Act/Law wise: Judgment of Supreme Court of Bangladesh (AD)
Contempt of Courts Act, 1926 | |||
---|---|---|---|
Section/Order/ Article/Rule/ Regulation | Head Note | Parties Name | Reference/Citation |
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.
|
Ekramul Haque Bulbul =VS= Muhammad Faiz | 11 LM (AD) 377 |
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 |
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. |
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. |
Saleem UlIah Vs. State | 44 DLR (AD) 309 |
Section 2 |
Punishment for disobedience to courts order
|
Hamidul Haque another Vs. Akhtaruzzaman, | 11 MLR (AD) 32 |
Section 2 |
Contempt of Court–
|
S.O.M. Kalimullah =VS= Oxinel Services Pte. Ltd. | 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.
|
Government of Bangladesh =VS= Syed Mamun Mahbub | 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.
|
Riaz Uddin Khan(Md.), Advocate =VS= Mahmudur Rahman | 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] ....View Full Judgment |
Bangladesh =VS= Naznin Begum(Most.) | 3 LM (AD) 66 |
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. |
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. |
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. |
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.
|
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. |
Anti-Corruption Commission vs Sigma Huda | 62 DLR (AD) 227 |
Contempt proceedings drop– |
Contempt proceedings drop– The contempt-petitioners have received the entire price of the above mentioned properties, that is, a sum of Taka 99,21,76,074.27 (ninety nine crore twenty one lacs seventy six thousand seventy four taka and twenty seven paisa only) vide cross cheque No. 1213204 dated 1-7-2019 as consideration of the aforesaid property from Bangladesh Freedom Fighters Welfare Trust forever and that the contempt petitioners being satisfied about their claim made a declaration in this Court we do not find any earthly reason to keep this contempt proceeding pending. It is to be mentioned here that admittedly Bangladesh Freedom Fighters Welfare Trust has been possessing the scheduled property for more than 40 years. Writ-petitioners Bangladesh Italian Marble Works Limited and another shall not be entitled to claim any right, title, interest and possession in the scheduled property since they have accepted the market price of the scheduled property as consideration and left their claim forever. The contempt petition is finally disposed of, consequently, this proceedings is dropped. .....Bangladesh Italian Marble Works Ltd. =VS= Major General AK Mohammad Ali Shikder, (Civil), 2022(2) [13 LM (AD) 281] ....View Full Judgment |
Bangladesh Italian Marble Works Ltd. =VS= Major General AK Mohammad Ali Shikder | 13 LM (AD) 281 |