P L D 1966 Dacca 170 (PLP)

SIDDIKY, J.‑This Rule was issued suo motu initially against one S. M. Mobin, Printer and Publisher of "Daily Insaf", Chittagong, Zainul Abedin, Editor of the said paper, and Samad Mia of Madham Halishahar, writer of a letter which was published in the said paper, to show cause as to why they should not be committed for contempt of Court for publishing the said letter in the "Daily Insaf" of 23‑6‑64 in the column of `Letters to the Editor' under the caption (Demand for the check on the wicked). In the affidavit filed by O. P. No. 2 (Zainul Abedin), the Editor of the said newspaper, it was disclosed that the letter in question was received by the News Editor, Md. Ijyas, from one Mahbubur Rahman Sharif, a former Agent and news correspon dent of "Daily Insaf", under the seal of his book‑stall "Shilpayani". Upon this disclosure a Rule was directed to be issued on the said Mahbubur Rahman Sharif on 21‑1‑

65. When Mahbubur Rahman Sharif appeared in response to the aforesaid Rule, he filed an affidavit in which he disclosed that he was not aware of the letter in question published in the "Daily Insaf" on 23‑6‑64 and that having seen an apology in the said paper of the 21st of September 1964, he saw Md. Ilyas, the News Editor, and also Zainul Abedin, Editor of the said Daily, and protested against the implication of O. P. No. 4 (Mahbubur Rahman Sharif) in regard to the publication of the aforesaid letter in their paper. Upon this another Rule was issued on the said Md. Ilyas, the News Editor of the paper, to show cause why he, too should not be dealt with for contempt of Court. The Rule issued on Samad Mia, the alleged author of the letter, could not be served on him and the Deputy Commissioner of Chittagong informed this Court that in spite of repeated attempts and vigilant enquiries made in that behalf no one of the name of Samad Mia of Madham Halishahar, Chittagong, could be traced out. The facts on which the Rule, dated 7‑12‑64, was issued are as follows:‑While admitting Criminal Appeal No. 243 of 1964 this Court granted bail to the appellants on 16‑6‑

64. After the appellants were enlarged on bail, the lever in question was published in the newspaper concerned. The "Daily Insaf" is a Bengali newspaper published from Chittagong and the impugned letter was printed and published, in Bengali. We had the letter translated by the Court's translator, copies of which were given to the parties concerned, and it is agreed by the learned Advocate appearing for the contemners that the said letter has been rendered into English correctly by the Court's' translator. We quote the translation of the letter below :-‑ "Letter to the Editor, the "Daily Insaf" Chittagong, the 23rd June 1964. Demand for the check on the wicked.‑We are the oppressed and depressed members of the public of Halishahar. The helpless poor members of the community have been constantly groaning under the pressure of the steam roller of oppression by some men coming from the lowest stratum of the society, and it has become rather difficult for the common man to stay in the village in the teeth of their tortures. In this respect the guardians of law in the village also have shrunk into a small compass owing to their passive role. It is unfortunate that one having been persecuted cannot get justice from the local Union Council inasmuch as they all lick the feet of the oppressive rich people and are nourished by them and are their sycophants and pet dogs. "A few days ago some miscreants having been accused in the Sultan Ahmad murder case were committed to jail. It is now heard that they have been released and come back. Following the confinement of the said evil stars behind the prison bar we the oppressed members of the public heaved a sigh of relief but it is a matter of great regret that in the present circumstances our said disaster has been called‑back. Our golden dream has vanished as vapour. The release of such persons, who like demons, oppress, Allah's creatures, the men, means widening the path of oppression for the oppressors. This malignant tumour will again start driving its steam roller of oppression in the society and thereby dark clouds of oppression will again comedown upon us. All the inhabitants irrespective of old and young of Halishahar, are aware of the evil activities of the said malignant tumour and its vivid example is that of their "brickfield". "In the circumstances we invite kind attention of the benign Government so that it may help establish peace and order in the country by adequately punishing these wicked elements of the society and the country. Finis. Samad Mia On behalf of the Oppressed members of public of Halishaaar, Madhyahalishahar, Chittagong." The letter in original, which has been filed in Court by Mr. Azizul Huq, the learned Advocate appearing on behalf of opposite‑parties Nos. 1, 2 and 5, bears the seal of "Shilpayani", the book‑stall which is said to be owned .by Mahbubur Rahman Sharif (O. P. No. 4). Opposite‑party No. 1 (S. M. Mobin), Printer and Publisher of "Daily Insaf", Chittagong, has filed a short affidavit and in paragraph 5 thereof he has tendered unqualified apology to this Court after pleading guilty to the charge of contempt and threw himself on the mercy of the Court and made no attempt to justify or in any way explain away the publication of the said letter. In this affidavit he has further stated that he was away to Karachi when the impugned letter was published. It is stated in the affidavit filed by opposite‑party No. 2 (Zainul Abedin), Editor of the "Daily Insaf", that at the time of publication of the letter in the newspaper, he was in London and that, on his return from London, a criminal case under section 500 of the Pakistan Penal Code was filed by the Basic Democrats of Halishahar against him and Opposite‑Party No. 1 for having published the aforesaid letter in their paper. In the said criminal case, it is stated, both opposite‑parties Nos. 1 and 2 entered appearance and, without contesting the case, they tendered their unqualified apology to the complainants through the columns of the said newspaper on 21‑9‑64 whereupon the case was compromised. It is also stated by Opposite‑Party No. 2 in Paragraph 3 of his affidavit that the letter in question was sent by post to the News Editor Md. Ilyas by one Mahbubur Rahman Sharif, an agent and news correspondent of "Daily Insaf" at Halishahar, under the seal of his book stall "Shilpayani" and that the News Editor in good faith sent it for. publication in usual course without verifying the contents thereof. He has with this affidavit annexed a copy of the "Daily Insaf" of 21‑9‑64 in which they published the apology. This deponent has further stated that none of the statements made in his affidavit was in justification of the publication of the impugned letter nor he attempted to justify his actions ; on the other hand, he pleaded guilty to the charge of contempt and tendered unqualified apology and threw himself on the mercy of this Court. Opposite‑party No. 4 (Mahbubur Rahman Sharif) filed an affidavit on the 15th of February 1965, in paragraph 2 of which he has admitted that he runs a small book‑stall under the name and style of "Shilpayani" in Halishahar in the district of Chittagong. He has further stated in his affidavit that he had no knowledge about the impugned letter published in the "Daily Insaf" of 23‑6‑64 and also that he never forwarded the aforesaid letter to the paper either on his own behalf or on behalf of the alleged author of the same. In paragraph 4 of the affidavit he has stated as follows :‑ "That this deponent was surprised to see the apology published in the Daily Insaf of the 21st September 1964, alleging that the letter published in the Daily Insaf of the 23rd June 1964, had been received through this deponent. This deponent immediately on the very next day saw the News Editor, Mr. Md. Ilyas, and Mr. Zainal Abedin, the Editor of the Daily Insaf and enquired from them why such an explanation falsely implicating this deponent had been published. This deponent was accompanied by one Kamaluddin Ahmad son of Moulana Abdul Majid of Halishahar, when he went to see the News Editor and the Editor. This deponent having failed to get a satisfactory reply from the said Editor and the News Editor and apprehending mala fide in them, got a protest letter published in the "Daily Azadi" of the 29th September 1964, categorically denying any responsibility and knowledge of the letter alleged to have been received by the News Editor. A copy of the said issue is annexed herewith and marked as Annexure "A"." In paragraph 5 of the affidavit this deponent has said that, after examining, the seal mark on the original letter filed in this Court he is definite that the alleged seal mark does not bear the seal of his book‑stall, namely, "Shilpayani" In paragraph 6 of his affidavit he has stated that at the relevant time he was no longer an agent of the "Daily Insaf" and that over a dispute on the rate of commissions payable to him for selling the newspaper, the deponent ceased to be an agent of the said paper from the month of May 1964. On a query by us Mr. Ruhul Islam, the learned Advocate for Opposite‑Party No. 4 (Mahbubur Rahman Sharif), made a categorical statement that by the expression "from the month of May 1964" as stated in the affidavit of his client, he meant "from the .1st of May 1964". This deponent further proceeded to say in paragraph 6 of his affidavit that during the period of agency and his continuance in the capacity of a news correspondent, he used to send occasionally news items with the seal mark "M. R. Sharif, Halishahar ‑correspondent, the Daily Insaf" and in case of letters to be published in the column "Letters to the Editor" he used to send the same under his signature, and for the said service he used to get no remuneration. In paragraph 7. of his affidavit this deponent has stated that he has been‑falsely implicated in the publication of the objectionable letter and prays tat he may be exonerated from the charge of contempt. Later of course, this contemner tendered unqualified apology and threw himself on the mercy of this Court. On the filing of affidavit by opposite‑party No. 4 (Mahbubur Rahmaa Sharif) in Which he disclosed that he ceased to be an agent and news correspondent of the "Daily Insaf" on and from the 1st of May 1964 (as stated by his learned Advocate in Court), we directed opposite‑party No. 2 (Zainul Abedin), the Editor of the said paper, to file a further affidavit stating as to whether the aforesaid assertion made in the affidavit of opposite‑party No. 4 was correct or not. Opposite‑party No. 2, in obedience to the said direction, filed a further affidavit on 15‑2‑65 in which he has stated that the original letter in question was received by post by the News Editor, livid. Ilyas (opposite‑party No. 5), in usual course of business and, seeing the seal of the agent of Halishahar, sent the same for publication without verifying the contents thereof. With regard to the assertions made by opposite‑party No.4 (Mahbubur Rahman Sharif) in paragraph 4 of his affidavit where in he said that on seeing the apology published in the "Daily Insaf" of 21‑9‑64 he called on the News Editor and the Editor of the said paper, namely, Md. Ryas (O. P. No. 5) and Zainul Abedin (O. P. No. 2), and enquired of them as to why he was falsely implicated in the aforesaid publication, opposite‑party No. 2 has stated in paragraph 3 of his further affidavit that after the publication of the apology in the issue of the "Daily Insaf" of 21‑9‑64, Mahbubur Rahman Sharif along with one Kamaluddin Ahmad once saw him in the office of the said paper and stated to him that by disclosing his name, i.e., the name of Mahbubur Rahman Sharif, in the apology, he (O. P. No. 4) was put to difficulties and also charged opposite‑party No. 2 for such disclosure saying that it was against the ethics of journalism. Opposite‑party No. 2 (Zainul Abedin), in paragraph 4 of his further affidavit, has also said that the statement made by opposite‑party No. 4 (Mahbubur Rahman Sharif) that the latter ceased to be an agent and news correspondent 'of the "Daily Insaf" with effect from the 1st of May, 1964, was not correct; on the other hand, he asserted that Mahbubur Rahman Sharif was the owner of Messrs Shilpayani and continued his agency till the 11th of July 1964. In support of the assertions made in paragraph 4 of the further affidavit filed by opposite‑party No. 2 (Zainul Abedin), Mr. Azizul Huqi the learned Advocate for opposite‑parties Nos. 1, 2, and 5, has also produced before us the daily register of agents and correspondents of the "Daily Insaf". It is found from the said register that opposite‑party No. 4 (Mahbubur Rahman Sharif) continued to be an agent and news correspondent of the said newspaper till the 11th of July 1964. The contemner, opposite‑party No. 5 (Md. Ilyas), who is the news Editor of "Daily Insaf" has stated in his affidavit filed in Court on 22‑2‑65 that he received the impugned letter by post in the usual course of business and, seeing the seal of "Shilpayani' which is the seal of the local agent and news correspondent of Halishahar, sent the same for publication without taking proper care to look into the contents of the said letter. This deponent has admitted in paragraph 3 of his affidavit that after the publica tion of the apology in the "Daily Insaf" of 21‑9‑64, opposite- party No. 4 (Mahbubur Rahman Sharif) saw him and the Editor of the newspaper in the office of the said "Daily Insaf" and stated to them that, by disclosing his (O. P. No. 4's) name in the apology he (Mahbubur Rahman Sharif) was put to difficulties as the persons against whom the impugned letter was published are very influential people and that he was being threatened by some of the members of the Halishahar Union .Council. Opposite‑party No. 4 further charged the News Editor and the Editor of the paper, according to the statement made by Md. Ilyas (O. P. No. 5), with the breach of ethics of journalism for having disclosed the name of the correspondent. It is further asserted by opposite party No. 5 (IV4d: Ilyas) in his affidavit that Mahbubur Rahman Sharif (O. P. No. 4), the owner of "Messrs Shilpayani", continued to be an agent of the "Daily Insaf" till 11‑7‑

64. Later, in his affidavit this deponent tendered unqualified apology and threw himself on the mercy of this Court. These are all the facts disclosed in the various affidavits filed by the contemners opposite‑parties before us. Mr. Azizul Huq, the learned Advocate appearing for opposite parties Nos. 1,‑2, and 5, did not for a moment make any attempt to justify the actions of his clients in. publishing the impugned letter. On the other hand, he candidly admitted, with all frankness that he commands, that the letter published in the newspaper was definitely objectionable and his clients were guilty of the offence of contempt of Court ; .but in view of .the statements made in the affidavits of opposite‑parties Nos. 1 and 2, who happened to be away from Chittagong at the relevant time, and opposite‑party No. 5 (Md. Ilyas), the News Editor who allowed the impugned letter to be published without checking up the contents thereof, he pleaded for mercy for his clients. Mr. Azizul Huq, on instructions from opposite‑parties Nos. 1, 2 and 5, categorically submitted that the alleged author of the impugned letter Samad Mea opposite‑party No. 3 is a fictitious person. Mr. Ruhul Islam, the learned Advocate for opposite‑party No. 4 (Mahbubur Rahman Sharif) has argued on the lines that his client has been falsely implicated in the case. We have checked up the evidence laid before us, i.e., the affidavits and the register of the Daily Insaf in which the names of the local correspondents and agents of the said paper are, maintained. We have also allowed Mr. Ruhul Islam to look into' the aforesaid register. Although opposite‑party No. 4 (Mahbubur Rahman Sharif) submitted in his affidavit that the seal used on the original letter was not his seal, yet no facsimile of any other seal of "Shilpayani" which he admits to belong to him was pleaded before us in support of the same. Mr. Ruhul Islam feebly argued that the newspaper authorities themselves for covering up their guilt and or to throw the blame on his client might have used the seal used on the original letter. We, however, find it difficult to accept the position that a daily newspaper would have a seal made in order to have a certain letter published in the column of "Letters to the Editor". Such argument of Mr. Ruhul Islam, in our opinion, does not appeal to a reasonable mind. Upon the facts proved, we do not accept the contention of opposite‑party. No. 4 that he was not an, agent and a news correspondent of the "Daily Insaf" at the relevant time when the impugned letter was published. We rather accept the position that he continued to be a news correspondent and an agent of the said paper until the 11th of July 1964. The fact of he having been described by opposite‑party No. 2 (Zainul Abedin) in his affidavit as an ex‑agent on the 21st of September 1964, cannot be taken to mean that he was not an agent on the date of publication of the impugned letter, in the face of the register of agents of the "Daily Insaf" produced before us and the affidavits filed by the Editor and the News Editor of the said paper. We have, therefore, come to the conclusion that opposite‑party No. 4 (Mahbubr Rahman Sharif) having found himself in a difficult situation, wanted to avoid the responsibility of his having sent the impugned letter to the "Daily Insaf" for publication with the seal of his firm "Shilpayani". We, therefore, in the facts and circumstances of the case find all the opposite‑parties guilty of the offence of contempt of Court. In view of the fact that opposite‑parties Nos. 1, 2 and 5 have not made attempt to justify their actions and, on the other hand, have expressed their unqualified apology, and thrown themselves on the mercy of the Court, we think it will be a sufficient lesson for them if we impose a sentence of fine of Rs. 50 on each of them, in default, to suffer simple imprisonment for seven days each, and we order accordingly. With regard to opposite‑party No: 4 (Mahbubur Rabman' Sharif) we think the matter has to be dealt with on a different footing; but here again we think that his meagre education and young age justifies a lenient sentence. In view of the fact that he tried to wriggle out of the situation by throwing blames on others, we impose on him a sentence of fine of Rs. 100, in default, to under go simple imprisonment for fourteen days. We have imposed these lenient sentences on the opposite parties with the sincere hope and belief that in future this will not only guide them but also other journalists in our country. The fines are directed to be paid to the Registrar by 4 p.m. on Friday, the 26th February 1965. The Rules are, accordingly, disposed of as above. A. M. SAYEM, J.‑I agree. S. Q. Order accordingly.