Case Details

Citation(s)
1961 SLG 2024 1961 SLD 2024 = 1961 PLD 153
Dacca High Court
Miscellaneous Case No. 6 of 1960, decided on 10th May 1960.
Presented By: Ispahani, C. J. and Sattar, J
Salahuddin Ahmad Deputy Legal Remembrancer for the State.   Ahmad Sobhan and A. T. Sadi for Opposite-Party.  

THE STATE  

VERSUS

  DELWAR HOSSAIN-Opposite-Party

Law:

Section:

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. JUDGMENT   ISPAHANI, C. J.-The contemner before us is one Delwar Hossain, a pleader practising in the Judges Court, Chittagong.   A suo motu Rule was issued arising out of Criminal Miscellaneous Case No. 122 of19j9 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.   The contemner was engaged as a pleader on behalf of the accused persons and hedrafted 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 :   "That even then the local Police submitted a report recommending action undersection 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.   That the whole proceeding is the outcome of either mis conception of facts throughwilful non-hearing of the appellants' case and non-perusal of the appellants' documents or a pre. procured planned thing, etc."   His clients in pursuance to a Rule for contempt issued by this Court were foundguilty 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…
🔒
Continue readingLogin or create an account to access the complete content.Login / Register