After the cross examination of Sayedee's investigation officer had finished for the day, Justice Nizamul Huq then passed another order relating to an article published in Sangram (summary)
Today is fixed for passing order. All the notice receivers are present before the tribunal. The notice was issued upon opposite parties. They’re presented before the tribunal on 16th April, 2012. Mr. Abul Asad, Editor said in his reply about the erroneous news that the report was published on 2nd April, 2012, then on 3rd April, 2012 the notice receivers send a rejoinder stating that they know nothing. AKM Abdur Rahim, the Correspondent has sent the report on 1st April, 2012 and then it was published on 2nd April, 2012. The aforesaid Advocates of Feni Bar Association on whose name the statement of the report has been published have contacted the authority and send a rejoinder on 6th April, 2012.
Afterwards the reporter has stated that he has a highest respect for the due process of law and prays unconditional apology. And the Editor also has stated that- he has highest respect towards law and prays unconditional apology. The Advocates sent a rejoinder on 3rd April, 2012 to the Editor that they have not signed any paper and said anything. It was published on 6th April, 2012.
The Correspondent said that someone has sent the email on 1st April, 2012 by using his name. He has no knowledge about the report. He has no intention to lower the dignity of law. The advocates have stated that- they all are practicing advocates, they didn’t show any disrespect towards the tribunal. So they sent the rejoinder on 3rd April, 2012; and they have stated that they neither have signed nor send anything against the tribunal. So they beg unconditional apology. And they pray for discharge.
We’ve heard both the counsels from both sides,
Mr. Joynal Abedin on behalf of the lawyers of Feni Bar Association urges that-the report was published on 2nd April, 2012 and they have sent a rejoinder on 3rd April, 2012.
So, it is clear that they won’t be held liable for the mistaken fact published in the newspaper.
Mr.Prosecutor Zead Al Malum contended that when any person prays unconditional apology and could not admit his case, on that time, the prayer must be rejected and action must be taken under section- 11 (4) of the ICT Act.
We’ve heard all the matters- First we’ve to consider whether the report is contemptuous or not. [Then he read out the news report which is stating that- the Lawyers of Feni Bar Association had made a objection against the false deposition made to the Police Officer.]
It appears that- the report goes against the tribunal. One may raise question about the order, but it should not be contemptuous.
Now we’ve to see whether the editor and the publisher were present at their office. There is no report that they’re absent on 1st April, 2012. So the editor is liable under section- 11 (4) of ICT Act. As such the unconditional apology cannot be accepted.
Now let us consider the matter of Feni Correspondent of Daily Sangram. He has not come with clean hand. We’ve collected the papers of 6th April, 2012. Upon perusal of the report- we’re of the view that the reporter has sent the report and cannot escape liability.
The prayers of advocates of Feni Bar Association are entitled to get benefit from their application,
So we are of the view that the editor and the correspondent should be fined with 5000/- taka per head and are required to be deposited the amount within the 15 days of passing this order that is – 13th May, 2012. And they will be imprisoned till the rising of the tribunal. And arrest warrant is issued against them. [After that the Court adjourned till the next work