Home
+
Published : 13 Mar 2014, 07:23 PM
Verdict Thursday: Matiur regrets, Mizanur apologises
Mizanur’s explanation contempt of court: Judges
‘Mizanur is a habitual offender’
‘Mizanur tried to catch cantonment’s eye’
The court also censured the newspaper and warned it and other mass media that they should be cautious in future before publishing such articles.
Despite his unconditional apology, Khan has been slapped a fine of Tk 5,000 and the judges considered the five days of hearing he spent standing in the dock was as good as convicted and sentenced.
The bench of Justices Naima Haider and Zafar Ahmed on Thursday, however, acquitted the daily’s Editor Matiur Rahman while handing the down the verdicts on two contempt rules.
The presiding judge started delivering the verdict around 2:30pm with Khan standing in the dock and Rahman seated on the front bench in the courtroom packed with journalists and lawyers.
The court said, “It has been noticed by this court that previously Mr Khan has written some contumacious articles against this court and it is understood that some contempt proceedings are still pending.”
“Be that as it may, for publishing the aforesaid libellous and contumacious article in question, we find Mr Khan guilty of gross contempt of court and accordingly convict and sentence him for the period he was standing on the dock for four days and till rise of the court,” said the verdict.
“Since Mr Khan, the Contempter No. 1 has realised that by writing the highly contemptuous article, he has committed gross contempt of court, and sought unconditional apology in the midst of the hearing on 11th March, 2014 at 12:15pm, and stood before the court with folded hand, although the unconditional apology came at a much belated stage, this court refrained from sentencing him any further time, but imposes a penalty of 5000 taka for contempt of court.”
The court said it was sentencing Khan in exercise of its inherent power as a Court of Record under Article 108 of the Constitution.
Addressing Mizanur Rahman Khan, it said, “This court wants to put on record and warns the Contemnor Respondent No. 1 not to publish any such article/comments or make any remarks in future attacking the authority of this court as well as the Honourable Judges.”
“Unconditional Apology sought by Editor, Printer, Publisher of Prothom alo is accepted, and he is exonerated from the charge.”
After the verdict, Khan said he will speak to his lawyers about his next decision after receiving a copy of the full verdict.
Matiur, however, did not care to comment on the verdict.
Press not uncontrolled
The court in its verdict also made some observations regarding the freedom of press.
“This court observes that it is well recognised that the press provides the principal vehicle of expression of their views to citizens. It has been said ‘Freedom of the press is the Ark of the Covenant of Democracy because public criticism is essential to the working of its institutions.”
“But like other rights, this right is not unfettered. If confidence in Judiciary goes, the administration of justice definitely suffers.”
File Photo
Earlier, before the presiding judge began reading out the verdict, Mizanur Rahman Khan sitting with the lawyers was called to stand in the dock.
Then the court scorned lawyer Shahdeen Malik for his remarks published in Prothom Alo over the clearing of contempt charges against two Bengali dailies and seven journalists on Wednesday.
Then the judge started delivering the verdict. Khan was allowed to leave the dock after the judge finished reading verdict.
The bench on Mar 2 had summoned Khan following two reports published in Prothom Alo.
Khan recently wrote two articles in the newspaper with the headlines, roughly translated, “One anticipatory bail per minute, how?” and “Six to eight weeks of freedom”.
The court summoned both Khan and Matiur Rahman while issuing two rulings – one against Khan and the other against Khan and Rahman – asking why the duo should not be charged with contempt of court.
On Mar 6, Khan submitted his written affidavit in compliance with a court order. Hearings were held on Mar 9, 10, and 11 in his presence.
The court on Monday asked them to re-submit their explanations citing ‘procedural’ errors and ordered Rahman to appear before the court since there were ‘doubts’ over the affidavit he had submitted.
Rahman appeared before the court on Tuesday and regretted the publication of the articles taking full responsibility.
