P L D 1969 Dacca 147 (PLP)

The learned Senior Government Pleader in regard to the diversion of the process by Abdur Rahman to Eden Buildings has submitted that the process having been addressed to the Controller of Dacca Rationing, Department of Food, Government of East Pakistan, Abdur Rahman took it that the notice was meant for the Food Department 9n the Eden Buildings. This argument of the Senior Government Pleader is wholly unaccept able. The learned Senior Government Pleader after tatting instructions informed us that Abdur Rahman has been serving as a Head Clerk in the office of the Controller of Dacca Rationing for a number of years. Undoubtedly the Controller of Dacca Rationing is an Officer of the Food Department, but that does not mean that the notice issued to the Controller of Dacca Rationing is meant for the Food Department under the Government of East Pakistan. It was clear that the notice was for the Controller of Dacca Rationing and the same was tendered at the proper address, and to the person who happens to be the Head Clerk of the office of the Controller of Dacca Rationing, Therefore the explanation given by the learned Senior Government Pleader that the Head clerk did not understand for whom the notice was meant is wholly unacceptable. Thus if we accept the evidence of the process‑server and we find no reason to discard the same then the position comes to this that Abdur Rahman the Head Clerk of the office of the Controller of Dacca Rationing (opposite‑party No. 1) having been served with the C. R. No. 334 of 1967 issued by this Court did not deliberately accept the same, misguided the process‑server to the Secretariat only to avoid service with an ulterior motive. Now comes the question as to whether this knowledge of the Head Clerk can be imputed to Khawaja Moinuddin‑opposite -party No.

1. To do so we do not find any direct evidence on record but circumstantial evidence are overwhelming to prove that this knowledge of the Head Clerk with regard to the notice of C. R. No. 334 of 1967 was imparted to the opposite‑party No.

1. It is difficult to believe that Abdur Rahman being the Head Clerk of the office of the opposite‑party No. 1 would not know about the case filed by the petitioner and having seen a notice from Court in that connection, when tendered by the process‑server will not inform the office Mater‑‑‑opposite‑party No.

1. That the Controller of Dacca Rationing (opposite‑party No. 1) was made aware of the rule prior to his going to take action on the 8th March 1967, is evident from his activities of the 8th and 9th March 1967 and also from certain other facts which we shall presently relate. Challenging the order of cancellation of Ration Shop No. 209 belonging to the petitioner dated 3rd November 1966, he filed a suit in the Court of First Munsiff, Dacca and obtained an order of ad interim injunction on 5th November 1966. This order of ad interim injunction was vacated by the learned Munsiff on 24th February 1967, after hearing parties and the petitioner went on appeal on 25th February 1967 and the District Judge refused to grant him the order of ad interim injunction, whereupon the petitioner came to the High Court on 27th February 1967 (26th February was Sunday) and obtained an order of ad interim injunction from this Court. It has been brought to our knowledge from record that certified copy of the order of the learned Munsiff vacating the order of ad interim injunction on 24th February 1967, was applied for on the 2nd March 1967, by the learned Advocate for the opposite‑parties one Mr. Beqi, Assistant Government Pleader, Dacca. It seems to us to be rather queer that the opposite‑parties would not know that the learned Munsiff has vacated the ad interim order or injunction and the petitioner has failed to obtain a similar order from the learned District Judge on 25th February 1967 and that the learned Additional Government Pleader did not even verbally inform the opposite- parties that the order of ad interim injunction has been vacated. The Assistant Government Pleader applied for certified copy of the order of the Munsiff on the 2nd March. This he must have done on instruction from the opposite‑party's office. This we presume because the Law Officers of the Government do not of their own accord apply for certified copies of orders of Court unless they are so asked by the department concerned. The opposite‑party No. 1 did not make any attempt to give effect to his order of cancellation for nearly 10 days after the ad interim order was vacated by the Munsiff. But suddenly on the 8th he goes into action. And by now we know that the rule wag sought to be served on the opposite‑party No. 1 on the 6th. There are other facts also. It is stated by the learned Senior Government Pleader that the petitioner was allowed to deposit money for drawing ration from the Government Godowns for which challans were passed by the Officer of the opposite‑party No. 1, the first of which is found to be dated 27th February 1967 and the money deposited on 3rd March 1967 and the delivery order was obtained on 4th March 1967, from the Controller's office. On 6th March 1967, also challan was passed by the Officer of the opposite‑party No. 1 namely Assistant Rationing Officer who is opposite‑party No. 2 before us and the first order passed by opposite‑party No. I to his officer to go into action is dated 8th March 1967, by which he has directed 7/8 officers to go and take possession of the ration commodities of the shop of the petitioner and the officers moved on that very day at 2‑00 p.m. This sudden action of opposite‑party No. 1 goes along way to suggest that having been aware of the order of the High Court on the evening of 6th March 1967, they decided to give effect to the order of cancellation before the notice could actually be served on opposite‑party No. 1 and for this purpose the Head Clerk Abdur Rahman diverted the same to the Secretariat. Service of notice of C. R. No. 334 of 1967 on the Head Clerk is proper service when the rule was directed to the Controller of Dacca Rationing and not on Khawaja Moinuddin in his personal capacity. That the High Court's order was known to all the contemners is further proved from the affidavit‑in‑opposition of opposite‑parties Nos. 2‑7 wherein it has been stated that since the C. R. No. 334 of 1967 was not issued on the opposite‑parties Nos. 2‑7 they are not guilty of any offence of contempt. This statement in the affidavit of opposite- parties 2‑7 which we shall refer to further later at an appropriate place, clearly goes to show that thinking that the rule was issued on the Controller alone, other officers could give effect to the cancellation order with immunity. Now we would like to deal with the happenings of the 8th March 1967. With regard to the happenings of 8th March 1967, the petitioner's case is that all the opposite‑parties fn C. R. Nos. 428 (r) of 1967 and 597 (r) of 1967 went to his shop in the afternoon at 2‑00 p.m. and in spite of the protest of his Manager and weighman, who it is alleged, informed these officers that the High Court has passed an order staying the operation of the order of cancellation and therefore they should not interfere with the normal running of the shop, they started to take possession of the ration commodities and diverted the same to other shops. The petitioner went to his shop at about 4 o'clock, showed the certificate of his Advocate, yet the opposite‑parties did no take any notice of it and carried on with their illegal activities. In the affidavits‑in‑opposition of all the opposite‑parties (opposite‑parties Nos. 1 and 2‑7) it has been categorically stated that the petitioner went to his shop at about 5 o'clock when the opposite‑party No. I was not there and that the petitioner neither told them anything about the order of the High Court nor showed the letter of his Advocate. In view of the admission of the opposite‑parties that the petitioner went to his shop on the 8th March 1967, at about 4 or 5 p .m. (according to opposite‑parties Nos. 1‑7), it becomes difficult for us to accept the position that having obtained an order from the High Court upon the Controller which was his Magna carta the petitioner would not tell the officers anything about it and would allow the commodities to be taken over and shifted to some other shops by them against whom he has obtained an order from the High Court. We have oral evidence of the witnesses of the parties on the point. We have seen the witnesses in the box. We have watched their demeanour and we must say that we are not prepared to place any reliance on the evidence of witness No. 1 of the opposite aparties‑Nurul Islam Chowdhury against whom the allegation of the petitioner is that the witness is the brother‑in‑law of the part owner of Awlad Hussain Market namely Mrs. Awlad 'Hussain; that he was informant in the case started against the petitioner by Anti‑Corruption Department in which he was convicted for violation of provisions of Act 1 of 1956 (Mr. Syed Azizul Huq in the course of hearing of the case informed us and ;placed before us the certified copy of the judgment of the ,additional Sessions Judge, Dacca dated 7th April 1967, which shows that the petitioner has been acquitted of the said charge) and this witness was prosecution witness No. 1 in that Criminal case. This witness first denied that he was a witness in that Criminal case but later on when he was confronted with the certified copy of the proceedings by Mr. Syed Azizul Huq he was forced to admit that he was the prosecution witness No. 1 In that Criminal case. It is further alleged by the petitioner that the witness was trying to throw out the petitioner from the shop ‑room by any means which he had rented out to him on behalf of his sister for reasons best known to him. He has testified to the effect that the petitioner came to his shop at 5 o'clock and saw that the opposite‑parties were working and immediately went back and came back at about 7‑00 p.m. with some goondas, pushed the officers out of the shop room and went away. We cannot put any reliance on the evidence of this witness except with regard to the presence of the officers and diversion of the materials, for reasons that we are of the positive opinion that he has not spoken the truth about the happenings at the shop of the petitioner on the 8th and 9tb. The other witnesses of the :opposite‑parties have also spoken in the same line as O. P. W.

1. Next It is said that on .the 8th March 1967, the petitioner having gone to the spot with Goonda elements, threw out the officers by force from inside the shop, 8/9 officers were present in diverting the materials from the shop of the petitioner. 4/5 witnesses who have come to depose for the opposite‑parties, admitted the presence of the officers at the spot and it is found from their evidence that there were 50/60 persons present on the spot when this occurrence took place. But it is strange that none protested against the high‑handed activities of the petitioner of forcibly throwing out the officers from the shop. Having. analysed the evidence of the witnesses for the opposite‑parties on this point we have no hesitation to say that they purposely told lies on oath. It is found from the General Diary of the Tejgaon Thana that at 7‑15 p.m. an entry was made in it under No. 525 on 8th, March 1967, which reads as follows:‑ "Mr. Amanullah Hazra, Chief Inspector, Dacca Ration and Mr. Salimuddin Ahmed, Assistant Rationing Officer, D/6, appeared at the Police Station and reported that they are delivering ration commodities on diversion from Ration Shop No. 209 at Awlad Hossain Market as per C. D. R. No. 1455 (6), dated 8th March 1967, but the proprietor Sadruddin Khan is making obstruction and as such they apprehend breach of the peace at the time of executing the lawful order. So I depute C/3055 A. Majid and C/301 Montazuddin to maintain peace and order‑vide Memo. No. 337/67." In view of the contradictory statements of the parties in their affidavits with regard to the timing of their going to the place of occurrence with police force on 9th March 1967, we called for the General Diary of the Tejgaon Police Station. It will be seen from the entry in the General Diary that the information relates only to obstruction caused by Sadruddin in the taking away of the ration commodities and not a word has' been mentioned about any assault on any of the officers by. Sadruddin or his men that evening Non‑mentioning of the fact of assault in the information lodged at 7‑15 p.m.‑ on 8th March 1967, lends support to the petitioner's case that the opposite- parties being made aware of the High Court's order, they went to the police and tried to make out a case against the petitioner to avoid liability but could not clearly decide as to what positive case they would make against Sadruddin. Along with this if we take the evidence of Sadruddin who stated that he went to the Thana on that very night and lodged F. I. R. against alt' the opposite‑parties about their violation of the High Court's order and he was told by the officer on duty of the Thana that a case has already been started against him and be would be put to trouble and may also be arrested and therefore he should quit the Thana forthwith. Next morning a written F.I.R. was filed with the Tejgaon Police by the opposite‑parties in which for the first time mention was made of the assault. The contradiction in the facts mentioned in the General Diary Entry No. 525 on the 8th March 1967, at 7‑15 p.m. and the written F. I. R. filed on the following day at 8‑10 hours in the policy station clearly shows that the opposite‑parties were trying to improve their case against the petitioner. Had the two Inspectors Farruk and Maquimur Rahman been assaulted on the 8th March 1967, by Sadruddin where Amanulla Hazra was also present,. then there could be no reason for non‑mentioning of the fact of assault in the Information lodged on 8th March 1967 by Hajra and another. The First Information Report is in our opinion a highly suspicious document and we do not propose to rely on it at all. On the other hand the petitioner's evidence on the point is simple and very straightforward. His evidence is that he told the opposite‑parties not to weigh the commodities, caught hold of the weighing scale and said that he would not allow them to weigh the commodities. Of course he has denied to have pushed out any of the officers from the shop. The evidence of O. P. W. 2 on the point is that after Sadruddin came with Goondas he entered into the shop and closed the southern door, therefore the witness could not see anything but only heard same disturbance inside the shop. If this witness is to be believed then there was some disturbance inside the shop and may be there was assault on the officers, but it is queer that Hazra, Chief Inspector did not mention the same to the Police. Another fact that has been brought on record by the opposite‑parties through the mouth of their witnesses is that that very night after 10‑30 p.m. the opposite‑parties other than the opposite‑party No. 1 went back to the Awlad Hussain Market and sat in the ration shop of Harunur Rashid, one of the ration dealers, called some of the witnesses namely opposite‑party witnesses, 1, 2, 3 and in their presence collected the sale proceeds of the ration commodities given to them from the shop of the petitioner. It is rather queer that even though they were man‑handled by Sadruddin and his men in the late afternoon, they went back so late in the night to collect money from the two other ration dealers. It is in evidence that the statement of ration commodities diverted to the shop of Ali Mia and Hossen Ali Khan on the 8th and 9th March 1967, were prepared and signed by the recipients in front of the shop of the petitioner at the time of delivery. But it is puzzling as to why the sale proceeds were not collected then and if the opposite‑parties did not collect the sale proceeds on the spot at the time of delivery why would they not wait till next day and took the risk of going back at about 11‑00 p.m. to a place where they were earlier manhandled by the petitioner and his men. Ali Mia's shop is half a mile away from the Awlad Hossain Market and it is situated near the Tejgaon Railway Station. There is no evidence to show that All Mia was asked by the opposite‑parties to come back from his shop at about 10‑?0 or 11‑00 p.m. to the shop of Harunur Rashid where the officers will collect the price of the commodities given to him. We therefore find no reason for the opposite‑parties to come back that night to Awlad Hossain Market only to collect the sale proceeds of ration commodities given to Ali Mia and Hossen Ali Khan. This story seems to be unacceptable. If they had at all gone back, they did so for no other purpose except to procure got up evidence against the petitioner for filing the First Information Report next morning. We have analysed the evidence of the witnesses of both the parties on the main issue, that is, as to whether the petitioner or his men namely Gopal Chandra Basak and Sabed Ali, the Manager and weighman of his shop respectively had informed the opposite‑parties about the High Court's order. Upon such analysis we cannot accept the evidence of the witnesses of the opposite‑parties that none of these people from the petitioner's side including the petitioner had informed the opposite‑parties about the High Court's order on 8th March 1967. If we accept the position that the petitioner was at the site at 4 or 5 p.m. and that he pushed out the officers from the shop for which the opposite‑parties had to make G. D. entry with the police then, no other conclusion can be arrived at except that being armed with the order of the High Court the petitioner and his men not only told the officers about it, but also took a stand on it and forced them not to continue in their diversion of the ration commodities from his shop If the opposite‑parties wants us to believe that the petitioner did not tell them about the High Court's order then this behaviour of the petitioner, that is, his forcibly throwing out the opposite‑parties from the shop cannot be fitted in with any other reasonable motive. We therefore after giving our anxious consideration to the evidence on record come to the conclusion that the opposite‑parties were informed about the High Court's order on the 8th March 1967, by the petitioner and his men. The point that now remains for our consideration in this connection is as to whether the opposite‑party No. 1 was present at the spot on that day and as to whether he was informed by the petitioner about the High Court's order. The petitioner has been subjected to a very lengthy cross‑examination by the learned Advocate for the opposite‑parties. The learned Advocate has not been able to dislodge the petitioner from his statement of his having told the opposite‑party No. 1 on that day at about 5 o'clock about the High Court's order and to have shown him the certificate of his learned Advocate. It is true that the petitioner has not produced before us the certificate issued by Mr. Syed Azizul Huq but on this point of Mr. Syed Azizul Huq's giving a certificate to the petitioner, the opposite‑parties have not challenged the petitioner's case, rather the line taken by the Advocate for the opposite‑parties is that Mr. Syed Azizul Huq might have given a certificate, but the petitioner did not show it to the opposite‑parties. The opposite‑party No. 1 has categorically denied to have been present in the shop of the petitioner on the 8th March 1967 and it is the case of the opposite‑parties that the petitioner went to his shop at about 5‑00 p.m. and then again at 7‑00 p.m., on the other hand the petitioner's case is that he went to his shop at about 4 o'clock and stayed there up to 6 o'clock and thereafter left the shop after closing it, and at about 5 o'clock he showed the lawyer's certificate to the opposite‑party No.

1. Whether he has in fact showed the certificate will not be so material if we accept the position that he has even verbally informed them about the High Court's order and we find no reason not to accept the petitioner's case on the point. In this connection we may also refer to the evidence of the witnesses of the opposite‑parties namely opposite- parties 1‑

3. According to their evidence they saw Sadaruddin having conversation with some of the opposite -parties at the relevant time but could not say what it was. 'In the facts and circumstances of the case Sadruddin could not have any other conversation with the officers except his having obtained an order of injunction from the High Court which was so vital for him. Now coming to the events of the 9th March 1967, it Is found from the affidavits of the opposite‑parties 1‑7 that the opposite‑parties 2‑7 went to the shop of the petitioner at 8 o'clock in the morning with the police force and finished the diversion of the ration commodities before or by 10 o'clock and left the place. This case has been trade out by the opposite‑parties not only in their affidavit‑in -opposition (paras. 18 and 19 of affidavit‑in‑opposition of opposite‑party No. 1 and para. 19 of affidavit‑in‑opposition of opposite‑parties 2‑7) but also through the mouths of their witnesses. From this the opposite‑parties wanted to say that on the 8th March 1967, they knew nothing about the High Court's order and on the following day that is on the 9th March 1967, they went to the shop of the petitioner with the police force at 8 o'clock in the morning and continued with the diversion of the ration commodities and finished the work before or by 10 o'clock. Therefore if even Sadaruddin had obtained a certified copy of the High Court's order on the 9th March 1967, by 11‑15 a.m., he could not have produced it before the opposite- parties who had left the shop by 10‑00 a.m. and as such they were not at all aware of the High Court's order even on the 9th March 1967. On this question of time we considered it necessary to call for the General Diary from the Tejgaon Police Station as well as to summon the officer who went to help the opposite‑parties in diverting the ration commodities. Entry No. 577 of 9th March 1967 in the General Diary recorded at 9‑30 a.m. is to the following effect: "A. S. I. R. Karim left for Awlad Hossain Market to help the officer of Civil Supply in their duty. C. Montazul Hoque and Shamsuddin accompanied me in performing the duty maintenance of peace and order." The Sub‑Inspector who has been examined as C. W. 3 has deposed in reference to this entry in the General Diary to the effect that this entry was made by him at the time of leaving the Thana and according to his personal diary which he produced before us, he arrived at the shop of the petitioner at 9‑45 a.m. and helped the rationing staff in weighing and disposing of the ration commodities. This officer in answer to a question by the Court said that he went to the ration shop of the petitioner along with the officers of the Civil Supplies Department. These two entries in the General Diary of the Thana and the personal diary of the Sub‑Inspector and the evidence of the Sub‑Inspector give a complete go‑by to the case of the opposite‑parties with regard to the time of the 9th March 1967, as asserted by them. 1f the officers had gone to the shop at 9‑45 a.m. and started their work of diversion of double the ration commodities then they had diverted on the previous day (value of commodities, diverted on 9th March 1967 is more than 6,000 the quantity too is more than double), they certainly could not complete the diversion within 15 minutes or less than that as they have asserted in their affidavits and sought to establish through the mouths of their witnesses. It is found from the evidence of the C. W. 3, Sub‑Inspector of Police that he was at the shop of the petitioner up to 11‑00 a.m. When questioned by the Court this witness answered that from there he went to Mohammadpur for holding inquiry in another case. Whether this time mentioned by the Sub‑Inspector in his evidence is correct or not in reference to his diary we shall deal with it a little later. Now even according to the Sub‑Inspector of Police the opposite‑parties. were at the shop up to 11‑00 a.m. In answer to a question by Mr. Syed Azizul Huq the Police Sub‑Inspector stated that when he left the shop the goods were being made over to the other dealers and the same were being carried and disposed of. It is therefore clear from the official records namely entries in the police diaries and the evidence of Sub‑Inspector that the statement made in the affidavits‑in‑opposition by the opposite parties 1‑7 in C. R No. 428 (r) of 1967 with regard to the time of their presence in the shop of the petitioner, as well as the evidence of witnesses for the opposite‑parties are nothing but false. We have examined General Diary entries of the Tejgaon: Police Station dated 9th March 1967, to find out the movement of the Sub‑Inspector and as well as the entries in his personal diary. In the personal diary he has made entry at 12‑30 showing his arrival at Mohammadpur for investigation of another case and his arrival at the police station at 14‑30 hours. When we checked the General Diary we found that there is an entry at 14‑30 hours in respect of certain other matters made by the Sub‑Inspector (C. W. 3) in his own hand. And according to his own evidence the time is 14‑30 hours. Having closely examined the time mentioned in the diary we detected that the time was first written to be 16‑00 hours which has been erased and it has been written afresh which is in reference 14‑30 hours made against earlier entry. But being questioned by the Court C. W. 3 had to admit that there is overwriting in the General Diary in regard to the time against the entry made by himself after his return to the Thana on completion of his duty at Awlad; Hossain Market and Mohammadpur. In answer to another question of the Court the officer had to admit that he consulted the clock of the Thana at the time of making entry on return from the duty. He has failed to satisfy the Court as to how the time 16‑00 hours was erased and `do' was written instead in reference to 14‑30 hours mentioned against the earlier entry. He has not made any entry in his personal diary at 14‑30 hours. On the contrary an entry in his personal diary is found at 19‑00 hours showing his arrival at the police station. It is the case of the petitioner that when Musaraf Hussain, his brother‑in‑law went back with certified copy of the High Court's order and showed the same to the opposite‑parties at about 11‑35 a.m.,, the Sub‑Inspector (C. W. 3) was present there. It is the evidence of Musaraf Hussain (P. W. 2) that he personally told the Sub‑Inspector of Police that there is High Court's order against taking possession of the shop by the opposite‑parties. Of course, the Sub‑Inspector of Police has denied to have been told so by Musaraf Hussain. Further from the entries in the General Diary and personal diary of the police officer which do not in fact disclose the true state of affairs we cannot accept the evidence of Sub‑Inspector of Police with regard to having left the shop of the petitioner at I1‑00 a.m. He has in his evidence admitted that he wrote his personal diary several days after the 9th March 1967, although the carbon copy of his diary shows that he submitted his diary for the 9th March 1967, to the Inspector concerned on 19th March 1967. The partly erased time (16‑00 hours) in the General Diary is possibly the correct time when the Sub‑Inspector went back to the Thana after finishing his duties. In these circum stances we are forced to accept the evidence of Musaraf Hossain that the Sub‑Inspector of Police was there when he took the certified copy of the High Court's order to the shop of the petitioner. Now remains to be considered the question as to whether Musaraf Hossain (P. W. 2) had on arrival at the shop of the peti tioner shown the certified copy of the High Court's order to oppo site‑party No. 1 and opposite‑parties 2‑7 in C. R. No. 428 (r) of 1967. It is the positive evidence of Musaraf Hussain, who is a law student that he showed the certified copy of the High Court's order to the opposite‑party No. 1 first, who took it in his hand and then returned it saying "I shall not look into it." Then the witness showed it to Amanulla Hazra, Chief Inspector and he also said that he would not look into it. Further it is the evidence of Musaraf Hussain that the opposite‑party No. 1 further said that he has not received the notice from the High Court. Since all the witnesses of the petitioner have said that opposite‑party No. 1 was present at the spot on 9th March 1967, and the General Diary Entries and the evidence of C. W. 3 belie the assertion of the opposite‑parties about the time of their presence at the spot, we find no reason to accept the case of the opposite party No. 1 that he was not in the shop of the petitioner on the 9th March 1967, when Musaraf Hossain went back with the certified copy of the High Court's order. We cannot in the light of the evidence discussed above accept the case of the opposite‑parties that they completed the work of diversion between 8‑10 o'clock in the morning, long before the certified copy of the High Court's order was taken by Musaraf Hossain. Further that the opposite‑party No. 1 was present in the shop of the petitioner is spoken by one of the witnesses of opposite parties namely opposite‑party witness No.

2. According to this witness only Salimuddin was not present at the time when this witness was there in the shop of the petitioner. He identified all the opposite‑parties whom he saw in the shop in the morning of the 9th March 1967 which includes opposite‑party No.

1. The point has been made by the learned Advocate for the opposite‑parties that it was not possible for the petitioner to obtain certified copy of the High Court's order in course of an hour and 15 minutes, rather it was positive suggestion of the learned Advocate of the opposite‑parties to the petitioner and Musaraf Hussain that the certified copy of the High Court's order was obtained after 3‑00 p.m. on the 9th March 1967. In this regard the evidence of the petitioner and Musaraf Hussain is that the certified copy was obtained by them by 11‑15 a.m. Musaraf Hussain has stated that the clerk of the learned Advocate Mr. Syed Azizul Huq after making frantic efforts on receipt of information from one Tenu Mia that the opposite‑parties are diverting the materials from the shop of the petitioner after breaking open the lock of the shop, was successful in obtaining of the High Court's order by 11‑15 a.m. and with that he rushed to Awlad Hussain Market. It is a short order of few lines and we find no reason as to why this certified copy of the order could not be obtained within an hour and 15 minutes. In the absence of any evidence that this certified copy was obtained later than 11‑15 a.m. we are inclined to accept the evidence of Musaraf Hussain that the certified copy was obtained at 11‑15 a.m. In the context of the facts stated earlier, that is the time required by the opposite‑parties with regard to their activities. of the 9th March 1967, in the shop of the petitioner and the contradictions found from the police diary, we are inclined to accept the petitioner's case that the opposite‑parties 1‑7 were in the shop of the petitioner on the 9th March 1967, from sometime about 10 o'clock up to about 2 o'clock or even a little later than that. There is another fact to be considered for this long stay of the opposite‑parties in the shop of the petitioner, that is, when they took about 3/4 hours on the previous day to divert the ration commodities of less than half the quantity which was, diverted on the 9th March 1967, it certainly could not be completed in 15 minutes or even an hour and a half. Once was accept that the opposite‑parties 1‑7 in C. R. No. 428 (r) of 1967 and opposite‑parties in C. R. No. 597 (r) of 1967 were present in the shop of the petitioner on the 9th morning between the hours of 10 and 2 as found from the evidence of the petitioner's witnesses and other circumstances, which we have already referred to, it becomes difficult to reject the petitioner's case that comes through the mouth of Musaraf Hussain, that the certified copy of the High Court's order was not shown to the opposite‑parties at 11‑35 a.m. or thereabout. The other witnesses who support the petitioner on the point of his having shown the certified copy of the High Court's order to the opposite‑parties in the above‑mentioned two rules are P. Ws. 3, 4, 5 and

7. It is positive evidence of P. W. 3 Quddus that after the opposite‑parties 1‑3 in C. R. No. 428 (r) of 1967 refused to look into the certified copy, he at the instance of Musaraf Hussain took the certified copy in his hand and read it aloud to the hearing of everybody present in and around the ration shop. The evidence of this witness has been attacked on the ground that he while serving in the Civil Aviation Department sometime in 1948 was convicted and sentenced. He admitted it in a very straight‑forward manner. We have seen the witness in the box and we have his evidence before us. We do not think that this fact of conviction in 1948 would make him tell a lie against the responsible officers with whom he has no enmity. It has been suggested to him that tie had some enmity with the rationing officers on the ground of issuance of ration cards for the employees of his factory, but he has stoutly denied the same and we find no substance in that suggestion of the opposite parties. Thus it is found from all that we have said, that all the opposite‑parties became aware of the High Court's order of injunction dated 27th February 1967, on the 6tb, 8th and 9th March 1967. Once it is found that the order of the High Court was brought to the notice of the opposite‑parties before or during their taking possession of the ration commodities from the shop of the petitioner and diverting those to other shops, there seems to be no escape for the opposite‑parties from the charge of contempt of this Court. Having analysed every piece of evidence brought before us and having given our most anxious consideration and having spent quite a number of days on this case, we have come to the conclusion unhesitatingly that all the opposite‑parties in the 3 rules are guilty of the offence of the contempt of this Court. We shall now deal with the question of sentence that should be awarded to the contemners. We have already observed earlier, that, stand was taken by the opposite‑parties 2‑7 in Rule 428 (r) of 1967 that since the order of the High Court was not directed against them, they have not committed any contempt of this Court by taking possession of ration com modities from the shop of the petitioner and diverting the same to other shops. The order of the High Court was "pending the hearing of the rule, ad interim injunction is granted restraining, the opposite‑party from giving effect to the order of cancellation .." The stand taken by opposite‑parties 2‑7 was sough to ~be justified in law. We have been given the impression throughout the proceedings by the learned Advocate of the opposite‑parties, until the new Senior Government Pleader came into the picture, after evidence was closed, that since the injunction order was issued on the Controller of Dacca Rationing and not against opposite‑parties 2‑7, they would not in law be guilty of the offence of contempt if they have taken possession of the ration commodities from the petitioner's shop and diverted those to other shops. We can only say that it was most unfortunate. We shudder to think as to how such a stand could be taken by Government servants who are sufficiently educated and hold responsible positions. The exact wording used in taking this stand is to be found in para. 23 of the affidavit sworn by opposite‑party No. 2 which is: "The ad interim order of injunction passed by the Hon'ble High Court was directed solely against the sole respondent No. 1 and there was no order of injunction against the respondents Nos. 2‑7 who are not parties in the suit before the learned Munsiff not in the Miscellaneous Appeal before the learned District Judge not in the Revisional Application before the Hon'ble High Court and as such legally the respondents Nos. 2‑7 are not responsible for any alleged disobedience and alleged violation as they were not at all in the know of the ad interim order of injunction passed by' the Hon'ble High Court at any time before they completed the diversion of the foodstuff from the A. R. Shop No. 209 at 10‑00 a.m. on 9th March 1967." Although at the end of the sentence which we have just quoted, it is said that they were not aware of ad interim injunction prior to the date mentioned therein, yet this is not the point sought to be made out in the sentence quoted above. The point that they have sought to make out is justification their action in law. It is now settled that the violation of the order of Courts of law amounts to contempt by even persons who are not parties to the proceedings after such persons are made aware of the order of the Court. In the present case, facts are ugly enough against the opposite‑parties and establish a clear case of contempt and justification thereof in the manner as has been done in para. 23 of the affidavit‑in‑opposition of opposite‑parties 2‑7, which we have just quoted, only aggravates the offence of contempt. We have already said earlier that even after 2nd March 1967, the petitioner was allowed to deposit money and take ration commodities from the Government godowns. It, therefore, leads us to think that there is substance in the allegations of the petitioner that malice on the part of the opposite‑parties against the petitioner has worked to a great extent in this case. The stand taken up by the opposite‑parties In their affidavits‑in‑opposition regarding diversion of the notice of the Rule to the Secretariat on the 6th evening on the plea that the notice is for the Food Department lend support to the petitioner's case that the opposite‑parties avoided service of the rule only to deprive him of his ration shops out of grudge. When the notice of C. R. No. 334 of 1967 went back for fresh service the opposite‑party No. 1 made the following endorse ment on the back of the notice which the process‑server brought back as evidence of return of service. "I received copy of the original C. R. No. 334 of 1967 in my office, office of the Controller of Dacca Rationing, Dacca situated at 104, K. P. Ghosh Street, Armanitola, Dacca at 4‑00 P.M. on 12th April 1967, and this is not the office of the Food Department as mentioned. (Sd.) K. Moinuddln, 12‑4‑67 Controller of Dacca Rationing." This service was witnessed by no other than A. Rahman, Head Clerk of the office of the Controller whose signature is below the signature of K. Moinuddin. In this connection it may be mentioned that the memos. issued by the Controller himself to the petitioner contain the following at the top: ‑ "Government of East Pakistan, office of the Controller of Dacca Rationing, Dacca." Not a word of apology has been mentioned in the affidavit -in‑opposition of opposite‑parties in C. R. No. 428 (r) of 1967. When read the affidavits‑in‑opposition give no other impression F except an attitude of contest, denial of offence and assertion of having done the things being within their rights. When the new Senior Government Pleader came into the picture at the time of argument he came up with an affidavit in which regret has been expressed by the contemners and they have tendered unqualified apology and have asked for mercy of the Court. While placing this affidavit in the course of his argument the Senior Government Pleader referred us to the case of A. K. M. A. Awal v. State (P L D 1964 S C 542). He has drawn our attention to the 5 golden rules laid down by the learned Chief Justice in his judgment as guidance for the Courts while dealing with a case of contempt. These are: (1) whether the appellant appreciated that his act was within mischief of contempt, by interference with the administration of justice, (2) whether he regretted it, (3) whether his regret was sincere, (4) whether it was accompanied by expression of a resolution never to repeat the offence, and (5) whether he made humble submission to the authority of the Court. In the light of the Supreme Court's decision in the above‑mentioned case the learned Senior Government Pleader wanted us to grant absolute and unconditional mercy to his clients. Unfortunately for the Senior Government Pleader facts of the case are not same as those in Awal's case. In the case of Awal the rule for contempt was issued three months after the Revision Application was disposed of and immediately the officer without making any justification for his action came up with an unqualified apology before the Court and threw himself at the mercy of the High Court. Even then the High Court did not deter in the facts of the case from convicting the contemner and inflicting punishment on him. On appeal the Supreme Court maintained the conviction but only set aside the sentence of the contemner on the ground that he at the first instance tendered unqualified apology, expressed his sincere regret and threw himself at the mercy of the Court. In the present case facts are quite the contrary. The opposite‑parties from the very beginning took up an attitude that they are not guilty of the offence, which attitude they maintained throughout the proceedings until Mr. Tofazaal Hossain Khan the new Senior Government Pleader appeared and filed the last affidavit asking for pardon and mercy. After perusing the affidavits‑in‑opposition and hearing the evidence we felt that the case was a bad one for the opposite‑parties. We then expressed our concern about the attitude taken by the lawyers of the opposite‑parties but that unfortunately fell on deaf ears. In the present case none of the rules laid down by the learned Chief Justice of the Supreme Court in his decision in the case of A. K. M. A. Awal fit in with the facts established. Having found that the case has gone against them the opposite‑parties thought fit to come up with the affidavit for apology at the very last moment. It is a case of deliberate, wilful and flagrant violation of the order of this Court by none other than responsible officers of the Government. We have given our anxious thoughts to the question of punishment It is true that even in cases of a clear contempt, the Court takes lenient view of the matter and award light punishment to the contemners but it is also true that in a case of flagrant violation of the Court's order deliberately made by responsible and educated persons they are not allowed to go unpunished. If we allow the present contemners to go unpunished then there will be a day and not a distant one when no one will obey the Court's order. The shop was locked on the 9th March 1967, the contemners broke it open, removed materials and took away the key after completing the removal and locking the shop and we are told that the key has not yet been returned to the petitioner. This amounts in a sense continuation of the contempt that they committed on 8th and 9th March 1967. In spite of all these we have decided to take very lenient view in this matter in respect of the punishment for reasons that learned Senior Government Pleader has assured us that there has been sufficient punishment for the contemners and they have sincerely regretted what they have done and they seek mercy from this Court. All the contemners in our opinion, cannot be given the same punishment, for reasons that some of them namely opposite parties 5‑7 in C R. No. 428 (r) of 1967 are Sub‑Inspectors and were under the direct orders of their superior namely the Controller through Assistant Rationing Officer and Chief Inspector and Inspector opposite‑party No.

4. Similarly the opposite‑party No. 2 in C. R. No. 597 (r) of 1967 Farruk Khan has at the very outset tendered unqualified apology. We would therefore treat these 4 officers on different footing as far as punishment is concerned. As far as Giasuddin L in concerned the opposite‑party No. 1 in C. R. No. 597 (r) of 1967 we cannot place him in the same category as these 4 officers, because he has interpolated two documents with his own hand with regard to the time. We have therefore decided to impose a fine of Rs. 1,000 on the Controller of Dacca Rationing (K. Moinuddin) and sentence him to a day's simple imprisonment till the rising of the Court today at 4‑15 p.m. We award sentence of fine of Rs. 500 on Salimuddin, A. R. O., D‑6, Dacca, Amanullah Hazra, Chief Inspector of Food, Dacca Rationing, Dacca and Abdur Rahman Head Clerk of the office of the Controller of Dacca Rationing, Armanitola, Dacca in C. R. No. 574 (r)/67 and sentence each of them to a day's simple imprisonment till the rising of the Court today at 4‑15 p.m. With regard to the opposite‑party No. 4 Munsur Ahmed, Inspector, we award a sentence of fine of Rs. 200 and one day's simple imprisonment to him till the rising of the Court today at 4‑15 p.m. We award a sentence of fine of Rs. 100 each on Fazlul Haque Bhuiyan, Kamaluddin Ahmed and Maquimur Rahman, Sub‑Inspectors and sentence them to one day's simple imprisonment till the rising of the Court today at 4‑15 p.m. We award sentence of fine of Rs. 200 and one day's simple imprisonment till the rising of the Court today at 4‑15 p.m. on Giasuddin Ahmed, Sub‑Inspector, Dacca Rationing who is opposite‑party No. 2 in C. R. 597 (r)/67. We convict Farruk Khan, Inspector of Food, Dacca Rationing who is opposite‑party No. 1 in C. R. 597(r)/67 but let him off with a warning only because he has tendered an unqualified apology on the very first day. The fines to be deposited with the Registrar of this Court by the 12th May 1967. The Rules are disposed of as above. MAHMUD HOSAIN, J.‑I agree. A. H. Order accordingly.