Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: THE STATE VS Respondent: DELWAR HOSSAIN
P L D 1961 Dacca 153
P L D 1961 Dacca 153
Before Ispahani, C. J. and Sattar, J
THE STATE
versus
DELWAR HOSSAIN‑Opposite‑Party
Miscellaneous Case No. 6 of 1960, decided on 10th May 1960.
Contempt of Court‑--
---Duty of members of Bar towards Bench.
The primary duty of Members of the Bar is to the Bench and then to their clients and even if they have any instruction from the clients tending to cast reflection on the Presiding Officer, they should be very careful not to put those statements in any petition. The clients for reasons known to themselves will go to any length to make allegations against a Presiding Officer but it is the duty of the lawyer to uphold the prestige and honour of the Court and not to indulge in making statements derogatory and insulting to the Presiding Officer.
Salahuddin Ahmad Deputy Legal Remembrancer for the State.
Ahmad Sobhan and A. T. Sadi for Opposite‑Party.
JUDGMENT
ISPAHANI, C. J.‑The contemner before us is one Delwar Hossain, a pleader practising in the Judges Court, Chittagong.
2. A suo motu Rule was issued arising out of Criminal Miscellaneous Case No. 122 of 19j9 directing the contemner to show cause why proceedings should not be taken against him and he be committed to prison or otherwise dealt with in accordance with law for contempt of Court of the Court of Sub‑divisional Officer (N), Sadar, Chittagong.
3. The contemner was engaged as a pleader on behalf of the accused persons and he drafted the petition filed in Criminal Motion No. 18/59 (II) moved in the Court of the Special Judge and Ex‑Officio Additional District and Sessions Judge, Chittagong. In that petition drafted by him, 2 passages occur which are the following :
(1) "That even then the local Police submitted a report recommending action under section 107 (read with) 117 (C) Cr. P. C., against the appellants and respondent's personal friend, the Sub‑divisional Officer (N). Chittagong, passed order dated 23‑4‑59, etc.
(2) That the whole proceeding is the outcome of either mis conception of facts through wilful non‑hearing of the appellants' case and non‑perusal of the appellants' documents or a pre. procured planned thing, etc."
4. His clients in pursuance to a Rule for contempt issued by this Court were found guilty of contempt and necessary orders passed against them and during that haring it transpired that the present contemner had drafted the petition in question. Accord ingly a suo motu Rule was also issued on him.
5. The contemner has filed a petition before us explaining the circumstances under which he drafted the said petition and in paragraph 6 he has stated that he tenders before us his unqualified apology. The petitioner had neither the least intention of putting into contempt the Court of the Sub‑divisional Officer (North), Chittagong nor to cast any reflection on him in his capacity as a judicial officer nor to undermine the judicial position of the said Sub‑divisional Officer (North) Chittagong, nor to create any adverse effect on his judicial position.
6. Mr. Ahmad Sobhan has appeared on behalf of the con temner and he also on behalf of the contemner has tendered an unqualified apology stating that his client has thrown himself on the mercy of this Court. The learned Advocate has drawn our atten tion to the fact that the contemner is a junior member of the Chittagong Bar but admitted that it was not proper on his part to make the statements against the Sub‑divisional Officer above referred to. He has, however, given an assurance that his client will be careful in future and will not make statements.
7. We have had occasions in the past to point out that cases of contempt are becoming more and more frequent now‑a‑days and it has become a fashion on the part of members of the Bar to make statements reflecting on the impartiality of the Presiding Officer. This point of thing was never conceived of in the past. Members of the Bar should remember that their primary duty is to the Bench and then to the clients and even if they have any instruction from the clients tending to cast reflection on the Presiding Officer, they should be very careful not to put those statements in any petition. The clients for reasons known to them selves will go to any length to make allegations against a Presiding Officer but it is the duty of the lawyer to uphold the prestige and honour of the Court and not to indulge in making statements derogatory and insulting to the Presiding Officer.
8. The petitioner before us is a junior member of the Bar and we have taken this fact into consideration in making the above observation. Let this be a warning to all members of the Bar. We, however, do not propose to punish the petitioner for what we have before us a glaring case of contempt of Court and with this observation we discharge the Rule.
SATTAR, J.‑I agree with my lord the Chief Justice.
K. B. A.
Rule discharged.