jurisdiction is to uphold the majesty and dignity of the court in the minds of the public. In essence, the law of contempt is the protector of the seat of justice more than a person or judge sitting in that seat and it is not for the personal protection. The court has a duty to protect interest of the public in the due administration of jus- tice. It is hence entrusted with the powers to punish for contempt of court, not only to protect the rights of the public but also to protect dignity of the court against any in- sult and injury. It is to be mentioned here that punishment must be resultant effect of the acts complained of. The punishment must be commensurate with the offences. The more serious is the violation, the more severe is the punishment and that has been the accepted norm in the matters though however within the prescribed limits.

The State Vs. Advocate Noor-E- Alam Uzzal and others (Spl. Original) 13 ALR (HCD) 195-209

Info!
"Please note that while every effort has been made to provide accurate case references, there may be some unintentional errors. We encourage users to verify the information from official sources for complete accuracy."