P L D 1950 Dacca 1 (PLP)

(1) It is a fact that he (Moulvi A. Rashid Tarkabagish) requested the Munsiff to dismiss the suit against Moyen‑ud‑Din Mondal of Salanga Bazar. but it is to be regretted that ‑he takes recourse to falsehood to conceal this fact ; (2) Moulvi Abdul Rashid Tarkabagish, M.L.A., ought not to have requested the Munsiff to dismiss the title suit No. 43 of 1949 against the defendant." On this report being placed before the Court a rule was issued on Moulvi Abdul Rashid Tarkabagish, M.L.A. of Serajganj on the 19th August 1949 to show cause why he should not be committed or otherwise dealt with according to law for contempt of Court alleged to have been committed by him in having privately approached at Serajganj on the 2nd May 1949 the Sub‑Divisional Munsif of Serajganj with a request to dismiss the title suit No. 43 of 1949 pending in his Court in favour of one of the parties. Moulvi Abdul Rashid Tarkabagish M.L.A., of Serajganj appeared before us and submitted the following cause on the 23rd November, 1949. "(i) That a copy of the allegations of the contempt of Court against the petitioner together with a copy of the Rule in the above case have been served upon him and he has understood the contents thereof. (2) That he is an Alem and from his very early career he has been preaching the doctrine of Islam and doing works for the benefit of the Muslims fairly and honestly in strict conformity to Shariat and the law of the Government with out prejudice to anybody. (3) That during his short stay at Serajganj town he always passes busy hours chiefly in discussing with local people on current and multifarious affairs and topics whenever he happens to go and as such he does not exactly and readily remember as to where and when what lie said. (4) That on refreshing his memory the petitioner remembered that one afternoon he went to the house of the Sub divisional Controller of Civil Supplies, Serajganj, to recom mend for a few bundle of corrugated iron sheets to be permitted to be given to the Head Teacher of Tairatia Free Primary School for the erection of I structure to be used as class‑room for boys. (5) That while the petitioner and some other people were sitting for a considerable time, the' learned Munsif came there in company with another Munsif. There were some table talks on social and political subjects and as time for Maghrib prayer neared they one after another left the said place walking, having continued the discussions till they reached the public road and left for their own destinations. (6) That the petitioner has been misunderstood by the learned Munsif, in course of a passing talk over the suit in question. In the circumstances, he now undeservedly (sic) throws himself on‑the mercy of your Lordships with an expression of deepest regret and sincere apology for what has happened." Mr. Huq has appeared before us on behalf of Moulvi Sahib and has prefaced his observations with an expression of regret that a man in the position of the Moulvi Sahib should have attempted to interfere with the course of justice. Mr. Huq says that he does not challenge the report of the District Judge as being wrong on facts and though the Moulvi Sahib tried in his sworn statement to suggest that the Munsif has misunderstood him, Mr. Huq accepts that in fact the Moulvi at Sahib did tell the Munsif that the suit should be dismissed. Mr. Huq states that the Moulvi Sahib did wrong and he cannot for a moment attempt to justify his conduct Accepting the facts as found in the letter of the District judge, Mr. Huq says that he can only plead for mercy and has nothing else to argue the pleads that the Moulvi Sahib who, he says, did not know the parties personally was led away by his zeal. for the cause of the Muslims and his greatest punishment is the realisation of the harm he has done by Iris conduct to the New State of Pakistan and the distress he has caused to his friends and brothers of the Muslin, faith. 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 Haq can be accepted and the contempt condoned. In dealing with such con tempts at the present time it has been well said elsewhere that "It is all the more necessary to deal with contempts 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 struc ture erected shall be stable.' Any mistakes made now, an easy tolerance for what is wrong may do incalculable future harm." We do not, therefore, propose to accept the Moulvi Sahib s qualified expression of regret or the apology tendered through the mouth of Mr. Fazlul Huq as a sufficient expiation of his offence. To accept it, would inevitably create the impression that contempts of this kind, however much they may be condemned in theory, can in practice by purged by an expression of regret. Such an impression would be indeed disastrous and would do nothing to deter others in the position of the Moulvi Sahib from interfering with the course of justice. For our part we are determined to see that such interference shall be visited with a prompt and deterrent punishment. We find Moulvi Abdur Rashid Tarkabagish, M.L.A. guilty of gross contempt of the Court of the Sub‑Divisional Munsif of Serajganj and impose on him a fine of Rs. 500 and we direct that if the fine be not paid by the 5th December, 1949, he shall suffer simple imprisonment for one month. ISPAHANI, J.‑

I agree. K.M.A. Petition accepted