IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BANGLADESH HIGH COURT DIVISION

(SPECIAL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION)

Suo Motu Rule No. 3 of 2024

AND

IN THE MATTER OF:

The State

….Contempt-Petitioner Versus

Mr.  Hasan  Shahid  Ferdous,  Ex-District  and Sessions Judge, Rangpur, now at 290/2/1-A, Khilgaon, Dhaka and others 

   ….Contemnor-Respondents

Ms. Nasima K. Hakim, DAG with Mr. Md. Hafizur Rahman, AAG, Mr. Md. Ali Akbor Khan, AAG,

Mr. Elin Imon Saha, AAG and

Mr. Ziaul Hakim, AAG

....For the State

Mr. Abul Quasem Md. Mostafa, Advocate

    ....For  the  Contemnor-respondent  Nos.  1 and 4

Mr. Md. Oziullah, Advocate with

Mr. Azimuddin Patwary, Advocate

         ….For the Contemnor-respondent No. 7

Present:

Mr. Justice Md. Iqbal Kabir

And

Mr. Justice Md. Akhtaruzzaman

Judgment on 30.07. 2024.

Md. Iqbal Kabir, J:

By an office note of the Hon’ble Chief Justice of Bangladesh this matter has been placed before this Bench. On perusal, it appears that one Mr. Md. Moynul Haque, Additional District and Sessions Judge, 1st Court,  Rangpur  during  his  service  tenure  therein  from  04.09.2012  to 01.09.2014 delivered judgments of 259 cases/suits/appeals/revisions in open  Court,  but  did  not  write  up  the  judgments.  Subsequently,  on 01.09.2014,  he  was  attached  to  the  Law  and  Justice  Division  in  the Ministry of Law, Justice and Parliamentary Affairs. Later on, he died but till to date, those judgments are not written and no steps to that effect have been taken by the concerned District Judge(s).

During the tenure, Mr. Hasan Shahid Ferdous was the District and Sessions  Judge  of  Rangpur.  He  acted  in  Rangpur  judgeship  from 25.09.2011 to 04.10.2014. Thereafter, Mr. Md. Manjurul Basit was the District  and  Sessions  Judge  from  20.01.2015  to  12.07.2016;  Mr. Humayun Kabir was the District and Sessions Judge from 18.07.2016 to 25.02.2018;  Mr.  ABM  Nizamul  Haque  was  the  District  and  Sessions Judge from 04.03.2018 to 30.01.2019; Ms. Rasheda Sultana was the District  and  Sessions  Judge from 31.03.2019 to 06.02.2020; Mr.  Md. Shahenoor  was  the  District  and  Sessions  Judge  from  28.05.2020  to 17.02.2022 and Mr. Md. Shahidul Islam was the District and Sessions Judge from 24.04.2022 to 31.12.2023. But none of the aforesaid District and Sessions Judges took any steps to write up the judgments of those cases delivered by Mr. Md. Moynul Haque.

At  this  juncture,  this  Court  issued  the  Suo  Motu  Rule  thereby directing the above-named District and Sessions Judges to explain their position in not taking appropriate steps for writing up the judgments of the aforementioned cases left by Mr. Md. Moynul Haque, the then Additional District  and  Sessions  Judge,  Rangpur  within  a  certain  period  to  the Registrar General of this Court.

Notices  have  been  served  upon  the  respondents.  Thereafter, Respondent  Nos.  1,  4  and  7  entered  their  appearance  through  their engaged Counsels. The other respondents made their reply through the Registrar General. 

From the reply, it appears that none of the aforesaid District and Sessions Judges took any steps to write up the judgments of those cases delivered by Mr. Md. Moynul Haque since it was not brought to their knowledge from any quarters. It is further mentioned that at the time of his departure from Rangpur on 01.09.2014 Mr. Moynul Haque did not submit any statement as per ‘Note’ annexed to Rule 141 of Chapter 9 of Civil Rules and Orders Vol. 1, as such, respondents were not aware of the facts that the aforesaid Additional District and Sessions Judge had left the station without writing up those judgments.

 Respondent No.1 claims that at the relevant time being the head of the judiciary in Rangpur district ought to have looked into the matter. Had the matter been brought to the notice of this respondent either by the Bar or any quarters or from the concerned Court, this respondent certainly would have taken appropriate legal steps for writing up those judgments. However, he begs unconditional apology for the acts that he did and was not able to take appropriate measures to address the issue promptly. He further states that if it was informed to him he would have taken every possible measures to ensure that all the judgments were written and documented. However, he expressed sincere remorse and apology for his failure to identify and rectify the issue during his tenure.

It is also noted that most of the respondent’s regrettably admitted that neither the presiding Additional District and Sessions Judge of the said 1st Court, Rangpur nor any other associated personnel from the Court or the Bar Association, nor any litigants, brought this matter to their attention during their respective tenure. Therefore, as the head of the judiciary in Rangpur district, they failed to bring the issue before the appropriate authority or to solve the problem. For that reason, they have also  acknowledged  their  oversight  and  admitted  that  it  was  not  their intention to be negligent about the issue. It has been further stated that they have tried their best to uphold the principles of diligence and integrity in discharging their duties with utmost sincerity and dedication.

From the record, it appears that respondent No. 3, Mr. Humayun Kabir  took  charge  as  District  and  Sessions  Judge,  Rangpur  on 18.07.2016 and was in function till 25.02.2018. During his tenure he came to know about the issue and thereby took initiatives. In his reply to the Rule Mr. Humayun Kabir stated:

“Se¡h ®j¡x jDe¤m qL LaѪL 259 ¢V j¡jm¡l l¡u e¡ ¢mM¡l ¢ho−u Bj¡l pjuL¡−m LjÑla A¢a¢lš² ®Sm¡ J c¡ul¡ SS, 1j Bc¡ma, lwf¤l Se¡h ¢p Hj H B¢mj Bm

l¡S£ q−a Ah¢qa q−m B¢j ay¡−L Eš² j¡jm¡ pj§−ql a¡¢mL¡ fËÙºa L−l fË−u¡Se£u hÉhÙÛ¡ ¢e−a hm−m ¢a¢e Eš² 259 ¢V j¡jm¡l ®nËZ£, d¡l¡, ¢eÖf¢šl a¡¢lM CaÉ¡¢c abÉpq 3¢V a¡¢mL¡ fËÙºa L−le Hhw ay¡l ®L¡−VÑl f¢lcnÑe ¢l−f¡−VÑ ¢hou¢V E−õMf§hÑL Eš² j¡jm¡pj§§−ql a¡¢mL¡ ®Sm¡ J c¡ul¡ SS, lwf¤l Hl L¡kÑ¡m−u −fËlZ L−lez H pju Eš² 259 ¢V j¡jm¡l l¡u ®O¡oZ¡L¡l£ A¢a¢lš² ®Sm¡ J c¡ul¡ SS

Se¡h ®j¡x jDe¤m qL lwf¤−l LjÑla ¢R−me e¡z H f¢l¢ÙÛ¢a−a ¢hou¢V B¢j kb¡kb LaªÑfr−L Ah¢qa Ll¡ fË−u¡Se j−e L¢l Hhw ¢p¢im l¦mp Hä AXÑ¡lp, f¡VÑ-1 Hl l¦m 928(2) Hhw ¢œ²¢je¡m l¦mp Hä AXÑ¡lp (i¢mEj-1) 480 Hl ¢hd¡e ®j¡a¡−hL avpj−u (19/11/2016 ¢MËx a¡¢l−M) Ae¤¢ùa S¤¢X¢pu¡m Leg¡−l¾p, 2016 Hl fË¢a−hc−el 6 J 7 ew fªù¡u E¢õ¢Ma ®g±Sc¡l£ J ®cJu¡e£ j¡jm¡l ¢eÖf¢šL«a J ¢hQ¡l¡d£e j¡jm¡l abÉ¡¢c Aw−n Eš² ¢hou¢V E−õMf§hÑL 259 ¢V j¡jm¡l a¡¢mL¡ pwk¤š² L−l Eš² fË¢a−hce ¢hNa 01/12/2016 ¢MËx a¡¢l−Ml pÈ¡lL ewx ®Sx−Sxlw- 567/2016 a¡¢lM 01/12/2016 ¢MËØV¡ë j§−m j¡ee£u l¢SØVÊ¡l ®Se¡−lm, h¡wm¡−cn p¤fË£j ®L¡VÑ, Y¡L¡ hl¡h−l NÉ¡l¡¢¾Vk¤š² â¦a X¡L p¡¢iÑp (¢SC¢f) ®k¡−N ®fËlZ L¢l Hhw 01/12/2016 ¢MËx a¡¢l−M ®Sx−Sxlw-567(1)/2016 pÈ¡lL j§−m Eq¡l Ae¤¢m¢f pcu AhN¢a J fË−u¡Se£u hÉhÙÛ¡ NËq−Zl ¢e¢jš j¡ee£u p¢Qh, ¢hQ¡l ¢hi¡N, BCe, ¢hQ¡l J pwpc ¢houL j¿»Z¡mu hl¡h−l ¢SC¢f ®k¡−N ®fËlZ L¢lz

j−q¡cu pw¢nÔø OVe¡¢V Bj¡l LjÑL¡m£e pj−u (18/07/2016 ¢MËx a¡¢lM q−a 25/2/2018 ¢MËx a¡¢lM fkÑ¿¹) O−V e¡Cz a¡ R¡s¡ pw¢nÓø ¢hQ¡lL Se¡h ®j¡x jDe¤m qL avpj−u lwf¤−l LjÑla ¢R−me e¡z Se¡h ®j¡x jDe¤m qL, p¡−hL A¢a¢lš² ®Sm¡ J c¡ul¡ SS, lwf¤l ¢hNa 01/09/2014 a¡¢lM q−a ¢hQ¡l ¢hi¡N, BCe, ¢hQ¡l J pwpc ¢houL j¿»Z¡m−u pwk¤š² ¢R−mez ab¡¢fJ B¢j Bj¡l c¡¢uaÄ−h¡d ®b−L B¿¹¢lL j−e¡i¡h ¢e−u Ef−l E¢õ¢Ma j−a 259 ¢V j¡jm¡l ®nËZ£, d¡l¡, l¡u ¢eÖf¢šl a¡¢lM, gm¡gm J ¢pBl¢f¢p Hl 342 d¡l¡ B−R ¢L e¡ CaÉ¡¢c abÉ E−õMLlax ®j¡V 03 ¢V a¡¢mL¡pq fË¢a−hc−el 6 J 7 fªù¡u Se¡h ®j¡x jDe¤m qL La«ÑL 2012 ¢MËx a¡¢lM q−a 2014 ¢MËx a¡¢lM fkÑ¿¹ ®j¡V 259 ¢V j¡jm¡l l¡−ul gm¡gm −O¡oZ¡ Ll−mJ ¢a¢e

I pLm j¡jm¡l l¡u ¢m−M e¡ k¡Ju¡l ¢hou¢V E−õMf§hÑL LaѪf−rl pcu eS−l H−e¢Rz”

From the above, it appears that the respondent No. 3 informed the matter  to  the  Registrar  General  and  the  Secretary,  Law  and  Justice Division, Ministry of Law, Justice and Parliamentary Affairs through office Memo being No. −SxSxlw-567/2016 dated 01.12.2016 along with a list of the description of the cases.

However,  after  receiving  the  letter  from  the  respondent  No.  3, neither the then Registrar General of the Supreme Court of Bangladesh nor some other Register Generals worked in Bangladesh Supreme Court, took  any  initiatives  on  the  matter.  Similarly,  the  then  or  the  present Secretary, Law and Justice Division of the Ministry of Law, Justice and Parliamentary Affairs also did not pay any head on the matter. Being high officials they have ignored the matter and was reluctant and busy with other issues though they under the law were duty bound to address the matter with almost sincerity. Their conduct appears to unacceptable.

It is noted that respondent No. 7, District and Sessions Judge Rangpur,  came  to  know  about  the  issue  while  someone  applied  for certified copy of one of the judgments. Thereafter, at the instance of respondent No. 7, the Additional District and Sessions Judge presently working in Rangpur judgeship submitted a report to him through a letter bearing Memo Nо. 451(ka)/2023 containing a detailed list of 259 cases stating that during his tenure in Rangpur Judgeship Mr. Moynul Haque though declared results in 259 cases but did not write up the judgments. Having received such report from the concerned court, Respondent No. 7 as District and Sessions Judge, Rangpur sent a letter vide Memo No. 350/2023 dated 30.11.2023 to the Registrar General of the Supreme Court of Bangladesh seeking proper directions.

From the above-noted fact, it appears that except respondent Nos. 3 and 7 most of the respondents as well as the Registrar General of the Supreme  Court  of  Bangladesh  and  the  Secretary,  Law  and  Justice Division, Ministry of Law, Justice, and Parliamentary Affairs were not diligent as well as reluctant in performing their official duties on the above noted matter though they under the law were duty bound to act with utmost care, caution, and due diligence.

However, from the materials on record, it appears that most of the contemnor-respondents wanted to establish that they were not aware of the facts thereby did not take any initiatives to dispose of the matter but being the head of the district judiciary those excuses cannot be accepted and be considered under the merciful consideration.

It is pertinent to note that Chapter 43 of the Civil Rules and Orders (Vol.I) and Chapter XXVIII of the Criminal Rules and Orders (Vol.1) deal with for inspection and monitoring the Courts and tribunals subordinate to the District and Sessions Judges for smooth functioning of the Courts as well as to find out the causalities happened therein. At this juncture, it is expected  that  the  District  and  Sessions  Judges  should  inspect  every Courts and tribunals subordinate to him regularly following the existing rules and practices.

Chapter 9 of Civil Rules and Orders (Vol. 1) and Chapter X of Criminal  Rules  and  Orders  (Vol.1)  provides  that  judgment  should  be pronounced in open Court with date and signature. Thus it is presumed that every judgment should properly be drawn up and kept in the record so that the litigant people can get copy of that judgment. Unfortunately, due to the negligence and unethical activities made by the concerned Judge, this occurrence took place and the litigant people did not get proper justice.     

In the premises noted above, this Court is directed the District and Sessions Judge, Rangpur to distribute the above-mentioned 259 cases (List prepared by respondent No. 3) among the Additional District and Sessions Judges working Rangpur judgeship under him within 2(two) weeks from the date of receipt of this order. The concerned Judge(s) is also directed to write up the judgments within 6(six) months from the date of receipt of the case files from the District Judge apart from their regular judicial works. There is no need of taking hearing from the parties. The concerned Judge would prepare the judgments relying upon the materials on record keeping in mind the results of the cases pronounced by Mr. Moynul Haque which had been forwarded in the Court diary and cause list.

Soon after completion of preparing the judgments, the District and Sessions Judge, Rangpur is directed to send a report to that effect before the Registrar General for information of this Court.     

With the above observations and direction, the Rule is disposed of.

The Registrar General, Bangladesh Supreme Court is directed to communicate the order at once.

There will be no order as to costs.

Md. Akhtaruzzaman, J:

I agree.