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: MOULVI MAZIRUDDIN AHMED
P L D 1957 Dacca 476
P L D 1957 Dacca 476
Before Ispahani and Asir, JJ
THE STATE‑---Petitioner
versus
Moulvi MAZIRUDDIN AHMED‑---Opposite--‑Party
Miscellaneous Case No. 22 of 1957, decided on 22nd May 1957.
Contempt of Court‑Interference with administration of justice amounts to contempt Unqualified apology tendered at the last stage in High Court cannot be accepted.
It would be a contempt on a part of any person, private or official, if anything is done either to influence the decision of the Court or to interfere with the administration of justice. Orders of Courts are to be obeyed and respected and not to be trifled with.
In all cases unqualified apologies for contempt of Court cannot be accepted as it will have the effect of encouraging others.
Crown v. Moulvi Abdul Rashid Tarkabagish M. L. A.,
P L D 1950 Dacca 1 fol.
Salahuddin Ahmed, Deputy Legal Remembrancer for the State.
Abdus Salam Khan for the Opposite‑Party.
JUDGMENT
ISPAHANI, J.‑---This is a matter in contempt under section 2 of the Contempt of Courts Act (Act XVI of 1926). The contemner is one Mvi. Maziruddin Ahmed, President, Sub Divisional Awami League, Netrokona, Mymensingh. He is alleged to have committed contempt of the Court of Mr. Mujibur Rahman Khan, Munsif‑Magistrate of Durgapur, Mymensingh by writing 2 letters dated 3rd October 1956, and 5th October 1956, with a view to influence the administration of justice in case No. 180 (a) of 1956 of the Court of the said Munsif‑Magistrate, Durgapur. The matter was reported by the Additional District Magistrate, by his Memo. No. 1937 dated 10th April 1957, forwarding a report of Mr. M. R. Khan, Munsif‑Magistrate, Durgapur, sent under his No. 121 Cr., dated 13th March 1957. A rule was issued on the said Mvi. Maziruddin Ahmed to show cause why action against him should not be taken under section 2 of the Contempt of Courts Act.
In appears that on 30th September 1956, on the prayer of the Secretary, Durgapur Thana Awami League, Jonab Mohiuddin Mirdha, an order was issued under section 144 of the Code of Criminal Procedure restraining the second‑party from holding any meeting as alleged in the application on that date and the local Thana was asked to execute the orders. In compliance with the direction, the record was sent before the Additional District Magistrate for hearing on 15th October 1956, after service of notice on both the parties to appear before him with necessary documents. The order passed by the Munsif‑Magistrate was upheld by the Additional District Magistrate, Mymensingh. After the said order of injunction was passed, the contemner wrote a letter dated 3rd October 1956, to the Munsif‑Magistrate, Durgapur, in the following terms:
"Dear Sir,
I am informed that some unauthorised persons, Mvi. Mohiuddin Mirdha and others, have approached you and have promulgated an injunction under section 144, Criminal P. C., in the Thana area which is against the Awanu Coalition Government policy.
Please withdraw the orders under section 144, Criminal P. C., at once and do consult our recognised Committee President, Secretary (Jonab Syed Hussain and Shamsul Huq) and Syed Ahmed Hussain (member, Sub‑Divisional Awami League) and please do the needful.
A mass meeting has been arranged by our recognised party fixing 9th October 1956. (Tuesday); we are all attending the meeting. Please see no breach of the peace occurs there.
Yours faithfully, Maziruddin Ahmed, President.
Sub‑Divisional Awami League, Netrokona."
To this letter the Munsif‑Magistrate relied on 4th October 1956, pointing out that the matter was sub judice and objecting that his letter revealed highly objectionable direction to the Court to withdraw the orders at once and dictation to the Court with uncouth language. The condemner was asked to show cause by 25th October 1956, as to why his name should not be sent to the Hon'ble High Court for prosecution for Contempt of Court. On 5th October 1956, the condemner wrote a letter to the Magistrate and it is in the following language.
"Dear
Sir,
You are requested to drop the proceedings under section 144, Criminal P. C. on a petition to be filed by Jonab Mohiuddin Mirdha (Secy., Thana Awami League).
Submitted. Maziruddin Ahmed, 5th October 1956. President, Sub‑Divisional Awami League, Netrokona."
After writing that letter, the contemner again wrote to the Magistrate in reply to his letter of the 4th October 1956. That letter is dated 15th October 1956. In this last letter, the contemner justifies the action taken by him and goes on to say that the Court of the Magistrate is the Court of their popular Awami Coalition Government. In the last paragraph of that letter he submitted that the Court would not be pleased to take it amiss as there was no mala fide intention on his part. If the wording used in a hurry really annoyed the Magistrate or revealed objection, in that case, the Magistrate was asked to pardon him. On 19th October 1956, the Magistrate replied to the last letter of the contemner pointing out that he should have addressed the letter to the Court and not to him in person and he was not in a position to accept any explanation offered by the contemner. The contemner was again asked to show cause within the specified time intimated previously by the Court, namely, 25th October 1956. After that there was no correspondence. On a reference to the order‑sheet of the case, it appears that on 9th October 1956, the applicant in the case filed a petition of non‑prosecution. The Court thereupon vacated the order of ad interim injunction.
These are the salient facts of the case and it is for us to construe whether the contemner is guilty of contempt having regard to the wording of his letters dated the 3rd and the 5th of October 1956. At that time, the matter was sub judice and Mr. Abdus‑Salam Khan, appearing on behalf of the contemner, had candidly confessed that the language of those letters does amount to contempt of Court. He, however, has filed an affidavit in opposition on behalf of his client in which, after reciting certain facts, the affidavit goes on to say in paragraph 6 that the contemner now understands that the two letters addressed to the Court of the Munsif ?Magistrate were improper and he is genuinely and sincerely penitent. In paragraph 7 he states that he did not mean any disrespect to the Court and he thereby tenders unqualified apology to the Court for his dereliction and, therefore, he prays that the Court may be pleased to accept his unqualified apology and grant him pardon for the offence he has com?mitted. Mr. Abdus Salam Khan has drawn our attention to the letter written by the contemner dated the 5th October 1956, and has argued that the contemner in the last paragraph of that letter has tendered an unqualified apology and some consideration should be shown to him on that account. In our opinion, the last paragraph does not contain any unqualified apology. On the other hand, that letter contains a further contempt of Court when it recites that the Court of the Magistrate is the Court of their popular Awami Coalition Government.
We have had occasion on previous occasions to draw up contempt proceedings against some persons. Contempt proceedings are becoming quite frequent now‑a‑days. Orders of Courts, criminal and civil, are being flouted and disregarded and it invariably happens that at the last stage in the High Court unqualified apologies are tendered with a view to the contemner being pardoned and no action being taken against him. We wish that every body would realize his duty towards Courts. The Courts are there to mete out justice and it would be a contempt on the part of any person, private or official, if anything is done either to influence the decision of the Court or to interfere with the administration A of justice. Orders of Courts are to be obeyed and respected and not to be trifled with. In all cases unqualified apologies) cannot be accepted. We had occasion to pass strong remarks in the well‑known case of the Crown v. Maulvi Abdul Rashid Tarkabagish, M. L. A. (P L D 1950 Dacca 1), a decision to which one of us is a party. It will be well to set out the relevant portion of that judgment. At page 4 the following passage occurs:
"We have, therefore, only to consider whether the qualified expression of regret of the Moulvi Sahib and the unqualified apology tendered through the mouth of Mr. Fazlul Huq can be accepted and the contempt condoned. In dealing with such contempt?s at the present time it has been well said elsewhere that it is all the more necessary to deal with contempt?s firmly for it is now that the pattern will be set for the future development of the institutions of this country and it is of fundamental importance that the foundations be laid straight and solid, so that the structure erected shall be stable. Any mistakes made now, an easy tolerance for what is wrong may do incalculable future harm."
That passage we follow with approval, and in spite of the unqualified apology tendered from the Bar, we think that the matter should not be set at rest by the acceptance of that unqualified apology. To do so would be to encourage others.
We, therefore, are not prepared to accept the unqualified apology tendered from the Bar. We find Moulvi Mazirudding Ahmed, President, Sub‑Divisional Awami League, Netrokona, guilty of gross contempt of the Court of the Munsif‑Magistrate, Durgapur, and impose on him a fine of Rs.250 (Rupees two hundred and fifty only) and we direct that if the fine be not paid by the 27th May 1957, he shall suffer simple imprisonment for one week. The fine is to be paid in this Court.
The Rule, accordingly, is made absolute.
ASIR, J.‑---I agree.
Z. A. S.???????????
Rule made absolute.