Act/Law wise: Judgment of Supreme Court of Bangladesh


Contempt of Courts Act, 1926
Section/Order/Article/Rule/Regulation Head Note
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 ....View Full Judgment

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. ....View Full Judgment

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. ....View Full Judgment

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. ....View Full Judgment

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] ....View Full Judgment

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. ....View Full Judgment

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. ....View Full Judgment

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. ....View Full Judgment

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. ....View Full Judgment

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. ....View Full Judgment

Facebook Status–

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] ....View Full Judgment